TexasCHLforum.com

gugisman wrote:I'm new to this board, and here because I wanted to serve as a part time volunteer in church security operations, and I am seldom not armed. Just two weeks ago we were told that only active, full time peace officers could be on the team - if they were to be armed, or, persons who comply with TX Occupations Code regarding private security.

Apparently, as a result of the May 10, 2007 DPS opinion (in Mr. Cotton's link, above) most of the volunteers (retired state and federal officers) could not legally 'carry' and be on the team. I did the research and wrote to my state representatives to support the bills mentioned in previous posts. However, I think there has been a lot of unwarranted disruption. Please hear me out...

First, regarding the DPS May 10, 2007 opinion: It should be taken as an 'advisory guideline', per the included preface: "These opinions are advisory guidelines intended to inform the public and the regulated community of the department’s position and to facilitate voluntary compliance. They are not binding on the department or any other law enforcement agency, and should not be relied on as authority in support of or defense against any enforcement action. They are subject to modification at the department’s discretion."

I'll try to not get to convoluted here... but I believe the TX Penal Code exempts many potential armed church security team volunteers.

TX Penal Code section 46.02 and 46.03 define what weapons are illegal, where it is illegal to carry, and certain defenses to prosecution (such as security officers, hunters, and so on). Section 1702 of the TX occupations code establishes a commission that regulates private security operations. Absent the defense granted to security officers in TXPC 46.03, it would be illegal for them to posses weapons under TXOC 1702.

TX Penal Code section 46.15 defines to whom the section 46.02 and 46.03 laws do NOT apply...

TXPC 46.15 - Nonapplicability, (a) sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

(certain other individuals in sections 2, 3, 4 7, 8, 9), and,

(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

Also, specifically related to security officers, TXPC 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Private Security Board, if the person is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as an officer commissioned under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment and is wearing the officer's uniform and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view;
(5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person's security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:
(A) is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment; and
(B) is either:
(i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view; or
(ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's weapon in a concealed manner;

CONCLUSION: It seems to me that a the cart has been brought forward of the horse... If active peace officers and honorably retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators are exempt from TXPC weapon law, then they are exempt from the TXOC 1702 related to security officers. Security officers are granted their 'authority' to carry weapons under TXPC by also being (partially) exempted under section 46.15

It is my opinion that TX peace officers and retired peace officers and federal criminal investigators (who comply with the proficiency requirements under TXOC 1701.357) - are acting within legal authority when he/she carries a concealed weapon in church, period. The issue of whether or not the person is involved, formally, as a volunteer member of a church security team is irrelevant.

I would appreciate hearing your comments/opinions/counter-opinions...?

RPBrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote: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.