Church Volunteer Security Groups

[jmra]

Not saying it doesn't happen but I have never seen a church use a security guard service to provide security during church services. It's always been off duty police officers.

I have a feeling both the security industry and police associations/unions that oppose the voluntary security efforts and the government doesn't want to pass up an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.

Our church uses a security company that provides off duty LEOs. In doing so the security company assumes any liability derived from the actions of the LEO. If the church paid the officers directly the church would be open to more liability.

[mojo84]

Interesting. Therefore, they both have an interest in protecting their turf.

The churches I've been a part of hire them directly. When I worked at an apartment management companyin Houston, I had about 20-25 working for me as employees of the company.

[carlson1]

Not saying it doesn't happen but I have never seen a church use a security guard service to provide security during church services. It's always been off duty police officers.

I have a feeling both the security industry and police associations/unions that oppose the voluntary security efforts and the government doesn't want to pass up an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.

Our church uses a security company that provides off duty LEOs. In doing so the security company assumes any liability derived from the actions of the LEO. If the church paid the officers directly the church would be open to more liability.

If something goes wrong you can be assured that the Church will also be liable.

[jmra]

Not saying it doesn't happen but I have never seen a church use a security guard service to provide security during church services. It's always been off duty police officers.

I have a feeling both the security industry and police associations/unions that oppose the voluntary security efforts and the government doesn't want to pass up an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.

Our church uses a security company that provides off duty LEOs. In doing so the security company assumes any liability derived from the actions of the LEO. If the church paid the officers directly the church would be open to more liability.

If something goes wrong you can be assured that the Church will also be liable.

Yes, anyone can be sued but you do what you can to limit the liability exposure.

[EEllis]

The rub that is being overlooked is the fact that the cards for licensed security personnel have to be applied for by a licensed security company on behalf of the person and is only valid if they are employed by a licensed security company. Sounds like the church would have to become licensed in order to obtain the individual licenses...I have no idea what the cost is for the institutional license would be to obtain/maintain...then, would it cause problems with the church in it's non-profit status?

They don't have to get a reg company license. Volunteers can provide unarmed security legally as long as they are not paid and do not wear any uniform that resembles police or security. Police can work directly for churches but depending on the dept and area the church may be liable for any actions they take while they are working. If you wanted armed security instead of a business license you could get a letter of authority that allow the church to license individuals for security. Basicly it would allow the church to act as a security company for itself but it requires compliance with all the same rules and regs as any security company and security can only be provided for the church. The other more reasonable option is to work with a private company to provide security. Volunteers from the church can take the needed training to get licenced and work "on duty" thru a private company that invoices some minimal amount to cover admin and insurance costs.

[EEllis]

Not saying it doesn't happen but I have never seen a church use a security guard service to provide security during church services. It's always been off duty police officers.

I have a feeling both the security industry and police associations/unions that oppose the voluntary security efforts and the government doesn't want to pass up an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.

Our church uses a security company that provides off duty LEOs. In doing so the security company assumes any liability derived from the actions of the LEO. If the church paid the officers directly the church would be open to more liability.

If something goes wrong you can be assured that the Church will also be liable.

Depending on the situation you just get the security company to list the church as an additional insured on the policy basically making their insurance cover the church also. Mind you the church, or any client of a security company, is only liable for the actions they approve the security to do. If they give security the authority to have cars towed then the church has the liability for a bad tow, but if security does it without approval the church isn't liable.

[Dragonfighter]

They don't have to get a reg company license. Volunteers can provide unarmed security legally as long as they are not paid and do not wear any uniform that resembles police or security.

em. mine

The entire context of this conversation and related legislation is the idea of a CHL or other person legally carrying to provide armed security as an adjunct to their ministry or service to the congregation.

Even unarmed, their title, ministry name or duty description must not refer to security in any way, not just uniforms resembling X or Y.

[EEllis]

They don't have to get a reg company license. Volunteers can provide unarmed security legally as long as they are not paid and do not wear any uniform that resembles police or security.

em. mine

The entire context of this conversation and related legislation is the idea of a CHL or other person legally carrying to provide armed security as an adjunct to their ministry or service to the congregation.

Even unarmed, their title, ministry name or duty description must not refer to security in any way, not just uniforms resembling X or Y.

That's erring on the conservative side, not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's not really the law. The occupation code requires 3 things and one of them is that you wear some sort of apparel or uniform that designates you as security. Sure you shouldn't refer to members as "security" but it's not really actionable until they have a gun or wear a uniform.

However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security department of Private Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See Tex. Occ. Code §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

You don't have to believe me but this is from the States website http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/PSB/La ... in_sum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Honestly I think you would also be just fine carring as a volunter also. Part of the requirement under 1702.323 is

An individual described by Subsection (a) who carries a firearm in the course of employment must obtain a private security officer commission under this chapter.

And since it's not employment and if you are not required to be armed, basicly making the argument you are carrying like you always do to protect yourself and others not because you are security, then you have a pretty solid argument. For DPS, they are the regulating entity, to care you would have to be doing something to cause them to act against you. Blatantly breaking rules by using security on some garment, making money as security, acting out in some manner trying to impose some perceived authority as "security", might get you in trouble but a group of people meeting to decide who will watch which door and maybe about where to park cars and watch the lot? I wouldn't worry.

[texanjoker]

One thing to consider is liability. if anybody is doing this, remember that if you take an action, you will be sued. All criminals sue so be ready for it.

[jmra]

One thing to consider is liability. if anybody is doing this, remember that if you take an action, you will be sued. All criminals sue so be ready for it.

at our church volunteers report any issues to one of the LEOs provided by he security company. We will engage people in conversation just as any greeter would, but we would not become involved beyond that unless someone was in imminent danger.

[DEB]

As I read this, I get to thinking; Isn't this something, a group of like minded people cannot even provide for their own protection, without falling afoul of some Law or another or having to be creative in an explanation. So does one choose death or a lawsuit? Sorry, but to see how far we have fallen, really brings me down. I am 52 and when I talk to my son and soon his children, my memories of my childhood seem to be only fantasies of freedom. I do know we have accomplished a lot, finally concealed carry in Texas and an excellent Castle Law for instance. But we cannot openly carry a rifle in the gun rack anymore, we especially cannot openly carry a rifle down the street, even though these acts aren't illegal. Aw well take the good with the bad I suppose.

[EEllis]

As I read this, I get to thinking; Isn't this something, a group of like minded people cannot even provide for their own protection, without falling afoul of some Law or another or having to be creative in an explanation. So does one choose death or a lawsuit? Sorry, but to see how far we have fallen, really brings me down. I am 52 and when I talk to my son and soon his children, my memories of my childhood seem to be only fantasies of freedom. I do know we have accomplished a lot, finally concealed carry in Texas and an excellent Castle Law for instance. But we cannot openly carry a rifle in the gun rack anymore, we especially cannot openly carry a rifle down the street, even though these acts aren't illegal. Aw well take the good with the bad I suppose.

Lets be honest here about the security officer issue. The major reason people have issues is because of the church connection. If any other org did this then people would be glad the law is how it is. Lets also admit part of the reason the laws are so restrictive is because of how badly they have been broken over the years, While some churches may do a great job running a security squad the next may have some yahoo who bamboozles folks into thinking he has a clue and takes everybody off the cliff with them. These laws are not directed at churches and the DPS is not looking to crack down on anyone because the are having "security meetings" before service. The regs just don't give much leeway for churches not that it targets them.

[DEB]

As I read this, I get to thinking; Isn't this something, a group of like minded people cannot even provide for their own protection, without falling afoul of some Law or another or having to be creative in an explanation. So does one choose death or a lawsuit? Sorry, but to see how far we have fallen, really brings me down. I am 52 and when I talk to my son and soon his children, my memories of my childhood seem to be only fantasies of freedom. I do know we have accomplished a lot, finally concealed carry in Texas and an excellent Castle Law for instance. But we cannot openly carry a rifle in the gun rack anymore, we especially cannot openly carry a rifle down the street, even though these acts aren't illegal. Aw well take the good with the bad I suppose.

Lets be honest here about the security officer issue. The major reason people have issues is because of the church connection. If any other org did this then people would be glad the law is how it is. Lets also admit part of the reason the laws are so restrictive is because of how badly they have been broken over the years, While some churches may do a great job running a security squad the next may have some yahoo who bamboozles folks into thinking he has a clue and takes everybody off the cliff with them. These laws are not directed at churches and the DPS is not looking to crack down on anyone because the are having "security meetings" before service. The regs just don't give much leeway for churches not that it targets them.

No Sir, although the thread is about Church Security, my reply is about a group of like minded people not being able to provide for their own protection, without having to be super creative on how to articulate this to others. To me this is "Read Lie". Maybe some yahoo can bamboozle others and take them off a cliff. But to me Freedom isn't free, one must allow someone to make mistakes and allow folks to be bamboozled in order to maintain freedom. My reply was also about this Nanny State idea, that I believe we are being bamboozled with, into acceptance of a further degradation of our rights in all areas.

[texanjoker]

One thing to consider is liability. if anybody is doing this, remember that if you take an action, you will be sued. All criminals sue so be ready for it.

at our church volunteers report any issues to one of the LEOs provided by he security company. We will engage people in conversation just as any greeter would, but we would not become involved beyond that unless someone was in imminent danger.

To me that is a good call. It is pretty sad that churches need security. I know I always carry and have received grief for carrying in church from friends. You just never know.

[texanjoker]

As I read this, I get to thinking; Isn't this something, a group of like minded people cannot even provide for their own protection, without falling afoul of some Law or another or having to be creative in an explanation. So does one choose death or a lawsuit? Sorry, but to see how far we have fallen, really brings me down. I am 52 and when I talk to my son and soon his children, my memories of my childhood seem to be only fantasies of freedom. I do know we have accomplished a lot, finally concealed carry in Texas and an excellent Castle Law for instance. But we cannot openly carry a rifle in the gun rack anymore, we especially cannot openly carry a rifle down the street, even though these acts aren't illegal. Aw well take the good with the bad I suppose.

Lets be honest here about the security officer issue. The major reason people have issues is because of the church connection. If any other org did this then people would be glad the law is how it is. Lets also admit part of the reason the laws are so restrictive is because of how badly they have been broken over the years, While some churches may do a great job running a security squad the next may have some yahoo who bamboozles folks into thinking he has a clue and takes everybody off the cliff with them. These laws are not directed at churches and the DPS is not looking to crack down on anyone because the are having "security meetings" before service. The regs just don't give much leeway for churches not that it targets them.

I believe the issue is money and some training, although the training for a level III is pretty minimal. I just shelled out $110 bucks for the level III and IV cards to work an off duty job. If they are going to make a LEO pay the fees to do something we do for a living, it is about the money.

I also bring up the lawsuit, as I have personally been sued for a deadly force incident. They did not receive a penny, but if you are in a shooting, you can expect some attorney to track the family down to try and make a buck on attorney fees. Don't let it scare you from defending yourself, just put it in the back of your head.