Church Volunteer Security Groups

[cw3van]

I also don't want to discourage volunteers in the church please I'm also talking about the groups that try to organize for protection or security of the church. I also don't think I need to say I'm not a lawyer as you can tell so I defer to someone of Mr. Cotton training not mine. I just think this is a good time to correct the current portion of 1702 that would allow churches to form protection groups for it's members without having to pay outside security the money saved could be better spent on church matters.

[SewTexas]

to answer what these people do....well, in a largish church in CO Springs, post New Life, we would walk the halls, we might catch teens, um, hiding out. we might work the parking lot during our night-time VBS and keep an eye on a van that kept driving through, discovered it was just a parent of a sleepy baby, but I'll tell you I got the guys up there by the 3rd drive through We might keep watch out for a non-custodial parent, who had made a threat, and didn't show up but we were prepared, one of the guys was an off-duty officer that night and mom was able to go to prayer group and relax for a while. We might just keep traffic flowing, not always easy in a busy church parking lot.

[The Annoyed Man]

Does simply getting together with specific individuals and working out a strategy in cases that might require action qualify as "security". I realize it is not real honest but it seems to me the churches would be wise to do things to increase the security and assign responsibility to individuals while at the same time, never call it security or make it "official". Sometimes dumb laws require us to walk on the edge of what would be considered legal. Why not just call them "volunteers"? They aren't getting paid.

I don't know. I am just thinking of some ways to work around the silliness. It would be best to get the bills passed but just in case?

My own church has an organized first-responder team, made up of medical first responders, and armed off-duty LEO responders who carry concealed. They are all volunteers, and they all wear either a red (medical) or blue (LEO) polo shirt with the church logo on it. All of them actually make their livings outside of church in the field in which they serve in the church. Prior to that, all we had was a small group of CHLs who were aware of one another, but not organized in any kind of team......other than casual conversations about being first responders and not wanting to be shot by any off-duty cops or any unknown other CHLs in the congregation. When the official response team was formed, I went to the guy who heads up the armed security part of it. I'm friends with his dad and used to play with his brother in the worship team. I identified myself to him, disclosed my CHL status, and told him that while I recognized that the law did not permit me to be part of his team, I was going to do whatever I needed to do if the manure hit the fan. I told him I was identifying myself to him because I didn't want to be mistaken for a bad guy with a gun and get shot by one of his team members in the event of said manure hitting said fan. I'm not batman, but my church is the only family I have in Texas. I love them.

[donkey]

HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

[Charles L. Cotton]

HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

I've already said I'm not talking about greeters, so why keep using that term? Why did you now bring up playing in the band? The function I'm talking about is clear and a CHL violates Chp. 1702 if they serve in that capacity and carry a handgun, whether or not they use the term "security."

Are you in the security industry?

Chas.

[donkey]

HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

I've already said I'm not talking about greeters, so why keep using that term? Why did you now bring up playing in the band? The function I'm talking about is clear and a CHL violates Chp. 1702 if they serve in that capacity and carry a handgun, whether or not they use the term "security."

Are you in the security industry?

Chas.

I do not work in private security.

I see this as a non issue. The only time a CHL holder is prevented from carrying in a church (other than with 30.06 notification) is if they are serving as a member of a "security team". So church greeters, and members of the band, and Sunday School teachers, and all other volunteers can carry and not violate the law. So why is it that churches need "security teams"? You don't need to be a security guard to give directions, help those with mobility issues, assist with parking, etc.

[Charles L. Cotton]

HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

I've already said I'm not talking about greeters, so why keep using that term? Why did you now bring up playing in the band? The function I'm talking about is clear and a CHL violates Chp. 1702 if they serve in that capacity and carry a handgun, whether or not they use the term "security."

Are you in the security industry?

Chas.

I do not work in private security.

I see this as a non issue. The only time a CHL holder is prevented from carrying in a church (other than with 30.06 notification) is if they are serving as a member of a "security team". So church greeters, and members of the band, and Sunday School teachers, and all other volunteers can carry and not violate the law. So why is it that churches need "security teams"? You don't need to be a security guard to give directions, help those with mobility issues, assist with parking, etc.

You need to reread my article and the bills referenced in it. The purpose of the article and the two bills is to allow church members to perform functions that would fall within the scope of Chp. 1702 of the Occupations Code without having a guard certification.

You have said you are against this concept (see your post below). I posted that I disagree with your position and in doing so I noted the difference between a 40 hr/week security guard and a volunteer security team/group member in a church. Never once did I say I'm talking about greeters or band members, but you insist on taking examples of activities and turning them into an all-inclusive job description. My goal and the goal of the two bills is to allow church members to volunteer on security teams or groups and be armed if they are a CHL, without violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

. . . Or are these security teams performing functions similar to private security companies (i.e. access control, physical security of facilities, responding to complaints)? If they are, then they should have to meet the same requirements as any other security company.

[donkey]

I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions. So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"? A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation? What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed? Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

[Keith B]

I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions. So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"? A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation? What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed? Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

Let me jump in here. Being a greeter, band member, choir member, etc and carrying is fine. However, if a situation arises there is no set plan on who is going to do what. This can lead to a very bad situation of crossfire, friendly fire, mistaken identities, etc. Today, as the laws exist, the CHL's Cannon legally even plan a course of action and discuss how to handle a situation should it arise with the others. Wouldn't it be much better if a church had the capability of utilizing the existing CHL members officially and allow them to assign roles, plan and practice security drills, etc? With this bill they will legally be able to do that.

[cw3van]

I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions. So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"? A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation? What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed? Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

Let me jump in here. Being a greeter, band member, choir member, etc and carrying is fine. However, if a situation arises there is no set plan on who is going to do what. This can lead to a very bad situation of crossfire, friendly fire, mistaken identities, etc. Today, as the laws exist, the CHL's Cannon legally even plan a course of action and discuss how to handle a situation should it arise with the others. Wouldn't it be much better if a church had the capability of utilizing the existing CHL members officially and allow them to assign roles, plan and practice security drills, etc? With this bill they will legally be able to do that.

That's what Mr. Cotton is saying we need to support these bills.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This will be my last response to your gamesmanship.

I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions.

Reread my post; I was giving examples of how most of the volunteers' time would be spent. I was not limiting their duties to those activities. I also said they would deal with threats to anyone attending church by calling 911 if there was time and by dealing with the threat if there was insufficient time. You continually ignore that part of my post.

So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"?

You cannot seriously be asking why a church would want/need a security team, so I'll ignore this question.

A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation?

I strongly suggest you not use that term in this context again. Volunteers wanting to help keep their fellow church members from harm, especially those in the children's wing, don't deserve to be insulted. Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows everyone to use force, including deadly force, to protect 3rd persons. Although Texas criminal laws allow this, if a church volunteer is an armed CHL, then he/she faces criminal prosecution if their function on a security team or group falls within the scope of Chp. 1702.

What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed?

Read all of Chp. 1702 and I bet you can think of some. If you can't, then this "discussion" is meaningless.

Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

Why do you keep referring to a designation of "security?" It's the function of the team that determines whether or not it falls within the scope of Chp. 1702, not merely the name.

Again, you've already said you are opposed to these bills, if church volunteers would serve in a security capacity. Why are you working so hard to distance yourself from your own clearly stated position?
Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions. So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"? A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation? What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed? Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

If you don't like it, then don't join your church's security team! Nobody is suggesting you should have to do this. I'm not a greeter, but I am a band member. However, I don't serve every single Sunday (I didn't today) because we have enough people on the team that we have a rotation. On those days when I am not playing with the band, I would gladly serve with the security team. I have not, because it would be illegal for me to do so and be armed.....and I don't go to church without carrying. I don't leave the house without carrying.

You are talking about "need," which is the dominion of liberals. Liberals used needs-based arguments to justify why people should or shouldn't be allowed to do something. FREEDOM eschews needs-based thinking. Just because you don't see the need, that doesn't mean that the need does not exist. Maybe for your church it doesn't. But that is NOT the same as saying it doesn't exist for any church. If you feel strongly about it, then if your church tries to implement such a program, you should protest it most vigorously to your church's leadership. If they won't listen, then you should find a church that agrees with your POV. But your insistence that the need isn't justifiable for any church flies in the face of personal liberty, and religious freedom. Frankly, some other church's needs aren't your business or mine. They should be free to meet their needs in the best way possible, given the budget they have to work with........which is a big driver of volunteerism, regardless of in what capacity.

[alvins]

i think charles needs to read post #8 thats why people keep referring to things you said.lol

[donkey]

I strongly suggest you not use that term in this context again. Volunteers wanting to help keep their fellow church members from harm, especially those in the children's wing, don't deserve to be insulted. Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows everyone to use force, including deadly force, to protect 3rd persons. Although Texas criminal laws allow this, if a church volunteer is an armed CHL, then he/she faces criminal prosecution if their function on a security team or group falls within the scope of Chp. 1702.

Wanting to safeguard others from harm especially in an active shooter situation is noble and I had no desire to insult anyone wanting to that, but an active shooter situation is only a single aspect of these bills. These bills would result in a CHL being a de facto security guard license when serving on a security team on church property. The problem is that security guards are often looked to intervene in situations where we would suggest that a CHL holder simply call 911. You wouldn't suggest that a CHL holder stop someone from breaking into a random car in the local Wal Mart parking. We wouldn't expect a CHL holder to escort a drunk out of the neighborhood Chili's. I think its bad idea to put CHL holders in positions where they would be expected to intervene in situations that they normally would only call 911.

You are talking about "need," which is the dominion of liberals. Liberals used needs-based arguments to justify why people should or shouldn't be allowed to do something. FREEDOM eschews needs-based thinking. Just because you don't see the need, that doesn't mean that the need does not exist. Maybe for your church it doesn't. But that is NOT the same as saying it doesn't exist for any church. If you feel strongly about it, then if your church tries to implement such a program, you should protest it most vigorously to your church's leadership. If they won't listen, then you should find a church that agrees with your POV. But your insistence that the need isn't justifiable for any church flies in the face of personal liberty, and religious freedom. Frankly, some other church's needs aren't your business or mine. They should be free to meet their needs in the best way possible, given the budget they have to work with........which is a big driver of volunteerism, regardless of in what capacity.

Every other organization that has volunteers is required to abide by Chp 1702 so I think it's valid to ask why churches need to be different than everyone else.

[The Annoyed Man]

I strongly suggest you not use that term in this context again. Volunteers wanting to help keep their fellow church members from harm, especially those in the children's wing, don't deserve to be insulted. Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows everyone to use force, including deadly force, to protect 3rd persons. Although Texas criminal laws allow this, if a church volunteer is an armed CHL, then he/she faces criminal prosecution if their function on a security team or group falls within the scope of Chp. 1702.

Wanting to safeguard others from harm especially in an active shooter situation is noble and I had no desire to insult anyone wanting to that, but an active shooter situation is only a single aspect of these bills. These bills would result in a CHL being a de facto security guard license when serving on a security team on church property. The problem is that security guards are often looked to intervene in situations where we would suggest that a CHL holder simply call 911. You wouldn't suggest that a CHL holder stop someone from breaking into a random car in the local Wal Mart parking. We wouldn't expect a CHL holder to escort a drunk out of the neighborhood Chili's. I think its bad idea to put CHL holders in positions where they would be expected to intervene in situations that they normally would only call 911.

You are talking about "need," which is the dominion of liberals. Liberals used needs-based arguments to justify why people should or shouldn't be allowed to do something. FREEDOM eschews needs-based thinking. Just because you don't see the need, that doesn't mean that the need does not exist. Maybe for your church it doesn't. But that is NOT the same as saying it doesn't exist for any church. If you feel strongly about it, then if your church tries to implement such a program, you should protest it most vigorously to your church's leadership. If they won't listen, then you should find a church that agrees with your POV. But your insistence that the need isn't justifiable for any church flies in the face of personal liberty, and religious freedom. Frankly, some other church's needs aren't your business or mine. They should be free to meet their needs in the best way possible, given the budget they have to work with........which is a big driver of volunteerism, regardless of in what capacity.

Every other organization that has volunteers is required to abide by Chp 1702 so I think it's valid to ask why churches need to be different than everyone else.

Because churches are more like a big family than a business, and they are very much different from other volunteer driven organizations. 1702 costs money—money that some churches simply don't have.....and yet they may NEED to have this capability. That's all you or I or anybody else needs to know. It's not up to you or me to determine their need or its legitimacy..........unless you're a socialist or something.

You of course also realize that just because this law passes, not all churches will take advantage of it. May churches will decide that they would rather invest money on paid security than to put their members in any kind of legal liability. But if it doesn't pass, other less well financially endowed churches may decide that they have to spend money that could have gone to supporting missionaries or something like that, on providing paid security for their safety........or do without security. In an era in which crazy people shoot up churches every once in a while, this simply isn't a serious suggestion.

I agree with Charles. Just because churches might include their members in church security doesn't mean that CHLs are suddenly going to be escorting people to their cars at Walmart.