I have now highlighted the portion in red that takes care of the issue. It boils down to NOT making 'security' a function of the job. If you want security guards, hire them. Otherwise your job function is 'usher, greeter, choir member, parking lot traffic guy, etc.gugisman wrote:I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.
The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.
This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.
Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.
Search found 8 matches
Return to “Church Volunteer Security Groups”
- Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:12 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:05 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
The photos were kinda toungue-in-cheek, but see my note about no 'security' in the job description.mojo84 wrote:Keith, I think it goes beyond what the deacons or ushers are wearing. It has to do with what they are assigned to do as part of their responsibility.
- Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:47 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
I can pretty well break it down for you. Here are two church personnel doing their jobs:
Not OK to carry as CHL
OK to carry (no mention of 'security' in the job description)
Not OK to carry as CHL
OK to carry (no mention of 'security' in the job description)
- Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:38 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
I don't disagree with you on this. When they outline your job as security and it is written in a 'manual', then you would be illegal carrying. That is why I think there needs to be some thought to taking one of these roles and your CHL. I think the rule needs to go away as well or at least defined to on include members who voluntarily perform roles for organizations they are members of. The way the current law is written the Sargent at Arms for a fraternal organization could be deemed unable to legally carry.mojo84 wrote:When it's outlined as one of the responsibilities in the deacon and usher manual that these groups are to provide security to supplement.t and support the hired cop, I think it's official. I disagree with it being that way and I'm sure we all could split hairs and argue the point to justify to make it say what we want. If Charles wants to correct me on this, I'll be happy to take his legal opinion to our pastor, chairman of the deacons and church legal council to correct them.
- Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:21 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
I think the whole issue is if you make it an official function of their position, THEN it is illegal. Our ushers, pastors, deacons, choir members, all watch out for the other members of the church. If you have your hired police officer doing the 'security' and everyone else just doing their church functions, then it's OK. By your definition then a pastor or other official at the church who has a CHL would not be able to carry because by default they are responsible for the safety and overall well-being of the members.mojo84 wrote:carlson1 wrote:How does this stop deacons and ushers from carrying? At my church they are not part of any security. I am the Pastor and I am more responsible than my men to make sure my people are safe.
You didn't read my entire sentence. I said "deacons and ushers that are also responsible for helping make sure the church and members are safe". If they don't have this as part of their responsibility in your church, then it doesn't apply in your particular case.
- Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:49 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
You are correct and they are incorrect. The DA and the officers need to read all the way down ot section (i) to see that these have been basically nullified unless they have posted a 30.06.TXPhidelt817 wrote:Personally, I carry at church. When I renewed my CHL a few months back, the Fort Worth officer that taught the class was very firm in his stance that church carry was illegal. I argued my opinion on how the PC reads but it only fell on deaf ears. The way I read the PC is that it is only illegal if the building is posted 30.06.
After the class, I reached out to a friend that is a Tarrant County DA who said that its illegal but that he had never prosecuted anyone under any similar charges.
What nonsense are they reading that I am not?
- Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:12 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
The only way it would be a violation today is if they made her part of a 'security team' or told her that her job was 'security' of the children. This is where it would become questionable as to her being able to carry. Just knowing that you are the childcare person and making sure they are 'safe and secure' is not a violation.The Annoyed Man wrote:My wife takes care of 18 month to 2 year olds during our first service on Sundays. Her "boss" who heads up the childcare ministry has her CHL. No idea if she actually carries or not "on the job." My wife keeps her 9mm in her purse, stored on a shelf high up in a cupboard and well out of reach of any of the children.
She will do whatever she has to do to protect the babies in her care, law or no law, and regardless of certain CHL attitudes in favor of restricting personal liberty.
- Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:08 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Church Volunteer Security Groups
- Replies: 224
- Views: 51715
Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups
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?