Church Volunteer Security Groups

[Charles L. Cotton]

The security industry opposed HB2535 purely for economic reasons; they are concerned about loss of revenue. For obvious reasons, this was not mentioned when the lobbyist from ASSIST (Associated Security Services and Investigators of the State of Texas) [not a state agency] testified against the bill (and gave inaccurate testimony in the process). At first, the representative testified that the bill wasn't necessary because churches could do what they want now. This was false, as specifically stated by a DPS Captain who was called to testify as a resource witness. The Captain correctly stated that no CHL could carry a gun as part of a security team, unless they were licensed as a security officer.

When someone has gone through training and has received a state license to do something, there's a natural resistance to allowing others to perform the same function without the same training and licensing. While this is a natural feeling, in some settings it can be both unwarranted and even dangerous. Unless things have changed dramatically since 1995, security officers need to remember that most LEOs and their departments don't think too highly of what they call "rent-a-COPs" because they haven't gone through the same training and aren't licensed as Texas peace officers. To many LEOs, forty hours of training (or whatever it is for security officers) is grossly insufficient to allow them to serve in a quasi-LEO capacity. (It's not a LEO capacity, but that's the way it is perceived by many.) Some security officers feel likewise about CHLs serving in a security role at church for the same reason; the CHL course is not the same as a security officer's school. When all the chaff is torn away, all a volunteer member of a church's security team needs to know is when they can and cannot legally use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves and third persons. They don't have to be COPS and they don't have to be security officers because they are not performing the same functions factually, though they are performing functions that come within the scope of the Chp. 1702 of the Occupations Code. I've already explained what I mean by the difference between a security officer protecting a store and a church volunteer in another post, so I won't repeat it here.

Failing to allow a vote on HB2535 is a mistake that diminishes public safety rather than promote it, arguments by the security industry notwithstanding. It is currently legal for CHLs to carry their self-defense handguns in church, unless the church posts a 30.06 sign. Very few post such signs and there are many tens of thousands of Texas CHLs carrying handguns in church every Sunday as well as other days. Texas law allows all citizens to use deadly force to protect not only themselves but also third persons, regardless of the location. If there is an assault on church-goers, then it is highly likely that an armed CHL will intervene to protect innocent people, and their actions will be perfectly legal and justified.

So what is gained by current law that prohibits armed CHLs from participating in volunteer security teams? Absolutely nothing, they still can and will intervene to protect innocent people and they will do so with whatever skills, training and education they possess. The more vulnerable the victims (children, the elderly, women), the greater the likelihood multiple people will intervene. Current Texas law diminishes public safety by denying churches the ability to coordinate security volunteers. The lack of coordination not only reduces operational efficiency, it increases the likelihood of accidental injury or death. This holds true for the military, law enforcement, and even one's own family. This is one reason why the military and law enforcement train and drill and why every family should have and practice both fire and intruder drills.

If HB2535 had passed, then churches could coordinate their volunteers and perhaps even obtain outside training from LEOs. They could notify their congregations of their volunteer security personnel and perhaps even establish an overall intruder plan to better prepare not only the volunteers on the security team, but the entire congregation as well. There is no downside to coordination; it can only improve safety. Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

{snip}

Failing to allow a vote on HB2535 is a mistake that diminishes public safety rather than promote it, arguments by the security industry notwithstanding. It is currently legal for CHLs to carry their self-defense handguns in church, unless the church posts a 30.06 sign. Very few post such signs and there are many tens of thousands of Texas CHLs carrying handguns in church every Sunday as well as other days. Texas law allows all citizens to use deadly force to protect not only themselves but also third persons, regardless of the location. If there is an assault on church-goers, then it is highly likely that an armed CHL will intervene to protect innocent people, and their actions will be perfectly legal and justified.

So what is gained by current law that prohibits armed CHLs from participating in volunteer security teams? Absolutely nothing, they still can and will intervene to protect innocent people and they will do so with whatever skills, training and education they possess. The more vulnerable the victims (children, the elderly, women), the greater the likelihood multiple people will intervene. Current Texas law diminishes public safety by denying churches the ability to coordinate security volunteers. The lack of coordination not only reduces operational efficiency, it increases the likelihood of accidental injury or death. This holds true for the military, law enforcement, and even one's own family. This is one reason why the military and law enforcement train and drill and why every family should have and practice both fire and intruder drills.

If HB2535 had passed, then churches could coordinate their volunteers and perhaps even obtain outside training from LEOs. They could notify their congregations of their volunteer security personnel and perhaps even establish an overall intruder plan to better prepare not only the volunteers on the security team, but the entire congregation as well. There is no downside to coordination; it can only improve safety. Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

this is exactly what I have been trying to say for several months, thank you sir! you worded it so much better than I ever have!
because of this law, my husband feels unable to lead or server on our parking lot ministry.
Our church would be considered a mid/large church, but is probably lower income, we can't afford a security officer except on Christmas, and he might have even been a volunteer then, I believe he was a member.

[Photoman]

Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

Amen!

[EEllis]

I believe the issue is money and some training, although the training for a level III is pretty minimal. I just shelled out $110 bucks for the level III and IV cards to work an off duty job. If they are going to make a LEO pay the fees to do something we do for a living, it is about the money.

I also bring up the lawsuit, as I have personally been sued for a deadly force incident. They did not receive a penny, but if you are in a shooting, you can expect some attorney to track the family down to try and make a buck on attorney fees. Don't let it scare you from defending yourself, just put it in the back of your head.

I don't know of any officer who has a security licence to work in the Houston area. The majority of extra jobs are not run thru security companies and I would be shocked if that changes. 1702.322 exempts full time officers from needing such as long as they are working as individual contractors. The only reason you would need a card is because you work for a security company. The main reason for that is if a dept reg required such or a business felt the liability would be to great. In Houston HPD officers, by dept policy, are not allowed to assume liability for incidents on extra jobs but some Depts make officers have liability insurance before working extra jobs.

In your case while it may seem easy to blame the state for trying to get "extra" money the truth is you really want them to exempt you from the rules that everyone else goes by. For whatever reason your situation has you working as an full employee of a security company and even with that allows you the exception to work in your own uniform instead of the security company. Also, unless I'm mistaken, you can't apply for a card. The company must do so. So the company is the one that is requiring you to pay not the state. Sure you can keep that card and go to any company you want but without a company applying you cannot do so on your own.The state "charges" the security company not you. They just pass on the fees.

[texanjoker]

I believe the issue is money and some training, although the training for a level III is pretty minimal. I just shelled out $110 bucks for the level III and IV cards to work an off duty job. If they are going to make a LEO pay the fees to do something we do for a living, it is about the money.

I also bring up the lawsuit, as I have personally been sued for a deadly force incident. They did not receive a penny, but if you are in a shooting, you can expect some attorney to track the family down to try and make a buck on attorney fees. Don't let it scare you from defending yourself, just put it in the back of your head.

I don't know of any officer who has a security licence to work in the Houston area. The majority of extra jobs are not run thru security companies and I would be shocked if that changes. 1702.322 exempts full time officers from needing such as long as they are working as individual contractors. The only reason you would need a card is because you work for a security company. The main reason for that is if a dept reg required such or a business felt the liability would be to great. In Houston HPD officers, by dept policy, are not allowed to assume liability for incidents on extra jobs but some Depts make officers have liability insurance before working extra jobs.

In your case while it may seem easy to blame the state for trying to get "extra" money the truth is you really want them to exempt you from the rules that everyone else goes by. For whatever reason your situation has you working as an full employee of a security company and even with that allows you the exception to work in your own uniform instead of the security company. Also, unless I'm mistaken, you can't apply for a card. The company must do so. So the company is the one that is requiring you to pay not the state. Sure you can keep that card and go to any company you want but without a company applying you cannot do so on your own.The state "charges" the security company not you. They just pass on the fees.

You are incorrect as I can apply for a card and have. The company has to sign a form as the employer. DPS charges the fee to the person applying for the card which is the individual. I am exempt from the training due to the fact I am a full time LEO. If I were only working a uniformed off duty gig i wouldn't need one however in TX to work in armed plain clothed protective service DPS requires the cards. That would be similar to a person working plain clothed security at a church as the topic of this thread. They want to do this with a CHL and no advanced training so I am pointing out the fact that even LEOs doing this pay the fee which I did as I don't want to get into trouble for circumventing the law.

[carlson1]

Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

Amen!

[RPBrown]

{snip}

Failing to allow a vote on HB2535 is a mistake that diminishes public safety rather than promote it, arguments by the security industry notwithstanding. It is currently legal for CHLs to carry their self-defense handguns in church, unless the church posts a 30.06 sign. Very few post such signs and there are many tens of thousands of Texas CHLs carrying handguns in church every Sunday as well as other days. Texas law allows all citizens to use deadly force to protect not only themselves but also third persons, regardless of the location. If there is an assault on church-goers, then it is highly likely that an armed CHL will intervene to protect innocent people, and their actions will be perfectly legal and justified.

So what is gained by current law that prohibits armed CHLs from participating in volunteer security teams? Absolutely nothing, they still can and will intervene to protect innocent people and they will do so with whatever skills, training and education they possess. The more vulnerable the victims (children, the elderly, women), the greater the likelihood multiple people will intervene. Current Texas law diminishes public safety by denying churches the ability to coordinate security volunteers. The lack of coordination not only reduces operational efficiency, it increases the likelihood of accidental injury or death. This holds true for the military, law enforcement, and even one's own family. This is one reason why the military and law enforcement train and drill and why every family should have and practice both fire and intruder drills.

If HB2535 had passed, then churches could coordinate their volunteers and perhaps even obtain outside training from LEOs. They could notify their congregations of their volunteer security personnel and perhaps even establish an overall intruder plan to better prepare not only the volunteers on the security team, but the entire congregation as well. There is no downside to coordination; it can only improve safety. Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

this is exactly what I have been trying to say for several months, thank you sir! you worded it so much better than I ever have!
because of this law, my husband feels unable to lead or server on our parking lot ministry.
Our church would be considered a mid/large church, but is probably lower income, we can't afford a security officer except on Christmas, and he might have even been a volunteer then, I believe he was a member.

In as much as I agree with all that is said here, I still maintain that just because you are carrying doesn't mean you have to shirk your ministries. He can still be in/over the parking lot ministry, carry concealed, and protect himself and his family. Now, if he winds up protecting a member of the congregation at the same time, so be it. The difference is that he cannot use "security" in his ministry.
As I stated earlier, we have several of us that carry. Some are on the usher ministry that also looks after our parking lot. We know who each other is mainly because we go shoot together quite often. We all have different duties within the church. But between us, we have stratigic locations or places that we sit, or stand, allowing us clear view to better protect ourselves and families. No one else in the church knows we carry which is one down side to HB2535 not passing as they cannot come to us as security with issues

[EEllis]

You are incorrect as I can apply for a card and have. The company has to sign a form as the employer. DPS charges the fee to the person applying for the card which is the individual. I am exempt from the training due to the fact I am a full time LEO. If I were only working a uniformed off duty gig i wouldn't need one however in TX to work in armed plain clothed protective service DPS requires the cards. That would be similar to a person working plain clothed security at a church as the topic of this thread. They want to do this with a CHL and no advanced training so I am pointing out the fact that even LEOs doing this pay the fee which I did as I don't want to get into trouble for circumventing the law.

I think we are arguing semantics more than anything else. The company is responsible for all paperwork not the individual. Some companies pay for licenses some pass the fees along. Unless you are saying you had them sign and you handled everything else, and if so they need to be audited, then I'm comfortable in my statements. Again even in plain clothes if you don't work for a security company police officers don't have to have a level 4 card per the state. Now different departments can require different things but it isn't the State that made those rules. Just to make sure we are on the same page the state has made no mention of peace officer uniforms being required in their exemption of police from the requirements of private security.

[bizarrenormality]

Lets be honest here about the security officer issue. The major reason people have issues is because of the church connection. If any other org did this then people would be glad the law is how it is. Lets also admit part of the reason the laws are so restrictive is because of how badly they have been broken over the years, While some churches may do a great job running a security squad the next may have some yahoo who bamboozles folks into thinking he has a clue and takes everybody off the cliff with them. These laws are not directed at churches and the DPS is not looking to crack down on anyone because the are having "security meetings" before service. The regs just don't give much leeway for churches not that it targets them.

I agree. I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm. But we don't play dress up.

[chuckybrown]

I find it humorous that people are even arguing with Mr. Cotton.

Some of you don't seem to know his background and involvement in crafting CHL law here in Texas. Do some research.

Kinda like a shade tree mechanic arguing with the engineer that designed the motor.......

[Charles L. Cotton]

I agree. I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

HB2535 has nothing to do with uniforms or badges, it has to do with carrying self-defense firearms.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm.

None of those people have anything to do with volunteers security people in churches. Their function has nothing to do with protecting members of a nonprofit entity (i.e. church). Everything you mentioned is irrelevant to HB2535.

But we don't play dress up.

Careful, your arrogance is showing once again. In case you haven't realized it yet, it's wearing very very thin.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm. But we don't play dress up.

I think you're missing a point here......

IF THIS LAW PASSED..... I don't believe that most churches would require people with CHLs on the security time to "dress up" like security guards. Where in HB2535 does it say they would have to "dress up?" 99% of the time, all this bill really would allow is for CHL holders at a church to coordinate with one another and to communicate that coordination to the pastoral staff....and to make themselves available as a resource to those who oversee church security matters. That's ALL it would do.

At my church, we have an EMS first responder team, and a Security first responder team. All of the Security team members are off-duty LEOs. I know them all, have been to the range with a couple of them, and have plans to go hunting with another one. They ALL know about my CHL, and they are ALL sympathetic to it. I have told each one of them that I realize that the law prevents me from being part of the formal team, but that I may possibly—if it makes tactical sense—deploy a gun and use it to defend my family and/or friends in an active shooter situation. I've told them that I am telling them this so that they will know not to shoot ME if they ever see me with a gun in hand. They are all favorably disposed to this and have ALSO been clear to remind me that I cannot be part of the official team because I am not an LEO. Everything is well understood by all who are involved, but my sense is that if this bill were to pass, they would willingly welcome me (or anyone else who is willing) onto the security team if I were to apply for it. In a church with an average weekly attendance of about 1,500 (of whom maybe only 750-800 are actual members), there aren't that many off-duty cops available to serve in that capacity, so they would probably welcome qualified individuals onto the team if the law allowed it.

But the law doesn't allow it. And because a church our size has limited resources to hire staff, paid security is out of the question. It would be one thing if it were a for-profit business—we could simply tailor the price of our product to cover the cost of additional support staff. However, we're a non-profit with finite resources, and a pool of ready, willing, and able volunteers who would be willing to step up and help the LEOs with security if they could, but who CAN'T step up because the law forbids it. It's not a big thing we are asking for, but you see, because we are law-abiding citizens, we cannot do it. This is one of those things where the law does not serve the public good, but rather it exists.....it would seem in the case of churches.....to protect the interests of an industry lobby.

The libertarian in me would argue that it is better for private church organizations to have full control over handling their own security needs instead of government handling and over-regulating it. Current law gets in the way of that for small non-profits.

[dac1842]

Well this bill again shows that common sense and politics do not mix. A special interest group used less than truthful arguments to kill the bill. As Charles pointed out this bill posed no threat to the security guard industry. The churches that cannot afford to hire guards now aren't going to hire them later either. And if they can't afford to hire guards, the certainly can't afford to hire off duty police.

So churches will either do without, or operate under the radar and pray that nothing happens. And if something does happen, the church staff will have to disavow any knowledge of a "formal team".

As a licensed PI I was in the process of joining ASSIST. After seeing their conduct in this matter I have reconsidered and will not be doing so.

[RPBrown]

I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm. But we don't play dress up.

I think you're missing a point here......

IF THIS LAW PASSED..... I don't believe that most churches would require people with CHLs on the security time to "dress up" like security guards. Where in HB2535 does it say they would have to "dress up?" 99% of the time, all this bill really would allow is for CHL holders at a church to coordinate with one another and to communicate that coordination to the pastoral staff....and to make themselves available as a resource to those who oversee church security matters. That's ALL it would do.

At my church, we have an EMS first responder team, and a Security first responder team. All of the Security team members are off-duty LEOs. I know them all, have been to the range with a couple of them, and have plans to go hunting with another one. They ALL know about my CHL, and they are ALL sympathetic to it. I have told each one of them that I realize that the law prevents me from being part of the formal team, but that I may possibly—if it makes tactical sense—deploy a gun and use it to defend my family and/or friends in an active shooter situation. I've told them that I am telling them this so that they will know not to shoot ME if they ever see me with a gun in hand. They are all favorably disposed to this and have ALSO been clear to remind me that I cannot be part of the official team because I am not an LEO. Everything is well understood by all who are involved, but my sense is that if this bill were to pass, they would willingly welcome me (or anyone else who is willing) onto the security team if I were to apply for it. In a church with an average weekly attendance of about 1,500 (of whom maybe only 750-800 are actual members), there aren't that many off-duty cops available to serve in that capacity, so they would probably welcome qualified individuals onto the team if the law allowed it.

But the law doesn't allow it. And because a church our size has limited resources to hire staff, paid security is out of the question. It would be one thing if it were a for-profit business—we could simply tailor the price of our product to cover the cost of additional support staff. However, we're a non-profit with finite resources, and a pool of ready, willing, and able volunteers who would be willing to step up and help the LEOs with security if they could, but who CAN'T step up because the law forbids it. It's not a big thing we are asking for, but you see, because we are law-abiding citizens, we cannot do it. This is one of those things where the law does not serve the public good, but rather it exists.....it would seem in the case of churches.....to protect the interests of an industry lobby.

The libertarian in me would argue that it is better for private church organizations to have full control over handling their own security needs instead of government handling and over-regulating it. Current law gets in the way of that for small non-profits.

I agree with TAM here. We have no security team. We have a small church that does not have the funding available for security. If there is a security related issue that needs reporting generally it is reported to the pastor or associate pastor, sometimes to late to do anything about it. We have had some cars broken into in the parking lot and even a woman assaulted by her ex boyfriend and nothing could be done because there was no security team.

This bill would have allowed us to put together a security team (no badges or uniforms) so that we may safely look after the parking lots, the youth building that is separated from the church, an the inside of the church. We could also set a schedule for the team so they would know which service they would be security for. It would also allow for some advanced preparation. All of this we cannot do at this time because the special intrest groups feel we will be taking money out of their pocket and lobbied against it. Well guess what, they got their way, we still are left defensless so to speak, and still will not have the funds available to hire security. So the special intrest groups made a lot of money from our church (sarcasm).

And for those that are disputing what Charles has been saying here, you had better do some homework and research on this forum as well as Charles Cotton. I would accept his view on anything CHL related long before probably anyone else here.

[Excaliber]

I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm. But we don't play dress up.

I think you're missing a point here......

IF THIS LAW PASSED..... I don't believe that most churches would require people with CHLs on the security time to "dress up" like security guards. Where in HB2535 does it say they would have to "dress up?" 99% of the time, all this bill really would allow is for CHL holders at a church to coordinate with one another and to communicate that coordination to the pastoral staff....and to make themselves available as a resource to those who oversee church security matters. That's ALL it would do.

At my church, we have an EMS first responder team, and a Security first responder team. All of the Security team members are off-duty LEOs. I know them all, have been to the range with a couple of them, and have plans to go hunting with another one. They ALL know about my CHL, and they are ALL sympathetic to it. I have told each one of them that I realize that the law prevents me from being part of the formal team, but that I may possibly—if it makes tactical sense—deploy a gun and use it to defend my family and/or friends in an active shooter situation. I've told them that I am telling them this so that they will know not to shoot ME if they ever see me with a gun in hand. They are all favorably disposed to this and have ALSO been clear to remind me that I cannot be part of the official team because I am not an LEO. Everything is well understood by all who are involved, but my sense is that if this bill were to pass, they would willingly welcome me (or anyone else who is willing) onto the security team if I were to apply for it. In a church with an average weekly attendance of about 1,500 (of whom maybe only 750-800 are actual members), there aren't that many off-duty cops available to serve in that capacity, so they would probably welcome qualified individuals onto the team if the law allowed it.

But the law doesn't allow it. And because a church our size has limited resources to hire staff, paid security is out of the question. It would be one thing if it were a for-profit business—we could simply tailor the price of our product to cover the cost of additional support staff. However, we're a non-profit with finite resources, and a pool of ready, willing, and able volunteers who would be willing to step up and help the LEOs with security if they could, but who CAN'T step up because the law forbids it. It's not a big thing we are asking for, but you see, because we are law-abiding citizens, we cannot do it. This is one of those things where the law does not serve the public good, but rather it exists.....it would seem in the case of churches.....to protect the interests of an industry lobby.

The libertarian in me would argue that it is better for private church organizations to have full control over handling their own security needs instead of government handling and over-regulating it. Current law gets in the way of that for small non-profits.

I agree with TAM here. We have no security team. We have a small church that does not have the funding available for security. If there is a security related issue that needs reporting generally it is reported to the pastor or associate pastor, sometimes to late to do anything about it. We have had some cars broken into in the parking lot and even a woman assaulted by her ex boyfriend and nothing could be done because there was no security team.

This bill would have allowed us to put together a security team (no badges or uniforms) so that we may safely look after the parking lots, the youth building that is separated from the church, an the inside of the church. We could also set a schedule for the team so they would know which service they would be security for. It would also allow for some advanced preparation. All of this we cannot do at this time because the special intrest groups feel we will be taking money out of their pocket and lobbied against it. Well guess what, they got their way, we still are left defensless so to speak, and still will not have the funds available to hire security. So the special intrest groups made a lot of money from our church (sarcasm).

And for those that are disputing what Charles has been saying here, you had better do some homework and research on this forum as well as Charles Cotton. I would accept his view on anything CHL related long before probably anyone else here.

Although I hold several security licenses, I agree with both TAM and RP here.

The legislators once again made a decision that does not benefit their constituents.