Return to “Church Volunteer Security Groups”
chuckybrown wrote:I find it humorous that people are even arguing with Mr. Cotton.
Some of you don't seem to know his background and involvement in crafting CHL law here in Texas. Do some research.
Kinda like a shade tree mechanic arguing with the engineer that designed the motor.......
Yup Mr Cotton has forgot more about CHL law than most on this forum will ever know. He was mentioned in the lastest TSRA mag for taking time to read bills and offer help & advise for those folks.OldGrumpy wrote:I think we often turn a good conversation into a "spitting match" over language usage. The question is not what someone is called but rather the essential duties that they are performing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck chances are it is a duck and calling it a chicken is not going to change it.
Sir these folks who work "security" in the parking lot have already violated TOC 1702 they are preforming the duties of a non commissioned security officer without a license. Also be careful suddenly thinking that if we get this bill passed that CHL holders should suddenly confront people who are breaking into vehicles. I teach armed security every week that their job is to observe & report not try to be LEOs they don't have the training to do those things. I teach them that their firearm is to protect themselves or a third person not to get in gun battles with BGs that is a police matter. Having said that understand that we are having about as many private security officers killed as LEOs so security is a dangerous job. I want this bill to pass so that we can have trained observers in our church that can plan for the horrible events that are happening in some areas of our society including churches. I hope if we get this bill passed that we only intervene when no other help is available & that force has to be used to prevent loss of life not to stop a simple theft or property crime let the police do their job we observe & report.RPBrown wrote:As it currently stands, my church has greeters. These "greeters" work security over the parking lot during service. They also work security over the childrens building. However, they are not armed. The issue with this is, if someone wanted to grab a child, all the "greeters" could do is watch and call 911. Same with the parking lot. What if an estarnged spouse was to try and grab their ex. Or if someone was trying to steal a car and the "greeter" confronted them and the BG pulled a weapon.
All of these scenario's (and many others) could be handled differently if CHL was allowed in a volunteer security group were allowed.
As I stated before, this is one reason I am not a "greeter". I as well as a few others have a CHL and sit in stratigic areas of the church "just in case". But because of current law, we cannot form a security ministry and that is wrong IMHO
Keith B wrote: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.donkey wrote: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?
That's what Mr. Cotton is saying we need to support these bills.Mr Cotton is correct that you must be licensed as a security officer if you provide security in your church level 2 is non commissioned which means you can't be armed nor can you carry a CHL while acting as a non commissioned security officer. In order to be a level 3 armed commissioned security officer you must attend a 40 hour academy then apply too the state in order to be able to carry a firearm but you can only do this while wearing a security officer uniform & work for a security company. I teach every week at a security academy as a senior instructor after my LEO career & the rules say they even if you have a chl it does not give you the right to carry as a security officer the 2 require a different license. They have church groups locked out the way the law is now. I agree with Mr. Cotton these are bills that need to pass so that CHL holders can volunteer for their church. Please contact your reps because it will be opposed by the security companies & managers who see this as a loss of business. Much more I would like to say concerning this but will save for later. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mr. Cotton.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a copy of an article published on the Texas Firearms Coalition webstie.
Chas.
Church Volunteer Security Groups wrote:Due to concerns about violence against church members attending worship services, many churches have formed volunteer security teams or groups. These groups are typically made up of church members, many of whom hold a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Unfortunately, a provision in Texas law prohibits these volunteers from carrying self-defense handguns if they are in any way involved in providing security or safety for their fellow church members. These provisions are found in Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code.
The tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut last December has thrust the issue of school safety to the forefront of public debate. Numerous proposals have been put forth to address this issue and many of the more practical solutions involve the use of volunteers. While some of these volunteers would undoubtedly be active Texas peace officers, many would be retired officers, former military personnel, and citizens who are CHL’s. Chapter 1702 would prohibit all of these volunteers, other than active peace officers, from carrying self-defense handguns while protecting our school children.
Two bills have been filed that will address this problem and it is in the best interest of all Texans that one of these bills pass and become law. HB2535 and SB1324 are not companion bills, but each addresses this subject in a reasonable manner, although both should be amended to remove an unnecessary and harmful amendment to Texas Penal Code §46.03(b)(6).
Under either bill, CHL’s would not be prohibited from carrying self-defense handguns when serving as volunteers on security teams or groups for schools or churches. SB1324 goes into greater detail to make sure that such volunteers do not wear any uniforms, badges, or other insignia that could lead people to believe they were Texas peace officers.
The only opposition to either these bills will likely come from the security industry for purely economic reasons. Although it is highly unlikely that this change in the law would make any difference in the overall revenue in the security industry, money should not even enter this debate since we are talking about the safety and wellbeing of schoolchildren and churchgoers.
You can help pass these bills by contacting your Texas Senator and Representative and express your strong support for HB2535 and SB1324. Be sure to ask them to support these bills, and to offer or support an amendment that would remove the change to Texas Penal Code §46.03(b)(6), if these provisions are not removed in a committee substitute. We should all contact Senator Seliger and Representative Shaefer and express our sincere appreciation for filing and working for passage of these much-needed bills.
Both HB2535 and SB1324 will make Texas safer.