TexasCHLforum.com

Great point chad, I think that is the biggest problem with that approach.

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.

I think that what you'all are talking about is a very good way of dealing with the issue, especially in the small to medium size church. The thing that makes it difficult for my situation is that we have a "team" of people connected by radios (parking lot, this building, that area, etc.) and are prepared to deal with and get assistance for: medical issues, fire, missing child, non-custodial parent wanting to take a child, etc., etc. Clearly those folks are "walking like a duck" and those folks would be the most logical to be armed (which cannot happen), so now some of the chl people need to not be on the team (or rotate) but still be there to respond if there is a problem, but they can't be connected with the people with radios (that would certainly look like a duck) who are going to be the ones that will know if there is a problem. Ahhh . . . it just makes it a whole lot more complicated.

Thanks Excalibur for the informative comments and DPS web site quotes.

Mr.72 - here is what I am thinking: ushers, musicians, greeters, etc. are not providing security type of functions, therefore they are ok. But if "campus support" does things that look like securtiy then if something bad happened an investigation would reveal that this group did provide some security looking functions (looks like a duck, sounds like a duck must be a duck) then they are in trouble.

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.