TexasCHLforum.com

gugisman wrote:Please contact Todd Hunter to schedule HB 1561 for a full floor vote. It has been moved out of committee, as substituted. My email to Rep. Hunter:

Todd...

I am writing to encourage you to not overlook HB 1561, as amended/substituted, that lifts the ridiculous restriction on churches to provide their own security teams.

Various bills that addressed this governmental overreach into churches never made it to the floor in previous sessions. This one merits your prayerful consideration and action.

I urge you to get this one paragraph bill to the floor, where I fully expect it will be swiftly, and bi-partisanly, passed.

Sincerely,

Eric Inman
Ponder, TX

(I have a copy of the substituted bill but don't know how to attach it. It took out any reference to other non- profits and schools.)

carlson1 wrote:One of the requirements to be on the church staff is you must have a CHL.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

Dori wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

gugisman wrote:I'm new to this board, and here because I wanted to serve as a part time volunteer in church security operations, and I am seldom not armed. Just two weeks ago we were told that only active, full time peace officers could be on the team - if they were to be armed, or, persons who comply with TX Occupations Code regarding private security.

Apparently, as a result of the May 10, 2007 DPS opinion (in Mr. Cotton's link, above) most of the volunteers (retired state and federal officers) could not legally 'carry' and be on the team. I did the research and wrote to my state representatives to support the bills mentioned in previous posts. However, I think there has been a lot of unwarranted disruption. Please hear me out...

First, regarding the DPS May 10, 2007 opinion: It should be taken as an 'advisory guideline', per the included preface: "These opinions are advisory guidelines intended to inform the public and the regulated community of the department’s position and to facilitate voluntary compliance. They are not binding on the department or any other law enforcement agency, and should not be relied on as authority in support of or defense against any enforcement action. They are subject to modification at the department’s discretion."

I'll try to not get to convoluted here... but I believe the TX Penal Code exempts many potential armed church security team volunteers.

TX Penal Code section 46.02 and 46.03 define what weapons are illegal, where it is illegal to carry, and certain defenses to prosecution (such as security officers, hunters, and so on). Section 1702 of the TX occupations code establishes a commission that regulates private security operations. Absent the defense granted to security officers in TXPC 46.03, it would be illegal for them to posses weapons under TXOC 1702.

TX Penal Code section 46.15 defines to whom the section 46.02 and 46.03 laws do NOT apply...

TXPC 46.15 - Nonapplicability, (a) sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

(certain other individuals in sections 2, 3, 4 7, 8, 9), and,

(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

Also, specifically related to security officers, TXPC 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Private Security Board, if the person is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as an officer commissioned under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment and is wearing the officer's uniform and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view;
(5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person's security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:
(A) is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment; and
(B) is either:
(i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view; or
(ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's weapon in a concealed manner;

CONCLUSION: It seems to me that a the cart has been brought forward of the horse... If active peace officers and honorably retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators are exempt from TXPC weapon law, then they are exempt from the TXOC 1702 related to security officers. Security officers are granted their 'authority' to carry weapons under TXPC by also being (partially) exempted under section 46.15

It is my opinion that TX peace officers and retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators (who comply with the proficiency requirements under TXOC 1701.357) - are acting within legal authority when he/she carries a concealed weapon in church, period. The issue of whether or not the person is involved, formally, as a volunteer member of a church security team is irrelevant.

I would appreciate hearing your comments/opinions/counter-opinions...?

Anyone who can legally carry a handgun (CHL, retired/off-duty) cop) can legally carry in a church unless its posted 30.06. The issue under discussion in this thread is that CHL holders can not legally carry if they are part of a church security team.

If somebody wants to be security they need to follow the law and PSB rules.

The problem is the "law" that you are referring to affects many more people than just those who "want to be security". It affects just about every volunteer in a church who happens to carry, from greeters to people helping others find parking spaces in the parking lot. Do some reading about this subject on the forum and then tell us if you feel the same way.
You might also be interested in researching how many church volunteers (security or otherwise) have been prosecuted under these codes.

If a regular volunteer is there to clean the toilets and is armed with a chl, he doesn't fall under the security regulations. He only falls under if he is working in a security capacity.

Don't believe I mentioned toilet cleaners. But I believe you know what I meant. Anyone involved in directing people would/could fall under this code. It is a bad law that was passed solely to pad the pockets of security companies and off duty LEOs.

I dont agree that a non security volunteer needs a card. When they try to do security and circumvent the regulations are when problems arise. A person working for a company is covered by their insurance should something go wrong. A church could apply for a company license, carry insurance and them commission their own guards. Heck this law may pad securoty agencies but i did pay 110 bucks for my cards with no fee waiver for being a leo so i can see companys fighting this. It is also tragic that churchs need armed protection.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

Dori wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

gugisman wrote:I'm new to this board, and here because I wanted to serve as a part time volunteer in church security operations, and I am seldom not armed. Just two weeks ago we were told that only active, full time peace officers could be on the team - if they were to be armed, or, persons who comply with TX Occupations Code regarding private security.

Apparently, as a result of the May 10, 2007 DPS opinion (in Mr. Cotton's link, above) most of the volunteers (retired state and federal officers) could not legally 'carry' and be on the team. I did the research and wrote to my state representatives to support the bills mentioned in previous posts. However, I think there has been a lot of unwarranted disruption. Please hear me out...

First, regarding the DPS May 10, 2007 opinion: It should be taken as an 'advisory guideline', per the included preface: "These opinions are advisory guidelines intended to inform the public and the regulated community of the department’s position and to facilitate voluntary compliance. They are not binding on the department or any other law enforcement agency, and should not be relied on as authority in support of or defense against any enforcement action. They are subject to modification at the department’s discretion."

I'll try to not get to convoluted here... but I believe the TX Penal Code exempts many potential armed church security team volunteers.

TX Penal Code section 46.02 and 46.03 define what weapons are illegal, where it is illegal to carry, and certain defenses to prosecution (such as security officers, hunters, and so on). Section 1702 of the TX occupations code establishes a commission that regulates private security operations. Absent the defense granted to security officers in TXPC 46.03, it would be illegal for them to posses weapons under TXOC 1702.

TX Penal Code section 46.15 defines to whom the section 46.02 and 46.03 laws do NOT apply...

TXPC 46.15 - Nonapplicability, (a) sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

(certain other individuals in sections 2, 3, 4 7, 8, 9), and,

(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

Also, specifically related to security officers, TXPC 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Private Security Board, if the person is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as an officer commissioned under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment and is wearing the officer's uniform and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view;
(5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person's security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:
(A) is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment; and
(B) is either:
(i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view; or
(ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's weapon in a concealed manner;

CONCLUSION: It seems to me that a the cart has been brought forward of the horse... If active peace officers and honorably retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators are exempt from TXPC weapon law, then they are exempt from the TXOC 1702 related to security officers. Security officers are granted their 'authority' to carry weapons under TXPC by also being (partially) exempted under section 46.15

It is my opinion that TX peace officers and retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators (who comply with the proficiency requirements under TXOC 1701.357) - are acting within legal authority when he/she carries a concealed weapon in church, period. The issue of whether or not the person is involved, formally, as a volunteer member of a church security team is irrelevant.

I would appreciate hearing your comments/opinions/counter-opinions...?

Anyone who can legally carry a handgun (CHL, retired/off-duty) cop) can legally carry in a church unless its posted 30.06. The issue under discussion in this thread is that CHL holders can not legally carry if they are part of a church security team.

If somebody wants to be security they need to follow the law and PSB rules.

The problem is the "law" that you are referring to affects many more people than just those who "want to be security". It affects just about every volunteer in a church who happens to carry, from greeters to people helping others find parking spaces in the parking lot. Do some reading about this subject on the forum and then tell us if you feel the same way.
You might also be interested in researching how many church volunteers (security or otherwise) have been prosecuted under these codes.

If a regular volunteer is there to clean the toilets and is armed with a chl, he doesn't fall under the security regulations. He only falls under if he is working in a security capacity.

Dori wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

gugisman wrote:I'm new to this board, and here because I wanted to serve as a part time volunteer in church security operations, and I am seldom not armed. Just two weeks ago we were told that only active, full time peace officers could be on the team - if they were to be armed, or, persons who comply with TX Occupations Code regarding private security.

Apparently, as a result of the May 10, 2007 DPS opinion (in Mr. Cotton's link, above) most of the volunteers (retired state and federal officers) could not legally 'carry' and be on the team. I did the research and wrote to my state representatives to support the bills mentioned in previous posts. However, I think there has been a lot of unwarranted disruption. Please hear me out...

First, regarding the DPS May 10, 2007 opinion: It should be taken as an 'advisory guideline', per the included preface: "These opinions are advisory guidelines intended to inform the public and the regulated community of the department’s position and to facilitate voluntary compliance. They are not binding on the department or any other law enforcement agency, and should not be relied on as authority in support of or defense against any enforcement action. They are subject to modification at the department’s discretion."

I'll try to not get to convoluted here... but I believe the TX Penal Code exempts many potential armed church security team volunteers.

TX Penal Code section 46.02 and 46.03 define what weapons are illegal, where it is illegal to carry, and certain defenses to prosecution (such as security officers, hunters, and so on). Section 1702 of the TX occupations code establishes a commission that regulates private security operations. Absent the defense granted to security officers in TXPC 46.03, it would be illegal for them to posses weapons under TXOC 1702.

TX Penal Code section 46.15 defines to whom the section 46.02 and 46.03 laws do NOT apply...

TXPC 46.15 - Nonapplicability, (a) sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

(certain other individuals in sections 2, 3, 4 7, 8, 9), and,

(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

Also, specifically related to security officers, TXPC 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Private Security Board, if the person is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as an officer commissioned under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment and is wearing the officer's uniform and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view;
(5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person's security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:
(A) is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment; and
(B) is either:
(i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view; or
(ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's weapon in a concealed manner;

CONCLUSION: It seems to me that a the cart has been brought forward of the horse... If active peace officers and honorably retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators are exempt from TXPC weapon law, then they are exempt from the TXOC 1702 related to security officers. Security officers are granted their 'authority' to carry weapons under TXPC by also being (partially) exempted under section 46.15

It is my opinion that TX peace officers and retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators (who comply with the proficiency requirements under TXOC 1701.357) - are acting within legal authority when he/she carries a concealed weapon in church, period. The issue of whether or not the person is involved, formally, as a volunteer member of a church security team is irrelevant.

I would appreciate hearing your comments/opinions/counter-opinions...?

Anyone who can legally carry a handgun (CHL, retired/off-duty) cop) can legally carry in a church unless its posted 30.06. The issue under discussion in this thread is that CHL holders can not legally carry if they are part of a church security team.

If somebody wants to be security they need to follow the law and PSB rules.

texanjoker wrote:One thing to consider is liability. if anybody is doing this, remember that if you take an action, you will be sued. All criminals sue so be ready for it.

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.

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.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

All I can tell you is if this law had not been passed many LEOs would be left out of those cushy church jigs and a lot of other small organizational events. I would be willing to bet there was some donations made to the effort by those associations.

You might be right, but we still have to buy our guard cards to work plain clothed at events like any other tax payer.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

That's your decision and you have every right to make it. Others chose to help their fellow church members, or children in the case of schools. Neither you nor those who feel differently are wrong; it's an individual decision.

My choice is not to imitate Nero and fiddle while Rome burns.

Chas.