Large North Texas church posting 30.06

[Crossfire]

True, and it's my own interpretation of the Jewish and Christian faiths...wasn't really intending to include other religions when I said "church". Had I been referencing the others I would have said, mosques, temples, Stonehenge, or 'sky-clad meadows'.

If "sky-clad", then 30.06 wouldn't apply, as there would be no way to conceal.

[Oldgringo]

For whatever reason, it felt really nice having a .45 commander strapped on while attending the
Easter services this morning, and knowing that at least 2 other adults on my pew were packing
made me smile. Just saying.

Smiling in church is nice.

[tfrazier]

...If "sky-clad", then 30.06 wouldn't apply, as there would be no way to conceal.

Good point! Wasn't sure anyone but LEDJedi would know what that meant!

[dac1842]

Approach the sr. Pastor in a we want to assist and be part of the solution and not the problem mode. Show him where the CHL holders can supplement the uniforms until other help arrives. Also offer to be a first aid responders, while this is not your ultimate goal, it provides a value added service and may convince the pastor to not put up the signs. The angle we use is that we allow CHL Holders who have a police or military background to supplement the uniforms. Take myself, i am former LEO, SWAT trained, executive protection trained and a former EMT. I work with our uniforms with the understanding I am there as a backup, they know who I am, they know I carry and know that I have training on how to respond. Before you critisize the actions of the police wanting to put up the signs, their concern I am sure is quite simple. We dont want untrained people standing up and taking action that could result in more problems.
I fully support CHL and the right to carry. Keep in mind in a setting like a church or any other crowded venue, a few things are critical to a successful outcome. The response to an event must be well coordinated, the response must be executed with precision to avoid or minimize innocent casualties, and more than anything everyone must know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. How is the police in mega church especially supposed to know who are good guys and bad guys if they all look alike?
In a church like this it might be a good idea, to ask the uniforms if the CHL holders could meet with them and come up with a compromise, such as all the CHL holders where a certain type of lapel pin. While this is not an exact science it does provide for identification. But please undertand it appears to me the biggest concern is the trained response factor.
The other issue is still the trained response issue, but if a guy comes up to me and says I have a CHL I want to help, I do not know anything other than he has shot his gun at least once at the range and passed a very easy test. If a guy comes up to me and say I am an ex cop 15 years, I know that he has a large degree of training, will know the basics of cover and concealment, will have an idea of when to shoot and when not to and has considerably more that 10 hours of classroom training. ( this assumes the ex cop is of course telling th truth!).
I am not in anyway knocking the CHL holder, ( I am one!) I would rather have a CHL'r backing me up than no one at all, and all CHL'rs I know of want to do the right thing, their heart is in the right place. But in mega church, there is typically moderate uniform and plain clothes contigient, they have a plan that is practiced, and CHL holders do not fit in it

[Oldgringo]

...such as all the CHL holders where a certain type of lapel pin...

See? Y'all met a previous suggestion of CHL badges with hoots of derision.

BTW, in our humble little church, the Pastor works for us. Is it different in a mega-church?

[dac1842]

...such as all the CHL holders where a certain type of lapel pin...

See? Y'all met a previous suggestion of CHL badges with hoots of derision.

Old gringo, a lapel pin, unlike a badge does not convey authority, While a CHL Badge does not, you have to get close enough to read it to know that.The lapel pin is simply a device that will provide a quick ID that the person wearing is most likley not my suspect. I would rather see a lapel pin vs a 30.06 sign. I know of mega churches that are posted, I also understand the police thinking of "we don't want any guns in here except ours". The larger the church the more that mind set is bound to be. In smaller enviroments it probably wont prevail as it is easier to know the good guys from the bad.
There are two basic concerns the police have in crowded venues, the traning of the responders, and who are the responders. Our church the non uniform folks have photo id's that are worn on the outer clothing. They dont say anything about Police but are color coded so that the uniforms know who are the police, who are the CHL folks that are part of the safety team, and who is and is not authorized to be armed. We know there are other CHL holders in our congregation. While we are not a small church we are not a mega church either. So we will recognize most members by sight. We are also small enough that the word has been spread to the CHL holders to keep down and holstered unless your life is in immediate danger.
Again keep in mind the lapel pin is just a suggestion to prevent the 30.06 sign from going up. I dont like anything that identifies me as carrying a weapon. I like concealed, I like low key, and I like having that element of surprise in my favor.
Here is the situation that leads to mega churches posting 30.06 signs. You have 3000-4000 people on campus. A male mid thirties, dressed in business casual enters the building and pulls a gun, the uniforms are summoned, they get there and now there are 5-6 males, mid thirties, dressed in buisness causal all with guns drawn... who is the real bad guy? . The police response will really make the innocents upset, everyone goes to the floor, everyone gets searched and everyone gets cuffed until all the questions start and things get sorted out.

So how do you come up with a plan that will appease everyone? The police have to keep the safety of all the church members as their top priority, the CHL holders dont want their rights to carry infringed upon. The bigger the church, the bigger the conflict. I completely understand both sides.

[Purplehood]

True, and it's my own interpretation of the Jewish and Christian faiths...wasn't really intending to include other religions when I said "church". Had I been referencing the others I would have said, mosques, temples, Stonehenge, or 'sky-clad meadows'.

If "sky-clad", then 30.06 wouldn't apply, as there would be no way to conceal.

Wanna bet?

[jimlongley]

True, and it's my own interpretation of the Jewish and Christian faiths...wasn't really intending to include other religions when I said "church". Had I been referencing the others I would have said, mosques, temples, Stonehenge, or 'sky-clad meadows'.

If "sky-clad", then 30.06 wouldn't apply, as there would be no way to conceal.

Wanna bet?

Ouch!!

[jimlongley]

I am working on a new version of my version of the CHL business card:



Targeted specifically at churches that post 30.06.

Any suggestions?

Just remember that it has to fit on a business card.

[pdubyoo]

I attend a mega-church in The Woodlands, and they have a very visible security force...mainly Sherriff's Deputies. Before I joined the church, I asked questions about their policy of carrying at church. Their position is...as long as you are carrying legally, they don't have any issues with it. As a matter of fact, the lady I spoke with said that she takes comfort in knowing that there are members that are packing since the uniformed officers can't be everywhere.

With the current fashion trend of men wearing their shirt-tails out, there's no telling how many are actually packing...and that's OK by me.

[jmorris]

I think it is important to make sure your church understands your position if they try to post a 30.06. I would be meeting directly if with the Senior Pastor on the issue and letting him know he will loose several members if they proceed with posting. Education of the church staff is key.

And, this is not a one denomination vs. another thing. I am Methodist. If you think we are more open to guns than another denomination, read the first sentence in the third paragraph of this UMC document http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Besides, I know more Baptist preachers and members that carry than I do Methodist. Maybe it's because they are better at witnessing??

WELL! I definitely don't subscribe to that bunch of closed mind and heart {stuff} EITHER. I guess I can convert to Deism, as were many of our founding fathers, if need be or....whatever?

Is it any wonder that the so-called charismatic churches are growing while the traditional denominations are declining? I think I'm going to go and load some .45's.

During a class attended by our Staff Parish Relationship committee members and given by a Bishop it was suggested (I'd guess strongly but I didn't attend, one of the few committees I'm not on) that churches post 30.06.

Along with that, I believe that 100% of the Methodist churches in Texas (or so I was told by their rep) are covered by Church Mutual insurance company. Church Mutual is very much against allowning weapons in church, having advised in a Texas newsletter to post 30.06. These excerpts are from their Risk Alert Bulletine titled "Armed Security" (http://www.churchmutual.com/documents/R ... curity.pdf)

In late 2007, a person entered a church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and opened fire. The armed
security team at the church reacted and shot the gunman. There is no doubt the actions taken by
the armed security person at the church saved lives, but it just didn’t happen because the security
person was armed. The team was aware of the potential threat because of an incident earlier in the
week, and there was proper training, preparation, experienced personnel, communication and a
plan in place for the threat. All of this came together. It just didn’t happen because someone at the
church had a gun.

Arming your security force
If your organization decides it wants to pursue an armed security force, here are some tips for your
security plan:
• Discuss all aspects of your plan with your local law enforcement agency.
• Create a written security plan that includes a violence response plan.
• Notify your insurance company of your decision.
• Don’t have your security force in uniform. Sometimes the uniforms act as targets for an unstable
person wanting to perform a random act of violence. Uniforms can also deter members and guests
from attending services. It’s best if your security team blends in with the crowd.
• Allow only law enforcement officers to serve on your armed security force. (See below.)
• There is no training program a civilian can attend to be allowed to serve on your armed security force.
• Post notices that you are using armed security officers.
• Create and publicize that weapons are not allowed to be carried on your grounds by anyone other
than your security officers.
• Know your state laws regarding the type of weapon your security force can carry.
• A background check must be performed on anyone who will be armed.
• Your organization is responsible for the actions of the security force.

[fickman]

I don't think I could disagree more with dac1842's presuppositions and conclusions.

[dac1842]

Fick,. you have the right to disagree. My conclusions, and statements are based on 15 years of tactical experience and come from not only policies I have helped implement but have been implemented by folks i consider much more qualified than I. What I state is based on experience and keeping the fact the main point is safety of the entire congregation. I carry at my church under the authority of my CHL. However, we are not a mega church, we are still small enough we know most folks in the church. The more people that are present, the more strict the rules have to be in order to prevent total chaos. Not to mention we plan. Several CHL holders responding to the same incident will rarely have a plan.
Another post is right, most peace officers support concealed carry without a doubt. But most who have tactical experience will tell you that in the event of an active shooter event, they would prefer the untrained, and unpracticed to stay low. A trained, practiced response can prevent an escalation, a trained practiced response can prevent a hostage situation, or in the event of a hostage situation prevent an unnecessary death of a hostage.
The other issue that comes up is one that without knowing each person that carries, you don't know how accomplished a shooter they may be, do they maintain their weapon. If you polled all CHL holders and they were all honest, my guess is that 80% have not shot their weapon since the CHL class, most have not cleaned their weapons since the CHL class. Is this the person you want making a life or death decision? The other thing that is really scarey and this is based on studies, is that 50-60% of persons who face a fight or flight event will freeze and do nothing, another 20% will panic. Studies show that only about 10% of the population will make the decision to act. The question now becomes of that 10%, how many of them will react properly? That question we dont know until the smoke clears and the body count is taken.

The point is this, at a small to moderate sized church the CHL response is necessary and advantagous. The bigger the church and the bigger the Law Enforcement prescence at a large to mega church the CHL response becomes a lesser benefit and actually increases risk. Many on here will take issue with that, that is my opinion and those that dont agree, have that right, that is what makes us Americans. I have spoken to the directors of security at churches of all sizes. Most of them state the only reason they have not posted is that the pastor does not want to upset those that carry. The reason most diretors, (most directors are active LEO, one I have interviewed is FBI) would post ( at the larger mega churches) is for the reasons I stated. They want a controlled,trained response. I am not against CHL at all, I am for letting those that are trained to handle these rare events, handle them.
<

[gemini]

Fick,. you have the right to disagree. My conclusions, and statements are based on 15 years of tactical experience and come from not only policies I have helped implement but have been implemented by folks i consider much more qualified than I. What I state is based on experience and keeping the fact the main point is safety of the entire congregation. I carry at my church under the authority of my CHL. However, we are not a mega church, we are still small enough we know most folks in the church. The more people that are present, the more strict the rules have to be in order to prevent total chaos. Not to mention we plan. Several CHL holders responding to the same incident will rarely have a plan.
Another post is right, most peace officers support concealed carry without a doubt. But most who have tactical experience will tell you that in the event of an active shooter event, they would prefer the untrained, and unpracticed to stay low. A trained, practiced response can prevent an escalation, a trained practiced response can prevent a hostage situation, or in the event of a hostage situation prevent an unnecessary death of a hostage.
The other issue that comes up is one that without knowing each person that carries, you don't know how accomplished a shooter they may be, do they maintain their weapon. If you polled all CHL holders and they were all honest, my guess is that 80% have not shot their weapon since the CHL class, most have not cleaned their weapons since the CHL class. Is this the person you want making a life or death decision? The other thing that is really scarey and this is based on studies, is that 50-60% of persons who face a fight or flight event will freeze and do nothing, another 20% will panic. Studies show that only about 10% of the population will make the decision to act. The question now becomes of that 10%, how many of them will react properly? That question we dont know until the smoke clears and the body count is taken.

The point is this, at a small to moderate sized church the CHL response is necessary and advantagous. The bigger the church and the bigger the Law Enforcement prescence at a large to mega church the CHL response becomes a lesser benefit and actually increases risk. Many on here will take issue with that, that is my opinion and those that dont agree, have that right, that is what makes us Americans. I have spoken to the directors of security at churches of all sizes. Most of them state the only reason they have not posted is that the pastor does not want to upset those that carry. The reason most diretors, (most directors are active LEO, one I have interviewed is FBI) would post ( at the larger mega churches) is for the reasons I stated. They want a controlled,trained response. I am not against CHL at all, I am for letting those that are trained to handle these rare events, handle them.
<

I am trying to "see both sides" too. I'm not trying to say you're entirely wrong, nor entirely correct in your assumptions. I personally shoot a minimum of twice a month, about once every 2 weeks. Most times at the range are with a group of fellow CHL holders. Relatives and friends alike. 4 to 8 guys, depending on work schedules. We practice different drills, accuracy etc. We vary in church affilliation, and occupations range from Drs to car salemen. What we have in common is the desire to maintain proficency with our firearms. Personally, I do clean my weapons every time they have been fired. The exception being IF I am returning to the range the very next day. The guys I shoot with are just as meticulous. That being said: Most of the LEO's I have personally seen shoot sidearms at the range have been mediocre shots at best. That statement is not meant to be a knock on LE. I have many friends in LE, some from church, some from school days, my kids friends parents etc. I respect them all. However, I only know 1 that continues to train with rifles and handguns, building entry, forced vehicle approach & entry tactics, shooting from behind a shield etc etc etc. The average uniformed officer is only required to qualify once a year. Not every officer is SWAT, had advanced FBI training or training that exceeded minimum department requirements. I'm sure the statistics you quoted will also show the number of LEO % for fight or flight, freeze, panic, percentage of hits during firefights etc. Post those stats and reference source. The LEO's I know all support CHL and most insist their wifes take the classes.

I attend a large church. We do have security (unarmed), uniformed police and plain clothes at every service. If, a madman walks down the aisle in the middle of a service, pulls his gun and starts firing,I doubt very seriously every CHL holder will stand up and return fire willy-nilly. My plan would be to push my family to the floor and under the pews if possible. I would NOT stand up. I would only take the shot IF the BG was directly in front of me or over me/ direct threat etc. I am not LEO, don't pretend to be, and most of the CHL folks I run across feel the same way. Let them (LEO) do their job. BUT, that doesn't mean I won't protect mine and those around me, in church or out.