TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:I don't think safety is the key word, I think security is. When you start talking about security teams then the law applies. Safety people help little ladies out to their cars insuring they don't trip and fall. They mop up spilled water on the floor. The safety people can make the congregation "feel safe." When you add the word security you open a completely different book, because you then have phrases like "Security Officers."

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Effective notice - the following people are designated as volunteer safety members and are authorized to carry weapons on the church premises. Under the law the church can successfully argue that you were given notice that you could not carry by not being selected as a volunteer.

30.06 is not JUST a sign.

No, 30.06 not just a sign, but the absence of being dubbed a member of a voluntary safety team is no where near effective notice of anything, it's the absence of both. What's at issue is that currently a voluntary safety team member falls under occupational code that prohibits carrying a firearm without certification. Removing that so organized safety teams are allowed to carry under the authority of a CHL doesn't impact other CHL holders without undesirable changes to 46.035.

Or wait, I may be misreading and what you're saying is those undesirable changes to 46.035 might create that situation? If so, never mind. And if so, I still don't think it serves as effective notice, and effective notice wouldn't be needed because it would make carry in a church unlawful for a CHL holder unless you have been dubbed a member of a safety team.

What I'm saying is that an aggressive DA in a liberal county could certainly pursue the case on that basis, and I wouldn't bet on the odds of his case failing. Ambiguous laws often have unintended consequences.

baldeagle wrote:Effective notice - the following people are designated as volunteer safety members and are authorized to carry weapons on the church premises. Under the law the church can successfully argue that you were given notice that you could not carry by not being selected as a volunteer.

30.06 is not JUST a sign.

TrueFlog wrote:Also, see this post in http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 21#p788049" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Gat0rs wrote:Who would be the person that would give permission? If you are a member, can you give yourself permission?

TrueFlog wrote:I disagree. I see nothing in either bill that would restrict or remove our current right to carry in a church. The text of HB2535 essentially states that a security guard may carry in a church if authorized by the church. That's it. The bill makes no changes that apply would apply to a CHL who is not a security guard. The same is true of SB1324. Remember that 46.035(b)(6) does not apply unless the church is posted with 30.06.

Dad24GreatKids wrote:

ghentry wrote:I have read these bills but I am not clear on what effect the change to TPC §46.035 would have on us. Can someone here elaborate?

HB 2535 (Schaefer, R): Relating to the exemption from certain security licensure of certain persons who provide security services on a volunteer basis at a private primary or secondary school or church or religious organization.
Impact: Allows CHL’s to serve as volunteer security for schools and churches.
Status: Filed 3/6/13.
Position on Bill: Support if Section 2 of the Bill is deleted.

SB 1324 (Seliger, R): Relating to the authority to organize volunteer safety groups at churches, synagogues, and other places of religious worship.
Impact: Creates an exception to the requirement to have a security officer’s certification when serving with a school or church security group.
[/b]Status: Referred to Criminal Justice 3/13/13.{/b]
Position on Bill: Oppose.
NOTE: Support if amended to remove amendment to TPC §46.035(b)(6_.

As I understand it, a CHL would be prevented from carrying in a church if either of these are passed as is, unless they are given permission to do so. We like for CHLs to be able to serve in these volunteer roles without the change to 46.035(b).