Does the last sentence strike anyone as the defining clause?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.
IANAL and don't have a clue how it would really pan out but, to my small brain, it seems pretty clear. Straight from the DPS. No "uniform" = no license needed (assuming you're not operating as, or impersonating, a security business).
I think I remember hearing about the Dallas mega church and it was because they wore some kind of uniform but were not licensed under the PSB. I don't recall if CHL had anything to do with it or not.
This does need to get cleared up next session. I can understand the PSB not wanting unlicensed "security" companies out there and "uniforms" give a sense of certification so I'm fine with that aspect. Individual organizations should be able to provide their members with their own security as long as it is not passed off, marketed, or profited as licensed security.