Church is considering posting 30.06

[OverEasy]

RiveraRA,
Here is a thread on the GlockTalk forum that might help you.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthr ... ?t=1001336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's about carry in church.

Regards, OE

[Charles L. Cotton]

In my view, here are the two controlling facts:

• I don't know of a CHL being shot by a LEO in a case of mistaken identity in an "active shooter" situation;
  I don't know of a SWAT response (or other LEO response) to an "active shooter" scenario arriving in time to save any lives.

Our church also just set up security teams and we absolutely did not and will never prevent CHLs from carrying on campus. In fact, I am teaching a CHL class for many church members this weekend. One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).

Chas.

[Photoman]

Your LEO giving advice will be BEGGING for armed CHL'ers when a half dozen jihadis with AK's and hand grenades storm your service.

Please take the time to speak with your pastor in private regarding this issue.

[Rex B]

One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).

Charles, can you expand on the reasons for this?

[KFP]

You may want to advise the officer to leave his gun at home, or he could wear his uniform to church each Sunday. Why would the LEOs arriving on scene not shoot him as easily as any other person in the congregation?

[DoubleJ]

I know, just have anyone in the congregation who's packing (and not working Security) proudly display their CHL Badge to First Responders!!!!

what? bad idea???

[Captain Matt]

One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).

Charles, can you expand on the reasons for this?

I think the reason is probably the laws and regulations for security guards carrying guns.

[Charles L. Cotton]

One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).

Charles, can you expand on the reasons for this?

I'll try to find the statutory authority, but the short version is anyone serving as a security guard must be licensed as a security guard. There is an exception for unarmed voluntary security personnel for churches and possibly other charitable organizations.

If I can find the statute, I'll post it.

Chas.

[dac1842]

First, unless your church intends on getting a security license for you guys to act as "security". Change to a safety team. (Been through that with DPS already). Now for the CHL issue, Our church is not posted nor at this time do we intend to. We have uniform officers there and plain clothes. We do have CHL's we know that carry. Without going into detail of our plan, the short version is everyone is told to get down. If someone id's himself as a CHL'r we tell them to get down and leave the rest to us. We have no issues with CHL's, but we have plans and since they are not apart of our safety team they are not privey to the plans and we do no want any innocents getting hurt.

While we recognize that CHL's can play a part in the onset of an incident we want to execute the plans we have in place. Do not discourage the CHL's, they can play apart in the immediate response. We have enough folks strategically placed throughout that we can respond to any part of our church literally within seconds and if necessary place a chl holder with a LEO.

But, we do not want to expose anyone to danger that is not trained to deal with it. I hold a chl as well. But I have 15 years of law enforcement with two of that on a SWAT team. Most CHL's have the course. Nothing more. While we do not intend on posting our church, we do not want anyone responding to an incident that does not practice and train with us.

[E10]

Then at the very end he said that we should also consider not allowing people to carry concealed, meaning people with CHLs. He said that if the cops show up for an active shooter situation and you have a gun in your hand then they will shoot you. He also said that the avg CHL holder qualifies once. SWAT team qualifies twice a month or something like that.

With a few CHL holders, legally carrying in the church, there won't be an "active shooter situation" when the police arrive. All the police will need to bring are there pens and paper to take statements.

By the time the police arrive, the active shooter should be down and all CHL weapons reloaded and reconcealed.

When seconds count, SWAT is only minutes away.

[Charles L. Cotton]

First, unless your church intends on getting a security license for you guys to act as "security". Change to a safety team. (Been through that with DPS already). Now for the CHL issue, Our church is not posted nor at this time do we intend to. We have uniform officers there and plain clothes. We do have CHL's we know that carry. Without going into detail of our plan, the short version is everyone is told to get down. If someone id's himself as a CHL'r we tell them to get down and leave the rest to us. We have no issues with CHL's, but we have plans and since they are not apart of our safety team they are not privey to the plans and we do no want any innocents getting hurt.

While we recognize that CHL's can play a part in the onset of an incident we want to execute the plans we have in place. Do not discourage the CHL's, they can play apart in the immediate response. We have enough folks strategically placed throughout that we can respond to any part of our church literally within seconds and if necessary place a chl holder with a LEO.

But, we do not want to expose anyone to danger that is not trained to deal with it. I hold a chl as well. But I have 15 years of law enforcement with two of that on a SWAT team. Most CHL's have the course. Nothing more. While we do not intend on posting our church, we do not want anyone responding to an incident that does not practice and train with us.

Just to follow up on what dac1842 said, the situation is markedly different if you have armed security personnel on campus, whether in uniform or otherwise. In that situation, the CHL is in much the same position he/she would be in in any public place such as a shopping mall or theater. When the shooting starts, there is a much greater chance that the CHL could be misidentified by the armed security personnel, than would be the case if a LEO response was coming from off campus. I'm not too worried about misidentification if FPD units are responding to a "shots fired" call, as the shooting will be over before they arrive. But a bunch of people who are strangers to each other going to guns at the same time is a tactical nightmare. If we had armed LEOs on campus, then I would draw and fire only if the attacker were posing a direct threat to me, my wife, or the kids in my youth group. (This assumes the security personnel are at my location, not 2 minutes away.)

I would never support posting our church and in fact I would move to another if we did. However, dac1842's warning about untrained response in a crowded setting like a church should taken to heart. If the only person in harms way is an untrained, seldom practiced CHL, then anything is better than acquiescing to a massacre. However, if armed security personnel are present . . . well, I can't make a life or death decision for anyone else.

I would suggest that, to the extent possible, LEO security teams at a church should try to learn the CHLs in the congregation, but the larger the attendance and the more reluctant CHLs are to identify themselves, the harder will be this task. I also think CHLs should try to learn the people on their security team, if the church is willing to identify them. I understand the arguments against disclosure, but in this situation, I think the value of anonymity is far outweighed by reducing the risk of "friendly fire" that, as Clint Smith says, "really isn't friendly."

Chas.

[ELB]

One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).

Charles, can you expand on the reasons for this?

I'll try to find the statutory authority, but the short version is anyone serving as a security guard must be licensed as a security guard. There is an exception for unarmed voluntary security personnel for churches and possibly other charitable organizations.

If I can find the statute, I'll post it.

Chas.

This is from the DPS website, the section on Private Security Bureau (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Specifically, it is from a link entitled "PSB Opinion Summaries."


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/docs/psb_opin_sum.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Church Volunteer Security Patrol May 10, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under
the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is
received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature
for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to
nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and
would not be applicable here.
However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that
could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security Department of Private
Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for
one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with
any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or
apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.323(a) & (d)(2).
Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject
them to the licensing requirements of the act.

Some thoughts:

Yes the Deputy advising your church to ban CHLs is being foolish. (Whoever commented above that if he really believes what he says he better wear his uniform every Sunday or leave his gun at home was dead-on). And unarmed "safety teams" that can't figure out how to incorporate CHLs are not much use for an armed assailant. Unless there are armed people, off-duty/on-duty LEOs or what-have-you, right at the point of confrontation as it happens, CHLs are all you got.

Even at the New Life Church in Colorado, several people were killed and wounded while that CHL holder, the gal, had to run from one side of the church to the other -- she wasn't at the point of confrontation when the shooting started. Also remember, that church had intel that something might happen, and had armed police officers, right there at the church -- and as soon as they went home after the service ended, the bad guy started shooting. Cops missed the whole thing.

I recently attended an interactive training session (laser-equipped guns with computer-driven video scenarios) on shoot/no-shoot judgement. This was put on by a police department (not one from my city/county) that was put on specifically for CHL holders, because this police department encourages CHLs to be trained -- not to intervene in place of police, but to be ready for a confrontation if it happens, because they know the cops normally won't get there in time. The officers at the training, including their deputy police chief, said they feel better knowing there are CHLs in the community and that at least there is the potential for a lone cop to be helped out if he gets in trouble. They are feeling their way forward with this initiative, but plan to do it again, and make it at least an annual event. The training they were giving us was the same they were giving their patrol officers, except we got more scenarios to run through. They clearly did NOT have the "only one" mentality... (p.s. here is a real thread-hijacker...they did NOT disparage the idea of CHL badges...)

The point being that LEOs and "safety teams" need to figure out how to deal with a situation that includes identifying "good guy" CHLs. This would seem to be easier in a church where people know each other, as opposed to a mall or McWhatsit. If your deputy prevails, I would find a new church.

best wishes,

[DoubleJ]

The point being that LEOs and "safety teams" need to figure out how to deal with a situation that includes identifying "good guy" CHLs. This would seem to be easier in a church where people know each other, as opposed to a mall or McWhatsit. If your deputy prevails, I would find a new church.

Someone (I don't remember who) once said, "The bad guy is the one murdering people, the good guy is the one defending himself."
if only all things were that simple...

[Photoman]

While we do not intend on posting our church, we do not want anyone responding to an incident that does not practice and train with us.

Have you told them that? If not, you might consider telling them as some will surely respond in the event of an active shooter in the building.

[austin]

Then at the very end he said that we should also consider not allowing people to carry concealed, meaning people with CHLs. He said that if the cops show up for an active shooter situation and you have a gun in your hand then they will shoot you. He also said that the avg CHL holder qualifies once. SWAT team qualifies twice a month or something like that.
!

I call bull to his face.

I know a team member of a SWAT team and we shoot together regularly. I know another team member from a county tactical team.

Both have told me that they train for and expect CHL's to be around during an active shooter incident. Neither has an issue with CHLs and they are glad they are around.

They train to ID the real shooter by their actions, not by whether they have a gun out.

You should ask him if he PERSONALLY is willing to assume the liability for damages caused by excluding CHLs? There are a number of lawyers and legal firms ITCHING to make case law by suing and winning the first case where a CHLer was excluded and was killed because he or she left their pistol at home. This will be a slam dunk in a Texas venue.