TexasCHLforum.com

DrBillC wrote:I'd like to go back to a question that was hinted at earlier, i.e. "two levels of teams". If the unarmed safety team knew who had CHLs and called those with CHLs for help in an escalating situation, this would appear to me to be truly a second team. Also, if a situation were to continue escalating after one with a CHL was called (specifically because he/she was known to be carrying), how likely is it that the responding CHL would be vulnerable to prosecution? I would think the best action for all would be for those with CHLs to not be identified or called and just respond as appropriate to defend themselves, their family, or others.

I call this the "distributed defense" option.

History indicates that active shooters look for positive indication that guns are prohibited in their target venue in order to be as sure as they can that there will be no effective opposition. Lack of such indication = increased risk for them, and appears to have a significant deterrent effect.

Implementation is as simple as removing the 30.06 sign if there is one.

Keith B wrote:

mr.72 wrote:This whole situation is beyond asinine.

Look, I am in the band. But a function of security might be to keep an eye out for shady looking characters that are showing up in church, roaming the hallways, etc. So if I see someone like this, and report them to one of the "Campus Support" team guys, then have I just engaged in "security", thus breaking the law by doing so while carrying my hand gun? I have actually done that before.

With the statement above, I don't believe you have broken the law.

mr.72 wrote: I think the point is that the church, as in the staff, pastors, or anyone else in authority including a volunteer team leader, are not requiring or requesting their volunteers to be armed. They are not referring to this "team" as "security" or even "safety". But the implication seems to be that you have to yield the entire function of being attentive to "security" issues if you have a volunteer team who may be legally carrying a concealed handgun, otherwise you have to hire professional security contractors. Am I right? How ridiculous is it to say, "if you have a volunteer safety and security team, existing of volunteers who are otherwise regular members of the congregation, you specifically must disallow them from legally carrying firearms, while all other congregation members may carry firearms legally without restriction". How ridiculous is THAT?

Let's get real here guys. The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed. I think the DPS lawyer was also stating if you act in the function of a SECURITY GUARD, i.e. wear a vest that says SECURITY on it, patrol the property after hours, etc., THEN you are breaking the law. Being a member of the church and doing things like playing in the band, singing in the choir, etc. do not count. If you happen to be there and see something going down, and use your weapon, you were NOT acting in the guise of a security person, you were a member protecting yourself and others, period.

I do think being on a 'Security or Safety Team' is a gray area and if called on the carpet, an overzealous prosecutor or DPS Lawyer might try to construe it as if you were functioning as a security guard. However, your defense would be is that you are a regular member of the church and were a VOLUNTEER MEMBER, and not a hired, paid security guard performing security guard functions.

Keith,

Being a volunteer does not by itself take one out from under Private Security Bureau regulation. Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part I Chapter 35 Subchapter A - Definitions - Section 35.1(14) says:

"Employment , Business Activity - These terms, or similar terms or phrases used in the Act in these rules, are not limited in their meaning to "for profit" enterprises or to work performed for remuneration, but include any provision of services regulated by the Bureau, such as services provided on a volunteer or unpaid basis."

bdickens wrote:You don't think the cops train for something like that? They would be sorely remiss if they did not. They know that there may be CHLs involved in a situation; they'd be stupid to think otherwise.

I would agree.

At any given service, there may be other LEO's present who are not hired to perform security, but are lawfully armed and exempt from compliance with 30.06 signs - FBI, DEA, judges, DA's, off duty municipal officers simply attending church with their families, etc. The potential identification problem is the same, and doesn't go away with posting a 30.06 sign. Officers hired to perform security functions still can't assume that anyone else with a gun is a bad guy.

The city I worked in was the county seat for an area with 44 different federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies with thousands of officers, plus thousands of CHL holders and several hundred visiting officers on either official or personal business at any given time. Obviously we didn't know all these folks personally, but we knew they could be present at any incident we responded to. I can't recall any significant problems figuring out who were the good and bad guys at incident scenes, and we didn't have any misidentification tragedies in the 20 years I worked there. I don't see anything that's changed to create a greater danger for well trained officers today.

toddlinder wrote:At the risk of highjacking my own thread I will comment on chad745's comment about 30.06

All the time I spend listening to CHL folks, one of their greatest fears is getting shot by LEOs when something bad happens since they will be the good guy with a gun.

All the time I spend listening to LEOs, one of their greatest fears is that (especially off duty ones) they will get shot by CHLs since they are the good guy with a gun.

LEOs that I talk to are very supportive of 2nd ammendment and that the public can defend themselves, but most would like all that defending to be over with they show up on the scene, so they don't have to make split second judgements about who the good guys/bad guys are . . . all that to say:

Many large churches think about the scenario of there being 1,000 people in the building, something bad happens (active shooter, etc.). The three LEOs that are there providing "security" produce their weapons (remember they are scared of getting shot just like we are) but then five other CHL folks produce their weapons - the LEOs have an idea of what the other LEOs are going to do, but they don't know what the civilians are going to do . . . could be a mess. The thing that most LEOs tell me is "there are people in my department, that have/had the same training I do, but some of them make terrible judgement calls/preform poorly, etc. Now we are dealing with civilians that do not have that same type of training" all that to say some churches are "limiting" the number of firearms in a given situation with 30.06 signs if they feel they have enough armed LEOs at the site to respond well and protect the people. Obviously I don't like that approach but there are challenges to work through for those very large churches.

Most of the fears here are speculative. Police and CHL holders alike can pretty easily tell who the bad guy is - he's the one pointing a gun at and shooting innocent people. Folks who are pointing guns and shooting at the bad guy are almost certainly good guys of one stripe or another. Once the threat has been neutralized, CHL holders can be counted on to follow orders from identified LEO's.

Everyone in a violent incident needs to be situationally aware and use good judgment, and there is always a potential for tragedy. LEO's are not exempt, and they can and do make errors that endanger themselves and others.

Eliminating individuals' right to self defense because supposedly adequate measures are in place to protect them may well increase an organization's liability for any injuries or deaths which occur due to deficiencies in those measures, and drive aware congregation members to find another church. A controlled visual identification system for both LEO's and CHL holders is one way of reducing friend or foe identification issues and is fairly easy to set up if an organization is willing to put a little thought into it.

KD5NRH wrote:

Excaliber wrote:While the situation churches face in trying to provide a safe environment at affordable cost is an unintended consequence of the laws as written, the statutes serve a very valid purpose in making certain that companies and people engaged in security work have clean backgrounds and meet minimum training requirements.

One could say the same about the structural pest control requirements, since hazardous chemicals are a much more common danger than misuse of a firearm. However, if my neighbor asks me to spray some wasp killer on his porch, I don't need a license. If my employer wants me to spray some wasp killer front of the office entry, I don't need a license. If my employer wants to contract me out to someone to spray their wasps, then we both need licenses.

Having a CHL is a good enough indicator of a clean background for the Feds to say I don't need another check at the gun shop, and frankly, I suspect the CHL background check was more useful than the one to get my guard card. As for minimum training requirements, they're pretty minimal: more "how to observe" and "how to write a report" than when force and/or arrest would be justified. There was more discussion of [img]when[/img] (and to what extent) force is justified and [img]how[/img] to deescalate in my CHL class than in all of my security training. (Also of note is that the classroom portion of my pest control apprentice training took more than five times as long as all of my security training, including site-specific training, to date.)

Just for giggles, I dug out the old training manual here. Arrest and use of force amounts to three pages - not textbook pages here, either: think grade-school workbook with 16-point type and wide margins so you can draw dirty pictures to stay awake through the "professional appearance," "sexual harassment" and other non-security-specific videos that are used to fill out the required training time. Leave out the excessive whitespace and it would fit easily on a half-page at 12pt. What information they do have is dangerously inaccurate, describing some acts that don't even rise to class A misdemeanor status as arrestable felonies. (Yes, it specifically calls them felonies, and makes no mention of the treacherous category of "offences against the public peace.".)

Your points about the depth of the minimum requirements are valid. However, even the current low bar manages to screen out quite a few folks who want to be security officers but would be unsuitable in that role. The existing system isn't perfect, but, in my opinion, it does serve a useful purpose that would not be as well addressed if it were eliminated entirely. However, as you point out, there's still lots of room for improvement, and I don't know any security professionals who would disagree with you on that.

mymojo wrote:Seems to me I'm a more valuable security asset as an armed member of the unwashed masses than I would be as as an unarmed member of a "security team".

I'd rather have a pistol on my hip than a logo on my shirt. But that's just me.

You could make a reasonable case for that.

The pieces that are missing in a good samaritan scenario are the advantages of prior training, coordination, and communication with others. Coordinated responses are generally smoother and more effective than ad hoc ones, but both can work well enough with the proper effort.

Russell wrote:This whole situation is ridiculous. DPS needs to get their noses out of other people's business.

That's my two cents.

While the situation churches face in trying to provide a safe environment at affordable cost is an unintended consequence of the laws as written, the statutes serve a very valid purpose in making certain that companies and people engaged in security work have clean backgrounds and meet minimum training requirements. This greatly reduces incidents of hiring of criminals (fox guarding the chicken coop), guards acting like thugs, and unsafe and improper use of force and weapons.

Once again, I am not a lawyer and I am not providing professional advice here. However, as I read the law, there is a way for churches to engage armed personnel without getting a guard company license. It's called a Private Business Letter of Authority (Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 35, Subchapter K Section 35.171). It is much less expensive and easier to qualify for. In order to get one, someone in the church still needs to qualify as a security company manager (TAC, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 35, Subchapter E, Section 35.60) and pass the test for doing so in order to ensure that security functions are managed by someone who knows what the requirements are. This position requires 3 years of experience in the field, and 1 year of supervisory or management experience.

Churches could then utilize members who obtained security officer commissions for armed protection. If the commissioned officers qualified to the higher level of personal protection officer (Texas Occupational Code 1702.202) they would be authorized to carry their firearms concealed during the course of their duties.

These steps would require some work in the beginning, but they're not undoable, even for a fairly small church, provided that volunteers who are willing to meet the requirements of the licensing process are available.

I would also expect that churches' insurance companies would be much happier with a state sanctioned program and would be more willing to provide coverage. If an informal program is started without amending existing coverages, members who take action that results in legal consequences may find themselves out in the cold and on their own - a less than happy circumstance.

A no cost alternative to all this would be to post a "reverse gunbusters" sign at the door along the lines of:

"Our church welcomes law enforcement officers, LEOSA qualified retired officers, and concealed handgun license holders."

The deterrent effect of this type of signage would significantly reduce the likelihood than an incident would occur in the first place.

Keith B wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

Keith B wrote: I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's.

Are you implying that the church or team leadership have any awareness or requirement of CHL holders in their team? Or, in other words, does a CHL holder give up their right to carry under the authority of their CHL when they join a volunteer team at church that might do something that looks like "security"?

OK, but I guess that depends on what the definition of "involved with security" is to begin with.

IANAL, but my interpretation is if you function, even as a volunteer, in any named capacity that relates to the security of the church, then may be potentially in violation of the statutes.

Now, I am a choir member, play guitar and bass, attend Sunday School, and volunteer on other committees and organizations in the church. I don't 'carry' under any authority of a team or function, and am not ASKED to carry either. If I happen to have to use my CCW in my or an others defense, then it was just happenstance; I was not acting in a role as a member of a security or safety team. IMO that keeps me out of the gray area and OK in the eyes of the statutes.

Again, I am not a lawyer. However, it is my understanding from the DPS legal opinion cited below that if an unarmed volunteer performs security related functions for one church and does not wear a uniform, badge, patch, or anything that says "security," he falls under the exception as noted. If he is armed and performing a security related function, with or without a uniform, badge, or patch, he would fall under the licensing requirements.

In my conversations with DPS, they indicated that the criteria they use to determine if a function is security related or not is very close to the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,....." etc. regardless of what you choose to call it and whether or not the folks performing the function are paid or not.

The activities Keith describes are not security related and therefore are not regulated by the Private Security Bureau. If he as a CHL holding private citizen exercises his rights in a church which does not post 30.06, I am unaware of anything that would prohibit him from doing so.

For those who would like to delve into this more deeply, here are a couple of links to info on the DPS web site that may help:

1702 Tx Occupational Code - This is the law that states what is regulated and the requirements for each regulated function.
Administrative Rules- The rules that guide how the regulatory functions are carried out.

toddlinder wrote:I have spoken in the past with DPS about church security:
- Do not use the word "security" (use "safety" or "eyes and ears" team)
- No uniforms
These things would mean your church team must be licensed by DPS (which I would think only a mega church would consider given all the hassles of operating a licensed security company). So, no problem.

The biggest challenge to those folks carrying weapons seemed to be the occupational code for security guards (section 1702). But most people seemed to believe that 1702.323 allowed volunteers to carry while on the "team"

New News: while at a church safety/security seminar several people (and myself) spoke with the presenter (Hurst Police Officer) about this issue - he always said in the past it was ok, based on his understing of the law, just get written permission from the pastor. But in several calls DPS and talking to their legal department (since the legal dept. would be the ones deciding to press charges if they believed the law was broken). After much discussion he said DPS stated that people in the church providing a security type function (even if you don't call it security) and being armed would be taking the job of a comissioned security guard. And therefore that is not ok (like preforming the job of an electrician without being licensed, etc.). The interesting thing is it did not seem to be a problem to have unarmed security type people doing that job (wouldn't they being taking the place of non-comissioned security guards). Maybe they were looking at a different law, hard to say.

What DPS did say to do was to safety team members on Sunday that were not armed and have CHL members (that were not on the team, or not on the team that Sunday) who could respond to an incident. Of course, LEO's could be on the team and carry. Well, that is fine, but it sure make things more complicated for the larger church and could be almost impossible for the medium size or small church that would not have a enough people to fill both those "roles."

They did say that problem would only present itself if a church team member discharged their weapon, or something else happened, and then DPS happened to find out that the CHL person was preforming a "security type" job. They would then say he/she was engaged in security work without a license.

I am not a lawyer, but in the course of the church security consulting work I do as part of my day job, I have done considerable research in this area. You received pretty much the same story as I did from DPS. Here's a DPS legal opinion (posted on their web site) that encapsulates the major issues:


Church Volunteer Security Patrol May 10, 2007

A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.

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.

As I read the law and the opinion above, and from my conversations directly with DPS personnel in Austin, my best current understanding is that anyone who carries a handgun as part of an organized church security function would fall under the licensing requirements for armed security officers. The folks in Austin made it clear that such a person would be in real deep water if that came to the attention of law enforcement or the Private Security Bureau, as it most certainly would during the investigation of a major violent incident. CHL holders who attend services as part of their religious observances are not regulated by the Private Security Bureau because they are not performing a security function.

There are a couple other points that don't fit the church environment well, including the fact that commissioned security officers (the armed category) are required to be in uniform and to wear their weapons exposed. Many churches would find this unacceptable.

The main issue appears to be that the law was written primarily to regulate companies that provide security services to others, and the needs and practical solutions churches must work within don't fit neatly into the boxes the law created for those other purposes. This is unlikely to change in the near future unless churches band together to create a proposed set of changes to the law and secure the necessary backing from our elected representatives. Even if this is done, with our 2 year legislative cycle, a solution is at least 2 years away.

The bottom line is that an effective church security program can still be set up under the current law, but any use of designated and organized armed personnel is regulated (even LEO's in this capacity must have the formal permission of their commanding officer) and has to be in strict compliance with DPS requirements.