TexasCHLforum.com

No "specific, credible threat", but they say ISIS has suggested sympathizers target holiday gatherings this weekend.

Probably nothing new, but I'll be carrying a few extra mags at the Christmas Eve service tonight.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/ ... ay-events/

Everyone stay on top of your surroundings today and tomorrow, and Merry Christmas!

The growing danger is from lone wolf terrorists. Coordinated large scale attacks are much harder to pull off, but convincing others to take unilateral action only takes a slick tongue and someone already wanting to kill others.

Head on a swivel folks!
Chas.

It's warnings like this that should help the legislature decide to legalize license holders being participate in church security in an official capacity. Imagine a small church in a rural part of Texas with ten to fifteen families being targeted. They do not have the money to hire a security force, they might have one or two police officers in the pews but are more likely to have LTC holders in those pews as well. Many will attempt to defend their church, but when push comes to shove they will not have a coordinated plan because the security industry feels they are threat to their business model. While a single attacker won't be a problem for LTC holders in a small church, imagine if three attackers hit the church each coming through a different exit. This kind of attack can be repelled but is better dealt with when a security team has a plan of action and knows exactly what to do.

Not disclosing my church, but we have around 80% IWB participation where I go, including our pastor. That, plus everyone knows everyone (small town), so a new face will stick out like a sore thumb.

Everyone needs to be on high alert all the time anyways, but especially if you live in one of the fascist run States. You have been made into soft targets thanks to the traitors running you off of the cliff. Be careful.

SRO1911 wrote:While anything that expands ltc is a step in the right direction, I would strongly prefer a broader approach.

Protecting all licensees - not just in a church setting.

As beneficial as the bill protecting volunteer first responders would be to me personally, I cannot in good faith support the creation of yet another special class.

Regardless, I wish you all a blessed yule AND a merry Christmas.
Be vigilant, be strong, be safe.

There is a very fine line between church security groups and the security industry. The law itself is intended to prohibit unarmed security guards from carrying under the authority of an LTC while they are working. At one point a representative from the security industry's lobbying arm actually lied to the legislature to say this legislation was not needed because churches could already create security teams and allow LTCs (CHLs at the time) to participate. The law would actually treat such LTCs as armed security guards employed by the church even though they are just members of the congregation who want to coordinate their efforts to stop potential attackers on a volunteer basis.

I fail to see how this would create a protected class within the LTC community. If there are other high value, low risk, targets for people who simply want to kill a bunch of people that does not already similar mechanisms in place then please tell us. We can't use k-12 schools because many already allow teachers to carry in order to protect the students, plus they also have that whole school marshal thing going on. Looking at your signature line it appears to me that you consider churches and government to both be sides on the coin of oppression, if this is the case then is your personal bias keeping you from looking at this in a logical manner?

The problem for me is that the former Dallas Bishop instructed all the Catholic churches in his Diocese to post 30.06 & 30.07 signs.

My church does not hire off-duty LEOs.

We have a few, one less since 7.7.2016, that are in our congregation, but they are too few and cannot be at all Masses. Since the former Bishop has left, the signs remain and I do not foresee them being removed by the new Bishop yet.

For me, it's bad enough that I must disarm before entering work, but throw in my church and the amount of time I am unarmed far outweighs the time I am.

G.A. Heath wrote:

SRO1911 wrote:While anything that expands ltc is a step in the right direction, I would strongly prefer a broader approach.

Protecting all licensees - not just in a church setting.

As beneficial as the bill protecting volunteer first responders would be to me personally, I cannot in good faith support the creation of yet another special class.

Regardless, I wish you all a blessed yule AND a merry Christmas.
Be vigilant, be strong, be safe.

There is a very fine line between church security groups and the security industry. The law itself is intended to prohibit unarmed security guards from carrying under the authority of an LTC while they are working. At one point a representative from the security industry's lobbying arm actually lied to the legislature to say this legislation was not needed because churches could already create security teams and allow LTCs (CHLs at the time) to participate. The law would actually treat such LTCs as armed security guards employed by the church even though they are just members of the congregation who want to coordinate their efforts to stop potential attackers on a volunteer basis.

I fail to see how this would create a protected class within the LTC community. If there are other high value, low risk, targets for people who simply want to kill a bunch of people that does not already similar mechanisms in place then please tell us. We can't use k-12 schools because many already allow teachers to carry in order to protect the students, plus they also have that whole school marshal thing going on. Looking at your signature line it appears to me that you consider churches and government to both be sides on the coin of oppression, if this is the case then is your personal bias keeping you from looking at this in a logical manner?

Just another "over reach" by the Texas Private Security lobbyist. They are NOT on my Christmas List.

I am not on my church security team but I do carry and the Pastor knows it. We had no issues today.

Lets celebrate the fact nothing happened in regards of the topic title and call it a win-win situation.

First thing I thought of when the power went out during Christmas eve service yesterday but I learned after service half of Friendswood lost power.

C-dub wrote:The problem for me is that the former Dallas Bishop instructed all the Catholic churches in his Diocese to post 30.06 & 30.07 signs.

My church does not hire off-duty LEOs.

We have a few, one less since 7.7.2016, that are in our congregation, but they are too few and cannot be at all Masses. Since the former Bishop has left, the signs remain and I do not foresee them being removed by the new Bishop yet.

For me, it's bad enough that I must disarm before entering work, but throw in my church and the amount of time I am unarmed far outweighs the time I am.

It's not just the Dallas Bishop but the Fort Worth as well. It is like they don't care about our families. Even the Pope is protected by armed guards. I don't get it at all.