Church Safety Team Carry (DPS lawyer says No)

[KD5NRH]

This whole situation is ridiculous. DPS needs to get their noses out of other people's business.

Contact your state legislators. Look at all the paring and rearranging that was done to DPS this year: redefining private security regs to only apply to those contracted for pay to a third-party company would have been a relatively minor change compared to some of the stuff that was done.

[Excaliber]

This whole situation is ridiculous. DPS needs to get their noses out of other people's business.

That's my two cents.

While the situation churches face in trying to provide a safe environment at affordable cost is an unintended consequence of the laws as written, the statutes serve a very valid purpose in making certain that companies and people engaged in security work have clean backgrounds and meet minimum training requirements. This greatly reduces incidents of hiring of criminals (fox guarding the chicken coop), guards acting like thugs, and unsafe and improper use of force and weapons.

Once again, I am not a lawyer and I am not providing professional advice here. However, as I read the law, there is a way for churches to engage armed personnel without getting a guard company license. It's called a Private Business Letter of Authority (Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 35, Subchapter K Section 35.171). It is much less expensive and easier to qualify for. In order to get one, someone in the church still needs to qualify as a security company manager (TAC, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 35, Subchapter E, Section 35.60) and pass the test for doing so in order to ensure that security functions are managed by someone who knows what the requirements are. This position requires 3 years of experience in the field, and 1 year of supervisory or management experience.

Churches could then utilize members who obtained security officer commissions for armed protection. If the commissioned officers qualified to the higher level of personal protection officer (Texas Occupational Code 1702.202) they would be authorized to carry their firearms concealed during the course of their duties.

These steps would require some work in the beginning, but they're not undoable, even for a fairly small church, provided that volunteers who are willing to meet the requirements of the licensing process are available.

I would also expect that churches' insurance companies would be much happier with a state sanctioned program and would be more willing to provide coverage. If an informal program is started without amending existing coverages, members who take action that results in legal consequences may find themselves out in the cold and on their own - a less than happy circumstance.

A no cost alternative to all this would be to post a "reverse gunbusters" sign at the door along the lines of:

"Our church welcomes law enforcement officers, LEOSA qualified retired officers, and concealed handgun license holders."

The deterrent effect of this type of signage would significantly reduce the likelihood than an incident would occur in the first place.

[mymojo]

Seems to me I'm a more valuable security asset as an armed member of the unwashed masses than I would be as as an unarmed member of a "security team".

I'd rather have a pistol on my hip than a logo on my shirt. But that's just me.

[KD5NRH]

While the situation churches face in trying to provide a safe environment at affordable cost is an unintended consequence of the laws as written, the statutes serve a very valid purpose in making certain that companies and people engaged in security work have clean backgrounds and meet minimum training requirements.

One could say the same about the structural pest control requirements, since hazardous chemicals are a much more common danger than misuse of a firearm. However, if my neighbor asks me to spray some wasp killer on his porch, I don't need a license. If my employer wants me to spray some wasp killer front of the office entry, I don't need a license. If my employer wants to contract me out to someone to spray their wasps, then we both need licenses.

Having a CHL is a good enough indicator of a clean background for the Feds to say I don't need another check at the gun shop, and frankly, I suspect the CHL background check was more useful than the one to get my guard card. As for minimum training requirements, they're pretty minimal: more "how to observe" and "how to write a report" than when force and/or arrest would be justified. There was more discussion of [img]when[/img] (and to what extent) force is justified and [img]how[/img] to deescalate in my CHL class than in all of my security training. (Also of note is that the classroom portion of my pest control apprentice training took more than five times as long as all of my security training, including site-specific training, to date.)

Just for giggles, I dug out the old training manual here. Arrest and use of force amounts to three pages - not textbook pages here, either: think grade-school workbook with 16-point type and wide margins so you can draw dirty pictures to stay awake through the "professional appearance," "sexual harassment" and other non-security-specific videos that are used to fill out the required training time. Leave out the excessive whitespace and it would fit easily on a half-page at 12pt. What information they do have is dangerously inaccurate, describing some acts that don't even rise to class A misdemeanor status as arrestable felonies. (Yes, it specifically calls them felonies, and makes no mention of the treacherous category of "offences against the public peace.".)

[Excaliber]

Seems to me I'm a more valuable security asset as an armed member of the unwashed masses than I would be as as an unarmed member of a "security team".

I'd rather have a pistol on my hip than a logo on my shirt. But that's just me.

You could make a reasonable case for that.

The pieces that are missing in a good samaritan scenario are the advantages of prior training, coordination, and communication with others. Coordinated responses are generally smoother and more effective than ad hoc ones, but both can work well enough with the proper effort.

[Excaliber]

While the situation churches face in trying to provide a safe environment at affordable cost is an unintended consequence of the laws as written, the statutes serve a very valid purpose in making certain that companies and people engaged in security work have clean backgrounds and meet minimum training requirements.

One could say the same about the structural pest control requirements, since hazardous chemicals are a much more common danger than misuse of a firearm. However, if my neighbor asks me to spray some wasp killer on his porch, I don't need a license. If my employer wants me to spray some wasp killer front of the office entry, I don't need a license. If my employer wants to contract me out to someone to spray their wasps, then we both need licenses.

Having a CHL is a good enough indicator of a clean background for the Feds to say I don't need another check at the gun shop, and frankly, I suspect the CHL background check was more useful than the one to get my guard card. As for minimum training requirements, they're pretty minimal: more "how to observe" and "how to write a report" than when force and/or arrest would be justified. There was more discussion of [img]when[/img] (and to what extent) force is justified and [img]how[/img] to deescalate in my CHL class than in all of my security training. (Also of note is that the classroom portion of my pest control apprentice training took more than five times as long as all of my security training, including site-specific training, to date.)

Just for giggles, I dug out the old training manual here. Arrest and use of force amounts to three pages - not textbook pages here, either: think grade-school workbook with 16-point type and wide margins so you can draw dirty pictures to stay awake through the "professional appearance," "sexual harassment" and other non-security-specific videos that are used to fill out the required training time. Leave out the excessive whitespace and it would fit easily on a half-page at 12pt. What information they do have is dangerously inaccurate, describing some acts that don't even rise to class A misdemeanor status as arrestable felonies. (Yes, it specifically calls them felonies, and makes no mention of the treacherous category of "offences against the public peace.".)

Your points about the depth of the minimum requirements are valid. However, even the current low bar manages to screen out quite a few folks who want to be security officers but would be unsuitable in that role. The existing system isn't perfect, but, in my opinion, it does serve a useful purpose that would not be as well addressed if it were eliminated entirely. However, as you point out, there's still lots of room for improvement, and I don't know any security professionals who would disagree with you on that.

[chad745]

I attend a very large church in Southlake, TX. Just by me saying that will tip you off to what it is.

I used to be on thier "safety team". We used to be a pretty tightly-knit group of men with the safety and security of the whole church in mind.

Then, about 6 months ago, things started changing. They started to drill into us phrases of "you're not security, you are saftety"! Never letting us forget it. Then they came out with a small handbook saying these team members are "not authorized to carry a gun", whatever that means. Then they printed up a paper with all the things we CAN'T do. These would include physical intervention, carrying a weapon, etc. At the bottem, they had a place for me to sign! Making us ineffectual and totally neutered.

I'm sorry, I put up with all the politics that were emerging, all of the "neutering" of the last 6 months, but I just could NOT put my signature to something that made me less effective as a team member than just a regular attending member. So, I just stopped participating. I didn't quit, I just stopped volunteering.

This whole thing really bothers me, but I'm glad I am hearing that I am not alone. What makes things worse is that they are building a brand new facility accross the highway and I've been hearing that they have firm plans to put up the dreaded 30.06! Every time I drive by the new building under construction, my heart sinks and I think of it only as a death trap!

Becuase of these complexities, grey areas and likelyhood of being hung out to dry, I am no longer able to effectively do my part to keep a keen eye out for the safety of the church. Now, I watch my own safety and that of my familty as best as I can....that's it.

Logic and critical thinking is now gone from our church and being replaced by legalism and politics. I have no use for such things. My family loves it there, so, I will stay for now. I wish I could feel more joyful about these things. The joy of the Lord is supposed to be my strength.......

[Bart]

A pizza delivery guy doesn't need a security commission to have a gun. A convenience store clerk doesn't need a security commission to have a gun. I don't think church employees and volunteers need a security commission as long as the church doesn't ask them to carry a gun, but If the church has an armed night guard, he probably needs a security commission. Anyway concealed is concealed.

[toddlinder]

At the risk of highjacking my own thread I will comment on chad745's comment about 30.06

All the time I spend listening to CHL folks, one of their greatest fears is getting shot by LEOs when something bad happens since they will be the good guy with a gun.

All the time I spend listening to LEOs, one of their greatest fears is that (especially off duty ones) they will get shot by CHLs since they are the good guy with a gun.

LEOs that I talk to are very supportive of 2nd ammendment and that the public can defend themselves, but most would like all that defending to be over with they show up on the scene, so they don't have to make split second judgements about who the good guys/bad guys are . . . all that to say:

Many large churches think about the scenario of there being 1,000 people in the building, something bad happens (active shooter, etc.). The three LEOs that are there providing "security" produce their weapons (remember they are scared of getting shot just like we are) but then five other CHL folks produce their weapons - the LEOs have an idea of what the other LEOs are going to do, but they don't know what the civilians are going to do . . . could be a mess. The thing that most LEOs tell me is "there are people in my department, that have/had the same training I do, but some of them make terrible judgement calls/preform poorly, etc. Now we are dealing with civilians that do not have that same type of training" all that to say some churches are "limiting" the number of firearms in a given situation with 30.06 signs if they feel they have enough armed LEOs at the site to respond well and protect the people. Obviously I don't like that approach but there are challenges to work through for those very large churches.

[bdickens]

You don't think the cops train for something like that? They would be sorely remiss if they did not. They know that there may be CHLs involved in a situation; they'd be stupid to think otherwise.

[chad745]

I'm sure we all can agree that the 30.06 sign does nothing to stop the bad guys from walking and just start mowing. It is a feel-good sign that the lawmakers had to make room for to push CHL laws though. My issue with thier plans are that this sign will be up 24/7, 365. But actual church service only last several hours a week.

Now, thier plans are to have LEO's in plain clothes and uniform during services. Well that's just fine and dandy. But, what about ALL THE OTHER activities the chruch has? Classes, get togethers, pot lucks, training, practice, all the OTHER stuff that happens within the church walls throughout the week. They will NOT assign an LEO to most, if not all, of these activities. I'm sure they won't want to spend the money. But there it will be, a sign pasted to all entrances, stopping the law-abing armed citizen ALL THE TIME. That is not the answer. In fact, I can make a case where stripping Americans of any God-given rights is never the answer, but we'll save that for another thread.

I want to stay sensetive to the needs of officers who have the unfathomable job of making these critical decisions. However, I am prepared to accept the possibility of collateral damage in the event of an active shooter in church if it means I can protect the life of my wife and children, even if I am the one damaged.

[toddlinder]

Great point chad, I think that is the biggest problem with that approach.

[Excaliber]

At the risk of highjacking my own thread I will comment on chad745's comment about 30.06

All the time I spend listening to CHL folks, one of their greatest fears is getting shot by LEOs when something bad happens since they will be the good guy with a gun.

All the time I spend listening to LEOs, one of their greatest fears is that (especially off duty ones) they will get shot by CHLs since they are the good guy with a gun.

LEOs that I talk to are very supportive of 2nd ammendment and that the public can defend themselves, but most would like all that defending to be over with they show up on the scene, so they don't have to make split second judgements about who the good guys/bad guys are . . . all that to say:

Many large churches think about the scenario of there being 1,000 people in the building, something bad happens (active shooter, etc.). The three LEOs that are there providing "security" produce their weapons (remember they are scared of getting shot just like we are) but then five other CHL folks produce their weapons - the LEOs have an idea of what the other LEOs are going to do, but they don't know what the civilians are going to do . . . could be a mess. The thing that most LEOs tell me is "there are people in my department, that have/had the same training I do, but some of them make terrible judgement calls/preform poorly, etc. Now we are dealing with civilians that do not have that same type of training" all that to say some churches are "limiting" the number of firearms in a given situation with 30.06 signs if they feel they have enough armed LEOs at the site to respond well and protect the people. Obviously I don't like that approach but there are challenges to work through for those very large churches.

Most of the fears here are speculative. Police and CHL holders alike can pretty easily tell who the bad guy is - he's the one pointing a gun at and shooting innocent people. Folks who are pointing guns and shooting at the bad guy are almost certainly good guys of one stripe or another. Once the threat has been neutralized, CHL holders can be counted on to follow orders from identified LEO's.

Everyone in a violent incident needs to be situationally aware and use good judgment, and there is always a potential for tragedy. LEO's are not exempt, and they can and do make errors that endanger themselves and others.

Eliminating individuals' right to self defense because supposedly adequate measures are in place to protect them may well increase an organization's liability for any injuries or deaths which occur due to deficiencies in those measures, and drive aware congregation members to find another church. A controlled visual identification system for both LEO's and CHL holders is one way of reducing friend or foe identification issues and is fairly easy to set up if an organization is willing to put a little thought into it.

[Excaliber]

You don't think the cops train for something like that? They would be sorely remiss if they did not. They know that there may be CHLs involved in a situation; they'd be stupid to think otherwise.

I would agree.

At any given service, there may be other LEO's present who are not hired to perform security, but are lawfully armed and exempt from compliance with 30.06 signs - FBI, DEA, judges, DA's, off duty municipal officers simply attending church with their families, etc. The potential identification problem is the same, and doesn't go away with posting a 30.06 sign. Officers hired to perform security functions still can't assume that anyone else with a gun is a bad guy.

The city I worked in was the county seat for an area with 44 different federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies with thousands of officers, plus thousands of CHL holders and several hundred visiting officers on either official or personal business at any given time. Obviously we didn't know all these folks personally, but we knew they could be present at any incident we responded to. I can't recall any significant problems figuring out who were the good and bad guys at incident scenes, and we didn't have any misidentification tragedies in the 20 years I worked there. I don't see anything that's changed to create a greater danger for well trained officers today.

[Oldgringo]

chad745 wrote:

...Then they printed up a paper with all the things we CAN'T do...

Do y'all remember what Martin Luther, our Founding Fathers, et al were all about?