It has to start with who is on the volunteer security team.jmra wrote:IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.Pawpaw wrote:I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.Dave2 wrote:I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).android wrote:I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.
Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allow people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.
Chas.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.
ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Critical legislation for 2015”
- Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:03 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Critical legislation for 2015
- Replies: 206
- Views: 38536
Re: Critical legislation for 2015
- Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:57 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Critical legislation for 2015
- Replies: 206
- Views: 38536
Re: Critical legislation for 2015
With 50% of churches in America having fewer than 75 people and 90% having fewer than 350 people it can be difficult to pay a security guard or an off duty LEO. A church volunteer is more likely to know the ins and outs of the congregation, facility, etc.SewTexas wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.Dave2 wrote:I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).android wrote:I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.
Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allows people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.
Chas.
I was going to say something, but Mr Cotton has said it much better than I can.
Thank you sir.