Church Safety Team Carry (DPS lawyer says No)

[toddlinder]

I have spoken in the past with DPS about church security:
- Do not use the word "security" (use "safety" or "eyes and ears" team)
- No uniforms
These things would mean your church team must be licensed by DPS (which I would think only a mega church would consider given all the hassles of operating a licensed security company). So, no problem.

The biggest challenge to those folks carrying weapons seemed to be the occupational code for security guards (section 1702). But most people seemed to believe that 1702.323 allowed volunteers to carry while on the "team"

New News: while at a church safety/security seminar several people (and myself) spoke with the presenter (Hurst Police Officer) about this issue - he always said in the past it was ok, based on his understing of the law, just get written permission from the pastor. But in several calls DPS and talking to their legal department (since the legal dept. would be the ones deciding to press charges if they believed the law was broken). After much discussion he said DPS stated that people in the church providing a security type function (even if you don't call it security) and being armed would be taking the job of a comissioned security guard. And therefore that is not ok (like preforming the job of an electrician without being licensed, etc.). The interesting thing is it did not seem to be a problem to have unarmed security type people doing that job (wouldn't they being taking the place of non-comissioned security guards). Maybe they were looking at a different law, hard to say.

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. Of course, LEO's could be on the team and carry. Well, that is fine, but it sure make things more complicated for the larger church and could be almost impossible for the medium size or small church that would not have a enough people to fill both those "roles."

They did say that problem would only present itself 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.

[Excaliber]

I have spoken in the past with DPS about church security:
- Do not use the word "security" (use "safety" or "eyes and ears" team)
- No uniforms
These things would mean your church team must be licensed by DPS (which I would think only a mega church would consider given all the hassles of operating a licensed security company). So, no problem.

The biggest challenge to those folks carrying weapons seemed to be the occupational code for security guards (section 1702). But most people seemed to believe that 1702.323 allowed volunteers to carry while on the "team"

New News: while at a church safety/security seminar several people (and myself) spoke with the presenter (Hurst Police Officer) about this issue - he always said in the past it was ok, based on his understing of the law, just get written permission from the pastor. But in several calls DPS and talking to their legal department (since the legal dept. would be the ones deciding to press charges if they believed the law was broken). After much discussion he said DPS stated that people in the church providing a security type function (even if you don't call it security) and being armed would be taking the job of a comissioned security guard. And therefore that is not ok (like preforming the job of an electrician without being licensed, etc.). The interesting thing is it did not seem to be a problem to have unarmed security type people doing that job (wouldn't they being taking the place of non-comissioned security guards). Maybe they were looking at a different law, hard to say.

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. Of course, LEO's could be on the team and carry. Well, that is fine, but it sure make things more complicated for the larger church and could be almost impossible for the medium size or small church that would not have a enough people to fill both those "roles."

They did say that problem would only present itself 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 am not a lawyer, but in the course of the church security consulting work I do as part of my day job, I have done considerable research in this area. You received pretty much the same story as I did from DPS. Here's a DPS legal opinion (posted on their web site) that encapsulates the major issues:


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.

As I read the law and the opinion above, and from my conversations directly with DPS personnel in Austin, my best current understanding is that anyone who carries a handgun as part of an organized church security function would fall under the licensing requirements for armed security officers. The folks in Austin made it clear that such a person would be in real deep water if that came to the attention of law enforcement or the Private Security Bureau, as it most certainly would during the investigation of a major violent incident. CHL holders who attend services as part of their religious observances are not regulated by the Private Security Bureau because they are not performing a security function.

There are a couple other points that don't fit the church environment well, including the fact that commissioned security officers (the armed category) are required to be in uniform and to wear their weapons exposed. Many churches would find this unacceptable.

The main issue appears to be that the law was written primarily to regulate companies that provide security services to others, and the needs and practical solutions churches must work within don't fit neatly into the boxes the law created for those other purposes. This is unlikely to change in the near future unless churches band together to create a proposed set of changes to the law and secure the necessary backing from our elected representatives. Even if this is done, with our 2 year legislative cycle, a solution is at least 2 years away.

The bottom line is that an effective church security program can still be set up under the current law, but any use of designated and organized armed personnel is regulated (even LEO's in this capacity must have the formal permission of their commanding officer) and has to be in strict compliance with DPS requirements.

[mr.72]

Ok, help me understand this.

Let's say a church has a volunteer team they call "Campus Support" who may do the types of things you might associate with security, but they are not "security" per se. They are sort of like ushers. Let's say some of these people may have a CHL and may carry, just like any volunteers in any ministry at the church may have a CHL and may be carrying (like, for example, I have a CHL and typically carry at church, and I am a musician with the church band... maybe we have choir members who have a CHL and who also carry, etc.). There is no policy to ask about CHL status for these members, or to be aware of whether they are carrying while serving on the "Campus Support" team.

So, is this a problem?

[toddlinder]

Thanks Excalibur for the informative comments and DPS web site quotes.

Mr.72 - here is what I am thinking: ushers, musicians, greeters, etc. are not providing security type of functions, therefore they are ok. But if "campus support" does things that look like securtiy then if something bad happened an investigation would reveal that this group did provide some security looking functions (looks like a duck, sounds like a duck must be a duck) then they are in trouble.

[Keith B]

Thanks Excalibur for the informative comments and DPS web site quotes.

Mr.72 - here is what I am thinking: ushers, musicians, greeters, etc. are not providing security type of functions, therefore they are ok. But if "campus support" does things that look like securtiy then if something bad happened an investigation would reveal that this group did provide some security looking functions (looks like a duck, sounds like a duck must be a duck) then they are in trouble.

I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's. However, at our church (6K+ members) we have LOTS of Greeters that are at doors and out in front of the church to welcome folks. If one of them just happened to be carrying, then it was coincidence.

IANAL, BTW

[mr.72]

I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's.

Are you implying that the church or team leadership have any awareness or requirement of CHL holders in their team? Or, in other words, does a CHL holder give up their right to carry under the authority of their CHL when they join a volunteer team at church that might do something that looks like "security"?

OK, but I guess that depends on what the definition of "involved with security" is to begin with.

[Keith B]

I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's.

Are you implying that the church or team leadership have any awareness or requirement of CHL holders in their team? Or, in other words, does a CHL holder give up their right to carry under the authority of their CHL when they join a volunteer team at church that might do something that looks like "security"?

OK, but I guess that depends on what the definition of "involved with security" is to begin with.

IANAL, but my interpretation is if you function, even as a volunteer, in any named capacity that relates to the security of the church, then may be potentially in violation of the statutes.

Now, I am a choir member, play guitar and bass, attend Sunday School, and volunteer on other committees and organizations in the church. I don't 'carry' under any authority of a team or function, and am not ASKED to carry either. If I happen to have to use my CCW in my or an others defense, then it was just happenstance; I was not acting in a role as a member of a security or safety team. IMO that keeps me out of the gray area and OK in the eyes of the statutes.

[Excaliber]

I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's.

Are you implying that the church or team leadership have any awareness or requirement of CHL holders in their team? Or, in other words, does a CHL holder give up their right to carry under the authority of their CHL when they join a volunteer team at church that might do something that looks like "security"?

OK, but I guess that depends on what the definition of "involved with security" is to begin with.

IANAL, but my interpretation is if you function, even as a volunteer, in any named capacity that relates to the security of the church, then may be potentially in violation of the statutes.

Now, I am a choir member, play guitar and bass, attend Sunday School, and volunteer on other committees and organizations in the church. I don't 'carry' under any authority of a team or function, and am not ASKED to carry either. If I happen to have to use my CCW in my or an others defense, then it was just happenstance; I was not acting in a role as a member of a security or safety team. IMO that keeps me out of the gray area and OK in the eyes of the statutes.

Again, I am not a lawyer. However, it is my understanding from the DPS legal opinion cited below that if an unarmed volunteer performs security related functions for one church and does not wear a uniform, badge, patch, or anything that says "security," he falls under the exception as noted. If he is armed and performing a security related function, with or without a uniform, badge, or patch, he would fall under the licensing requirements.

In my conversations with DPS, they indicated that the criteria they use to determine if a function is security related or not is very close to the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,....." etc. regardless of what you choose to call it and whether or not the folks performing the function are paid or not.

The activities Keith describes are not security related and therefore are not regulated by the Private Security Bureau. If he as a CHL holding private citizen exercises his rights in a church which does not post 30.06, I am unaware of anything that would prohibit him from doing so.

For those who would like to delve into this more deeply, here are a couple of links to info on the DPS web site that may help:

1702 Tx Occupational Code - This is the law that states what is regulated and the requirements for each regulated function.
Administrative Rules- The rules that guide how the regulatory functions are carried out.

[Oldgringo]

I personally would not make any official 'team' that had anything to do with or looked like it was involved with security and had CHL's.

Are you implying that the church or team leadership have any awareness or requirement of CHL holders in their team? Or, in other words, does a CHL holder give up their right to carry under the authority of their CHL when they join a volunteer team at church that might do something that looks like "security"?

OK, but I guess that depends on what the definition of "involved with security" is to begin with.

IANAL, but my interpretation is if you function, even as a volunteer, in any named capacity that relates to the security of the church, then may be potentially in violation of the statutes.

Now, I am a choir member, play guitar and bass, attend Sunday School, and volunteer on other committees and organizations in the church. I don't 'carry' under any authority of a team or function, and am not ASKED to carry either. If I happen to have to use my CCW in my or an others defense, then it was just happenstance; I was not acting in a role as a member of a security or safety team. IMO that keeps me out of the gray area and OK in the eyes of the statutes.

Is Keith suggesting that, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix and/or complicate it'?

[The Annoyed Man]

I have had this idea rumbling around in my gourd for a while, and I'm very conscious of the DPS limitations. Here's my thoughts based only on my own experience.

A number of us have our CHLs. I know who some are. Some of the folks I know are aware of who some of the others are, etc., etc. What I would like is for an informal gathering perhaps as a planned range day or something where we could all gather and get to know one another a little bit, separately from any church management, so that we will be previously identified to one another in the event of a situation.

That's it. No patrolling. No formal security team. None of that.

[Oldgringo]

I have had this idea rumbling around in my gourd for a while, and I'm very conscious of the DPS limitations. Here's my thoughts based only on my own experience.

A number of us have our CHLs. I know who some are. Some of the folks I know are aware of who some of the others are, etc., etc. What I would like is for an informal gathering perhaps as a planned range day or something where we could all gather and get to know one another a little bit, separately from any church management, so that we will be previously identified to one another in the event of a situation.

That's it. No patrolling. No formal security team. None of that.

WHAT??? No CHL badge either?

[Keith B]

Excaliber, your post is exactly what I am implying. Nothing formal, you are a member and do member things and just happen to have a CHL.

Old Gringo, not really, just saying you can carry as long as they don't post 30.06 or verbally tell you you can't; just don't let the fact that you are carrying as a CHL be part of your of required duty in the job. That includes being part of a 'security team' or other job that the church would EXPECT you to respond to a situation.

TAM, I don't see why there would be anything wrong with knowing who other CHL'ers are in the church. The fact that you are just out shooting with other church members couldn't be construed as organizing a Church SWAT Team.

[mr surveyor]

I have had this idea rumbling around in my gourd for a while, and I'm very conscious of the DPS limitations. Here's my thoughts based only on my own experience.

A number of us have our CHLs. I know who some are. Some of the folks I know are aware of who some of the others are, etc., etc. What I would like is for an informal gathering perhaps as a planned range day or something where we could all gather and get to know one another a little bit, separately from any church management, so that we will be previously identified to one another in the event of a situation.

That's it. No patrolling. No formal security team. None of that.

There's at least 20 guys in my church of about 300 attendance that hunt, fish, range shoot, or talk guns together... a lot. At least half of those are CHL's, and none of us have a problem with discussing that fact amongst our group. We have no "organized security team", but we are all aware of each other in the buildings and either expect, or know for a fact, that the other(s) are carrying. Heck, most of us know which of their handguns the others are carrying on a given Sunday. The idea of the top secret identity of a CHL status amongst friends just totally confuses me. If it weren't for open discussion in our circle there would be a whole lot fewer CHLs in the bunch. And, there are several more (including ladies) that now plan to get their CHL in the near future. That's just the way life is in a small, tight knit community.

surv

[toddlinder]

I think that what you'all are talking about is a very good way of dealing with the issue, especially in the small to medium size church. The thing that makes it difficult for my situation is that we have a "team" of people connected by radios (parking lot, this building, that area, etc.) and are prepared to deal with and get assistance for: medical issues, fire, missing child, non-custodial parent wanting to take a child, etc., etc. Clearly those folks are "walking like a duck" and those folks would be the most logical to be armed (which cannot happen), so now some of the chl people need to not be on the team (or rotate) but still be there to respond if there is a problem, but they can't be connected with the people with radios (that would certainly look like a duck) who are going to be the ones that will know if there is a problem. Ahhh . . . it just makes it a whole lot more complicated.