Church Safety Team Carry (DPS lawyer says No)

[troglodyte]

What DPS did say to do was to safety team members on Sunday that were not armed and have CHL members (that were not on the team, or not on the team that Sunday) who could respond to an incident.

So what the DPS is saying is to have a "team" to respond to the Safety team. Doesn't this just mean you have two levels of teams? If the on-duty member knows to contact you as either the off-duty or go-to member, doesn't that make you a member of the "Security Team"?

This is ridiculous. The congregation does not require, nor ask, if I have a CHL...or not. I volunteer my time, as I would with any ministry, and as a law abiding citizen choose to carry. Whether I 'm teaching a Bible class, greeting at the door, or serve on a safety team (and it is a safety team) a CHL should have nothing to do with my ministry.

A question; when was this law made effective? I'm guessing it was before the CHL laws and was to keep churches from arming their teams. How does this change the situation? The churches aren't mandating carrying a firearm. That is a personal choice by each individual (CHL) as it is with every other volunteer and member of the congregation. I can understand the original intent but it changes with the introduction of the CHL law. I can play along with the use of the term "Security" and not having uniforms if the PSB wants it that way. No problem, I can see where it helps avoid confusion.

Then there is this statement by Excaliber:

personal protection officer (Texas Occupational Code 1702.202) they would be authorized to carry their firearms concealed during the course of their duties.

As a PPO don't you have to be assigned to a specific person or specific group (i.e. members of a band)? I don't know is the reason I ask. Seems like I read that somewhere official. This also means the volunteers would have to give up more of their time (and money) to get certified. A little much to ask I believe.

The DPS needs to butt out of our churches.


Ok. This has got me fired up. How do we start getting this straightened out? Letter to the AG? Letters to our elected legislators? This may be more important to me than school carry (did I just say that? ). When the State starts telling us what we can and cannot do in our churches as volunteers and members I have a problem. Next they'll be telling us we have to have a Food Manager Lic. to have a pot-luck dinner.

[texas1234]

My Church hired an armed security guard but then decided his gun sent the wrong message to members and visitors so they asked him not to carry a gun.

My comment was "so what is going to do throw a chair at the mass murderer who hates Christians shooting up the worship center, heck for $15 bucks and hour I will be the designated chair thrower"

As for me and my household we will serve the Lord with a concealed .45 on my hip.

[chad745]

Troglodyte, it's a mess I know!

I'm just as angry as you are. I'd love to know what we can do, but it seems like such a small slice of the whole pie, it doesn't seem like it would get any recognition.

[dicion]

It seems to me that people might be going way too far into this.

Going back to the first post, I saw this:

if a church team member discharged their weapon, or something else happened, and then DPS happened to find out that the CHL person was preforming a "security type" job. They would then say he/she was engaged in security work without a license.

I don't think DPS is going to be raiding churches, trying to catch people "engaged in security work without a license", to cite them. The only time that you could get 'caught' doing this, would be if someone reported it (concealed is concealed) or after an incident that necessitated the drawing and use of your Concealed Handgun.

And if you did, indeed, have to use your concealed handgun, then I think you may have bigger things to worry about then an "engaged in security work without a license" charge.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 in this situation.

Seems like the answer is pretty simple to me. Do it anyways.

YMMV, IANAL, PEBKAC and all that :P

[Trinitite]

No reason churches should be different than other organizations if we have separation of church and state.

[troglodyte]

But we may not be going too far.

Let's say we have a vagrant on our property. He has no inclination of seeking spiritual help and is not at all interested in the Word. He continues to show up, causing disruption and worrying the congregation. As a member of the congregation with authority to No Tresspass him I do so. Now he gets bent out of shape and files a compliant of some sort. Police show up and ask for my ID so now my CHL is known and then the problems start.

I'm not disagreeing that the DPS is not going on a witch hunt for churches with safety teams (I can only imagine what the public outcry would be). I am concerned that the DPS/PSB are stepping a little bit too far into the citizen's life. It's one thing for me to run a "Security" business out of my garage and not be certified and another to volunteer at my congregation as a safety team member that happens to have his CHL. I agree that if the discharge of the weapon becomes necessary there will be a lot of more major problems to deal with.

Over the last couple of hours I've thought of a few situations that might be similar, at least in the whole "security" company definition.

1) I teach school and there are times teachers are asked to "work" the games. Sometimes that means to be "security"; manning gates, crowd control, patrolling the parking lot, etc.
2) I've been associated with other volunteer events in which they also had parking lot patrols or had someone specifically near the ticket booths or other money changing stations simply to "guard" the funds. I've been asked to walk with a person out to their car to protect them and/or the receipts.
3) As a teacher I am expected to provide "security" for my students.
4) A shop owner may expect (or require) employees to act as security while on the job.

These are not entirely the same but I think they are close enough to get to the intent of the law. If we, as employees or volunteers, can perform "security" work without being called SECURITY and wearing a uniform or badge then it is OK, we are providing it for ourselves. The rub comes in when you start identifying yourself as SECURITY, which may signify that you are a third party hired to provide professional security. I agree that would be a mistake if not deceptive.

Now as this applies to churches. I can see the origninal intent. A church or churches get their bunch of guys together and start walking the halls or patrolling the parking lots during services (which as been done forever I guess). The guys (or congregation) think it would be a good idea to wear identifying shirts or name badges. This starts crossing the line and can lead folks to believe their is real licensed security on the premise. As far as the carrying a firearm is concerned I feel the PSB was worried that if they allowed churches to have their own volunteers someone might take that as license (before there was CHL) to carry firearms. Now with CHL that should be worded differntly.

I'm not trying to step on the PSBs toes. I can't call myself a plumber even if I do know how to fix a toilet or run pipe. But that also doesn't exlude me from workinig on my own house or volunteering and replaceing the toilet at church. If someone asks if I am a plumber I reply that, "No, I'm not." If someone at church say I'm security I reply that I am not, I'm just a helper. And that is the truth. I do much more as a helper, hauling supplies to teachers or taking folks to class than I ever do as "security".

I think it all comes down to third-party and unlicensed firearm carry.

[megs]

As a member of the congregation with authority to No Tresspass him I do so. Now he gets bent out of shape and files a compliant of some sort. Police show up and ask for my ID so now my CHL is known and then the problems start.

I'm confused. How is that legally any different than a pastor with a CHL telling him to leave? Or a manager or employee at a company telling someone to leave the property? I thought everyone agreed people with a CHL can carry at work if there's no policy against it and the worksite isn't a prohibited place. Are they saying people can't carry at work either unless they're licensed security?

[KD5NRH]

As a PPO don't you have to be assigned to a specific person or specific group (i.e. members of a band)? I don't know is the reason I ask. Seems like I read that somewhere official.

Correct:

Occupations Code 1702.206. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO CARRY
FIREARMS. (a) An individual acting as a personal protection officer may not carry a firearm unless the officer:
(1) is either:
(A) engaged in the exclusive performance of the officer's duties as a personal protection officer for the employer under whom the officer's personal protection officer endorsement is issued; or
(B) traveling to or from the officer's place of assignment;

This also means the volunteers would have to give up more of their time (and money) to get certified.

More than that:

Occupations Code Sec. 1702.204. PERSONAL PROTECTION OFFICER ENDORSEMENT; QUALIFICATIONS. (a) An applicant for a personal protection officer endorsement [authorization] must be at least 21 years of age and must provide:
(1) a certificate of completion of the basic security officer training course;
(2) proof that the applicant:
(A) has been issued a security officer commission;
(B) is employed at the time of application by an investigations company or guard company licensed by the board; and
(C) has completed the required training in nonlethal self-defense or defense of a third person; and
(3) proof of completion and the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory psychological testing.
(b) The board by rule shall require an applicant for a personal protection officer endorsement to complete the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test. The board may use the results of the test to evaluate the applicant’s psychological fitness.

[mr.72]

This whole situation is beyond asinine.

Look, I am in the band. But a function of security might be to keep an eye out for shady looking characters that are showing up in church, roaming the hallways, etc. So if I see someone like this, and report them to one of the "Campus Support" team guys, then have I just engaged in "security", thus breaking the law by doing so while carrying my hand gun? I have actually done that before.

I think the point is that the church, as in the staff, pastors, or anyone else in authority including a volunteer team leader, are not requiring or requesting their volunteers to be armed. They are not referring to this "team" as "security" or even "safety". But the implication seems to be that you have to yield the entire function of being attentive to "security" issues if you have a volunteer team who may be legally carrying a concealed handgun, otherwise you have to hire professional security contractors. Am I right? How ridiculous is it to say, "if you have a volunteer safety and security team, existing of volunteers who are otherwise regular members of the congregation, you specifically must disallow them from legally carrying firearms, while all other congregation members may carry firearms legally without restriction". How ridiculous is THAT?

[Keith B]

This whole situation is beyond asinine.

Look, I am in the band. But a function of security might be to keep an eye out for shady looking characters that are showing up in church, roaming the hallways, etc. So if I see someone like this, and report them to one of the "Campus Support" team guys, then have I just engaged in "security", thus breaking the law by doing so while carrying my hand gun? I have actually done that before.

With the statement above, I don't believe you have broken the law.

I think the point is that the church, as in the staff, pastors, or anyone else in authority including a volunteer team leader, are not requiring or requesting their volunteers to be armed. They are not referring to this "team" as "security" or even "safety". But the implication seems to be that you have to yield the entire function of being attentive to "security" issues if you have a volunteer team who may be legally carrying a concealed handgun, otherwise you have to hire professional security contractors. Am I right? How ridiculous is it to say, "if you have a volunteer safety and security team, existing of volunteers who are otherwise regular members of the congregation, you specifically must disallow them from legally carrying firearms, while all other congregation members may carry firearms legally without restriction". How ridiculous is THAT?

Let's get real here guys. The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed. I think the DPS lawyer was also stating if you act in the function of a SECURITY GUARD, i.e. wear a vest that says SECURITY on it, patrol the property after hours, etc., THEN you are breaking the law. Being a member of the church and doing things like playing in the band, singing in the choir, etc. do not count. If you happen to be there and see something going down, and use your weapon, you were NOT acting in the guise of a security person, you were a member protecting yourself and others, period.

I do think being on a 'Security or Safety Team' is a gray area and if called on the carpet, an overzealous prosecutor or DPS Lawyer might try to construe it as if you were functioning as a security guard. However, your defense would be is that you are a regular member of the church and were a VOLUNTEER MEMBER, and not a hired, paid security guard performing security guard functions.

[KD5NRH]

The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed.

The sections relevant to guards carrying weapons have been around since long before the CHL existed, so any intent in that portion of the law has nothing to do with the CHL.

[Keith B]

The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed.

The sections relevant to guards carrying weapons have been around since long before the CHL existed, so any intent in that portion of the law has nothing to do with the CHL.

The intent is usually re-evaluated when new things, like CHL, come into play. I still feel that the intent is to keep anyone from carrying without the proper security guard certification, and that includes trying to use their CHL once it was introduced into the picture.

[Excaliber]

This whole situation is beyond asinine.

Look, I am in the band. But a function of security might be to keep an eye out for shady looking characters that are showing up in church, roaming the hallways, etc. So if I see someone like this, and report them to one of the "Campus Support" team guys, then have I just engaged in "security", thus breaking the law by doing so while carrying my hand gun? I have actually done that before.

With the statement above, I don't believe you have broken the law.

I think the point is that the church, as in the staff, pastors, or anyone else in authority including a volunteer team leader, are not requiring or requesting their volunteers to be armed. They are not referring to this "team" as "security" or even "safety". But the implication seems to be that you have to yield the entire function of being attentive to "security" issues if you have a volunteer team who may be legally carrying a concealed handgun, otherwise you have to hire professional security contractors. Am I right? How ridiculous is it to say, "if you have a volunteer safety and security team, existing of volunteers who are otherwise regular members of the congregation, you specifically must disallow them from legally carrying firearms, while all other congregation members may carry firearms legally without restriction". How ridiculous is THAT?

Let's get real here guys. The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed. I think the DPS lawyer was also stating if you act in the function of a SECURITY GUARD, i.e. wear a vest that says SECURITY on it, patrol the property after hours, etc., THEN you are breaking the law. Being a member of the church and doing things like playing in the band, singing in the choir, etc. do not count. If you happen to be there and see something going down, and use your weapon, you were NOT acting in the guise of a security person, you were a member protecting yourself and others, period.

I do think being on a 'Security or Safety Team' is a gray area and if called on the carpet, an overzealous prosecutor or DPS Lawyer might try to construe it as if you were functioning as a security guard. However, your defense would be is that you are a regular member of the church and were a VOLUNTEER MEMBER, and not a hired, paid security guard performing security guard functions.

Keith,

Being a volunteer does not by itself take one out from under Private Security Bureau regulation. Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part I Chapter 35 Subchapter A - Definitions - Section 35.1(14) says:

"Employment , Business Activity - These terms, or similar terms or phrases used in the Act in these rules, are not limited in their meaning to "for profit" enterprises or to work performed for remuneration, but include any provision of services regulated by the Bureau, such as services provided on a volunteer or unpaid basis."

[DrBillC]

I'd like to go back to a question that was hinted at earlier, i.e. "two levels of teams". If the unarmed safety team knew who had CHLs and called those with CHLs for help in an escalating situation, this would appear to me to be truly a second team. Also, if a situation were to continue escalating after one with a CHL was called (specifically because he/she was known to be carrying), how likely is it that the responding CHL would be vulnerable to prosecution? I would think the best action for all would be for those with CHLs to not be identified or called and just respond as appropriate to defend themselves, their family, or others.

[Keith B]

This whole situation is beyond asinine.

Look, I am in the band. But a function of security might be to keep an eye out for shady looking characters that are showing up in church, roaming the hallways, etc. So if I see someone like this, and report them to one of the "Campus Support" team guys, then have I just engaged in "security", thus breaking the law by doing so while carrying my hand gun? I have actually done that before.

With the statement above, I don't believe you have broken the law.

I think the point is that the church, as in the staff, pastors, or anyone else in authority including a volunteer team leader, are not requiring or requesting their volunteers to be armed. They are not referring to this "team" as "security" or even "safety". But the implication seems to be that you have to yield the entire function of being attentive to "security" issues if you have a volunteer team who may be legally carrying a concealed handgun, otherwise you have to hire professional security contractors. Am I right? How ridiculous is it to say, "if you have a volunteer safety and security team, existing of volunteers who are otherwise regular members of the congregation, you specifically must disallow them from legally carrying firearms, while all other congregation members may carry firearms legally without restriction". How ridiculous is THAT?

Let's get real here guys. The INTENT of the law is to keep someone from hiring out as a security guard and using their CHL to be armed. I think the DPS lawyer was also stating if you act in the function of a SECURITY GUARD, i.e. wear a vest that says SECURITY on it, patrol the property after hours, etc., THEN you are breaking the law. Being a member of the church and doing things like playing in the band, singing in the choir, etc. do not count. If you happen to be there and see something going down, and use your weapon, you were NOT acting in the guise of a security person, you were a member protecting yourself and others, period.

I do think being on a 'Security or Safety Team' is a gray area and if called on the carpet, an overzealous prosecutor or DPS Lawyer might try to construe it as if you were functioning as a security guard. However, your defense would be is that you are a regular member of the church and were a VOLUNTEER MEMBER, and not a hired, paid security guard performing security guard functions.

Keith,

Being a volunteer does not by itself take one out from under Private Security Bureau regulation. Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part I Chapter 35 Subchapter A - Definitions - Section 35.1(14) says:

"Employment , Business Activity - These terms, or similar terms or phrases used in the Act in these rules, are not limited in their meaning to "for profit" enterprises or to work performed for remuneration, but include any provision of services regulated by the Bureau, such as services provided on a volunteer or unpaid basis."

Good point Excaliber, I had missed that. I think best thing is distancing yourself from anything that has you 'tagged' as a security or safety person and you stay in the black with that. IANADPSL (I Am Not A DPS Lawyer)