TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Not sure if you did a ninja edit or if a mod deleted your above comment. If a mod did it I apologize. I do think it is enlightening regarding your beliefs.

I didn't delete anything, that I know of anyway, but I'm not sure why it might of been deleted tho the conversation is getting a bit far afield. What would be enlightening about it?

mojo84 wrote: How did the rapist get hired with the government rules requiring licensing in place? Can you say government licensing prevent bad lawyers, insurance agents, plumbers, electricians?

So what are we trying to discuss here. If the regulations are needed or is your statement that we shouldn't have any regulation because it cannot be 100% effective or are you just poking? I'm more than willing to have a conversation I'm just trying to figure out what that conversation is.

mojo84 wrote: Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.

Your answer of government protects us is wrong. All it is is another tax and interference.

No it's not "WRONG" because it isn't a yes or no question. There are benefits and negatives to all things and pretending otherwise is just a lie. Companies ignore background checks all the time even now that they are required. If there were no regulation anyone could put of a uniform and call themselves a security company and in your world there is no regulation or law to prevent such. It doesn't make the public safer to do away with regulation it makes the market free, it's not the same thing.

Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Dad24GreatKids wrote:

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I go to a mid-size church that doesn't bring in a whole lot of money, we can't afford extra insurance so forming our own security company isn't going to happen, we have to pay for a police officer on weeks we know we are going to be busy. It's ridiculous we can't form a security committee and protect our own church, so we don't have a security committee.

there are certain laws I hate - those that really only benefit a particular industry or two, fall into that category....personally, I think those are probably unconstitutional, not sure though.

You don't have to form your own company. There are companies that will give you training, legally license you, and charge just a couple of dollars for working. Basically you pay then enough for the fees and the insurance and what would be small profit and the church supplies the labor. It's not free but it would make your money go a lot further.

Gatekeeperssecurity is one of those companies. I have attended some of their training. I've also spent a few hours with their owner Chuck Chadwick. Seems like a straight up guy.

I wasn't advocating anything just noting that there are options.

SewTexas wrote:I go to a mid-size church that doesn't bring in a whole lot of money, we can't afford extra insurance so forming our own security company isn't going to happen, we have to pay for a police officer on weeks we know we are going to be busy. It's ridiculous we can't form a security committee and protect our own church, so we don't have a security committee.

there are certain laws I hate - those that really only benefit a particular industry or two, fall into that category....personally, I think those are probably unconstitutional, not sure though.

You don't have to form your own company. There are companies that will give you training, legally license you, and charge just a couple of dollars for working. Basically you pay then enough for the fees and the insurance and what would be small profit and the church supplies the labor. It's not free but it would make your money go a lot further.

texanjoker wrote:
You are incorrect as I can apply for a card and have. The company has to sign a form as the employer. DPS charges the fee to the person applying for the card which is the individual. I am exempt from the training due to the fact I am a full time LEO. If I were only working a uniformed off duty gig i wouldn't need one however in TX to work in armed plain clothed protective service DPS requires the cards. That would be similar to a person working plain clothed security at a church as the topic of this thread. They want to do this with a CHL and no advanced training so I am pointing out the fact that even LEOs doing this pay the fee which I did as I don't want to get into trouble for circumventing the law.

I think we are arguing semantics more than anything else. The company is responsible for all paperwork not the individual. Some companies pay for licenses some pass the fees along. Unless you are saying you had them sign and you handled everything else, and if so they need to be audited, then I'm comfortable in my statements. Again even in plain clothes if you don't work for a security company police officers don't have to have a level 4 card per the state. Now different departments can require different things but it isn't the State that made those rules. Just to make sure we are on the same page the state has made no mention of peace officer uniforms being required in their exemption of police from the requirements of private security.

texanjoker wrote: 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.

I don't know of any officer who has a security licence to work in the Houston area. The majority of extra jobs are not run thru security companies and I would be shocked if that changes. 1702.322 exempts full time officers from needing such as long as they are working as individual contractors. The only reason you would need a card is because you work for a security company. The main reason for that is if a dept reg required such or a business felt the liability would be to great. In Houston HPD officers, by dept policy, are not allowed to assume liability for incidents on extra jobs but some Depts make officers have liability insurance before working extra jobs.

In your case while it may seem easy to blame the state for trying to get "extra" money the truth is you really want them to exempt you from the rules that everyone else goes by. For whatever reason your situation has you working as an full employee of a security company and even with that allows you the exception to work in your own uniform instead of the security company. Also, unless I'm mistaken, you can't apply for a card. The company must do so. So the company is the one that is requiring you to pay not the state. Sure you can keep that card and go to any company you want but without a company applying you cannot do so on your own.The state "charges" the security company not you. They just pass on the fees.

DEB wrote: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.

Dragonfighter wrote:

EEllis wrote: 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.

carlson1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote: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.

RogueUSMC wrote: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.