TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:

SRO1911 wrote:While anything that expands ltc is a step in the right direction, I would strongly prefer a broader approach.

Protecting all licensees - not just in a church setting.

As beneficial as the bill protecting volunteer first responders would be to me personally, I cannot in good faith support the creation of yet another special class.

Regardless, I wish you all a blessed yule AND a merry Christmas.
Be vigilant, be strong, be safe.

There is a very fine line between church security groups and the security industry. The law itself is intended to prohibit unarmed security guards from carrying under the authority of an LTC while they are working. At one point a representative from the security industry's lobbying arm actually lied to the legislature to say this legislation was not needed because churches could already create security teams and allow LTCs (CHLs at the time) to participate. The law would actually treat such LTCs as armed security guards employed by the church even though they are just members of the congregation who want to coordinate their efforts to stop potential attackers on a volunteer basis.

I fail to see how this would create a protected class within the LTC community. If there are other high value, low risk, targets for people who simply want to kill a bunch of people that does not already similar mechanisms in place then please tell us. We can't use k-12 schools because many already allow teachers to carry in order to protect the students, plus they also have that whole school marshal thing going on. Looking at your signature line it appears to me that you consider churches and government to both be sides on the coin of oppression, if this is the case then is your personal bias keeping you from looking at this in a logical manner?