While I understand and echo your frustration over this problem, I believe that the political capitol was not available in the last session to be able to thwart the security industry influence. I agree that a grass roots showing can have an impact but, at the end of the day, it is as much about the behind the scenes work that Charles, Alice and others do that gets legislation passed. I'm even more frustrated that the expansion of places that CHLs can carry also was defeated (by not addressing it in chamber votes) in the last session. I've joined CHLs United in order to help create the grass roots support needed to help Charles achieve a better outcome in 2017.gugisman wrote:If 30-40 people would have shown up to testify, and if a couple hundred would have made calls and sent emails... Then the godless democrats on the committee wouldn't have been so cocky and self righteous... Yes, I'm letting my true feelings show... Deal with it!
At least for now, perhaps someone could work on drafting an amendment to TX OC 1702.322 Non-Applicability to include a new section (just as in TX PC 46.15 (a)(5)) to read: "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;
This would immediately fix the problem for retired LEO's who wish to serve on church security teams, who are I imagine, the majority of the potential volunteer pool.
It's ridiculous that the security industry has subverted the intent of TX PC 46.15, by the enactment of regulation under TX OC 1702, that prohibits groups from participating on church security teams, (except theirs of course), which was otherwise not prohibited under 46.15.
Additionally, as you read through TX PC 46.15, the legislature was not nearly as lenient with security officers as with retired LEO's. This really smacks of 'payback' by the security groups, doesn't it?
Perhaps with OC out of the way, there will be more political capital in 2017 for the church security measure. My fear is that "corrections" will be needed because of what happens starting on 1/1/16 and the church security matter will once again take a back seat. Keep in mind that the Moms Demand Action and other groups are also lobbying and sometimes success is stopping the madness that they try to generate. Hopefully, your idea about changes to allow retired police officers to fill the gap can at least get passed. While I hate to see piece meal solutions, I recognize that fixes for many of the problems take time and must be done in steps, not all at once.