TexasCHLforum.com

I know that #3 is 6th on the list but it seems to me that it could be one of the easiest to get passed. If I understand the timeline correctly, the statute stating church security teams could not be armed was on the books before CHL was in effect. That makes a lot of sense. The ability for a church to form a "security" team and then arm them (or allow them to be armed) would have been outside of the current law (LEOs excepted). Now with the CHL in place it simply excludes a population from being able to participate in a ministry. Instead, as Charles has mentioned, it now prohibits a concerted plan and effort to deal with violent attacks. Instead of having CHLs in positions that could potential respond in a proactive and productive manner they are regulated to be reactive. Now that a growing number of schools are allowing there teachers to carry it seems they are forming "security" teams of some sort. While many schools are requiring additional training there is no State mandated requirement for this. If a school can enlist teachers, train them on tax-payer funds (which I don't mind), and even buy them the ammo and allow a stipend for buying a weapon then I can't see why a church can't allow their CHL holders to staff a team that stands in the foyer, greets people, and is prepared for an incident. I don't think it should be mandatory to have additional training but I agree with Charles that it would be advantageous.

I have heard the argument of semantics stating, "Teachers are hired to teach so they are not a security team in the same way a (volunteer) team is at a church." So if a teacher is hired to teach but we train them, buy ammo, and allow stipends aren't we forming a security team? "But they are only supposed to secure their classrooms and hunker down." Really? Now I haven't heard of any training or expectations of making a group of teachers a SWAT team but if we are training them at all we are expecting them not just to hide but to be prepared (NOT required) to engage an active shooter in the the hallways or cafeteria. I have had the privilege of talking with several of the teachers and administrators of different schools. All of them have said they will protect their kids first. They also stated that if they do not have responsibility over a group of students at the time (maybe a conference period) they would, to some degree, seek out the shooter. They may not be clearing the building or running through a hail of bullets coming down the hall but they would move, as they are able, to the sound of bullets. Now what they would do in an actual event we do not know but they have the mindset of what they would do. Why can't church "security" members have the same ability? I really think that the schools have set the precedent and any actions against an "armed" church security team (no uniforms, just members on the same page) will be tough to prosecute. That said, I don't want to be, or my congregation, the test case. All this said I will have to defer to Mr. Cotton's expertise in how the law may interpret this.

I agree with the majority that repealing most of the off-limits places is desirable and I can see where the other top-ranking issues can be good and I'll support them. I do think that the "church security" issue is an antiquated law and needs to be addressed in a serious way.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's a very interesting observation Steve. Obviously some folks are voting for fewer than 4 issues, possiblly to add greater weight to their choices. (It could be as high as 37 as of the current numbers.) I wonder which category is most likely to benefit from "bullet voting?" Just kidding.

Chas.

srothstein wrote:There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.

We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.

Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.

I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.

BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.

I only voted for three because I don't have a particularly strong feeling about the other choices. If you made me choose I'd add #9 to my vote.

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

Would I like to see a penalty? Certainly.
Do I give it that much priority? No. I'd put it near the bottom of my list.

Getting 3218 passed obviates this problem.

5. Create a substantial civil penalty for governmental agencies and political subdivisions that post unenforceable 30.06 signs [HB508 in 2013];

#2 gets my vote for most important.
#3 is a close second
Other- Reduce 3006 penalty