HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
- Location: Fort Worth
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
I'm aware of more than one security company that "employs" individuals for church security through their company and they "work" for the security company at their church. The individuals are not paid by the security company but the security company is paid by the churches to cover insurance and other costs and expenses. Some charge a lot more than others.
It's a great niche market to go after since the state currently makes it illegal to do so without being licensed. This bill goes a long way to remedy that.
It's a great niche market to go after since the state currently makes it illegal to do so without being licensed. This bill goes a long way to remedy that.
Ron
NRA Member
NRA Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location: Katy, Texas
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
- Location: La Marque, TX
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
I think that in this case it could be said that the PPO is trying to give the appearance of regular folks. So if the PPO is standing in a room full of people dressed in dark suits & ties, it's he who is trying to look like the non-PPOs & not the room full of people trying to look like the PPO.AJSully421 wrote:So, when it says that you cannot give the appearance of a "personal protection officer", don't most body guards wear dark colored suits with ties?
Because, guess what I wear to church each Sunday...
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
Meanwhile, in the State of Alabama...
"Alabama Senate votes to allow church to form police dept."
http://m.wbrc.com/myfoxal/db_345960/con ... d=Ui6u8Lh7
"Alabama Senate votes to allow church to form police dept."
http://m.wbrc.com/myfoxal/db_345960/con ... d=Ui6u8Lh7
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
- Location: Johnson County, Texas
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
bblhd672 wrote:It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?
The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?Jusme wrote:bblhd672 wrote:It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?
The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
I know HB421 has made it to Calendars, hoping it makes it out. What are ya'll hearing?
We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. ~ Ronald Reagan ~
NRA - Life Member
NRA - Life Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:18 pm
Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted
No more or less than restricting what activities an individual performs on their property.bblhd672 wrote: I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?
Tyranny is identified by what is legal for government employees but illegal for the citizenry.