While at Church Last Night...

[gigag04]

Why would anyone want to undertake a security function that hasn't been trained in basic concepts required for the task?

If you are "security" for your church, formally, or (more likely) informally, how do handle situations with mentally ill individuals? What control tactics do you have that will allow you to use force, but not deadly force, when the situation requires it? How do you intend to detain/restrain somebody?

Strapping a gun on under your coat does not qualify you to be "security." A gun prepares you to answer one, very specific, type of threat...one that requires deadly force. There are far more (in number AND likelihood) scenarios where "security" would get involved in a less-severe situation...then what does your CHL get you?

The last thing I want is responsibility for those around me when I'm not getting paid to do so. I won't sit idly by if something goes down, and I'm aware enough to be safe when I'm off duty. But, even I (as LE) am not picking up the task (and liability) of "security" at any event for free. To do it well is WORK and those that do it should be professional and should be paid. (One exception is when our dept volunteers to do security at the local special olympics gather - but that is a dept sanctioned deal).

[btaylor]

I've always found it odd when a LEO doesn't carry. With all the stuff that they deal with, I would think that they would be acutely aware are of the dangers that are EVERYWHERE and would be more likely to carry all the time.

I understand the family thing, but I would politely explain that while I can find a new place to worship with a different body of believers, I have only one life.

As a minister (though not the top dog), in a church with several LEO's, I dont' understand this policy, it seems short-sighted. To me, it makes the minister seem out of touch and too concerned with meddling in the lawful life of a private citizen, and not with sharing the gospel, growing and shepherding the flock.

I find myself very comfortable on Sunday mornings knowing there are several in our audience ready to 'fight of a wolf', and truly to think that you could find a church a stone's throw away that would feel very much the same.

I hope it works out well for you.

[longtooth]

Good post btaylor & I thank you for it.
Glad to see another NRA Lifer too.

[RPBrown]

Why would anyone want to undertake a security function that hasn't been trained in basic concepts required for the task?

If you are "security" for your church, formally, or (more likely) informally, how do handle situations with mentally ill individuals? What control tactics do you have that will allow you to use force, but not deadly force, when the situation requires it? How do you intend to detain/restrain somebody?

Strapping a gun on under your coat does not qualify you to be "security." A gun prepares you to answer one, very specific, type of threat...one that requires deadly force. There are far more (in number AND likelihood) scenarios where "security" would get involved in a less-severe situation...then what does your CHL get you?

The last thing I want is responsibility for those around me when I'm not getting paid to do so. I won't sit idly by if something goes down, and I'm aware enough to be safe when I'm off duty. But, even I (as LE) am not picking up the task (and liability) of "security" at any event for free. To do it well is WORK and those that do it should be professional and should be paid. (One exception is when our dept volunteers to do security at the local special olympics gather - but that is a dept sanctioned deal).

I have to agree with gig on this.
I do "watch" the parking lot during 2 of 3 services and I am armed. However, unless there is a threat against me, the only weapon I would use is the cell phone.
I am not security and do not claim to be. Just concerned for our members and visiters. This is as much to help the elderly or disabled to and from as anything.

[Excaliber]

And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.

I'm curious about this. Would it make a difference that the "security person" was NOT being paid? My instructor gave the example of someone's x-boyfriend calling her at work, and threatening to come down there and make trouble for everybody. Your boss (not the threatened woman) then asks you to sit in on a meeting "since your armed and can protect us if he shows up." Since the boss is paying you for your regular job, you now become "a paid security guard".

In the situation regarding the church, no-ones getting paid (presumably), so what makes it "security"? Making plans to handle "issues" as they may develop, perhaps involving the actions of other individuals, does not make you a guard -- I do that in my own home!

There are at least a couple of people on staff at my church who know I carry, and have expressed their approval. I think if there were an informal crew of people such as myself who cooperated to provide some kind of sub rosa security detail NOT at the direction of church officials, that would probably be legal. The wisdom of such a thing would depend very much on the hearts and discernment of the individuals involved.

Texas law (Administrative Code, Chapter 35, Subchapter A, Section 1, Subsection 14) specifically considers private security "Employment, Business Activity" as "not limited in their meaning to "for profit" enterprises, or to work performed for remuneration, but include any provision of services regulated by the Bureau, such as services provided on a volunteer or unpaid basis."

The regulations on the specific functions and licensing levels are found in the TX Occupations Code, Section 1702.

I have confirmed in specific conversations with Private Security Bureau officials that this applies to volunteer security functions in a church setting.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is: If you're protecting yourself and your family, you're fine. If you're protecting the congregation you need to be licensed.

[elwood blooz]

I wonder why the no-CHL policy in the first place? Did he explain why he wanted it that way? As a long time believer and student of the Bible myself, I can find no justification in the Bible for disarming a parishioner prior to granting him/her admission to the church. What I do find are elliptical references to being at peace, peaceful, a peacemaker, etc., etc. But one can be at peace and armed. One can be peaceful and armed. One can be a peacemaker and armed. Peace, and being armed are not mutually exclusive propositions - as even Jesus instructed the Apostles in Luke 22:36.

In my book, a church that tells its members that they should not be armed before entering, is also a church that would tell its female members not to wear lacy panties under their dresses to church, or tell its male members not to wear red undershirts under their dress shirts. It's an invasion of one's personal choices, and the church would have no way of knowing unless the member shared that information...

....all with the following caveat: obeying a command to not wear a red t-shirt or lacy panties will not likely get you killed, whereas obeying an order to not CCW may very well get you killed. That's not an area over wich any church ought to have any moral authority in my view. It tells me that this church is more concerned about their rules than they are about my life or health. I would have a lot of difficulty accepting spiritual direction from someone who had such little concern about it. And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.

I realize that, as a newcomer, you're trying to do right by your girlfriend and her family, since this is their home church. But if I were in your shoes, I would not attend with the goal of making this church my church home. If/When you get married, I would start church shopping - if not sooner.

Frankly I don't why the no CHL policy either. No, he never really explained why he wanted it that way. This particular LEO didn't make me feel any better either by saying he was unarmed. I am not nor will I be a "security guard" of any sort. Yes, we plan on getting married soon enough and are planning on looking at other Churches in the area to make our Church.

[A-R]

Texas law (Administrative Code, Chapter 35, Subchapter A, Section 1, Subsection 14) specifically considers private security "Employment, Business Activity" as "not limited in their meaning to "for profit" enterprises, or to work performed for remuneration, but include any provision of services regulated by the Bureau, such as services provided on a volunteer or unpaid basis."

The regulations on the specific functions and licensing levels are found in the TX Occupations Code, Section 1702.

I have confirmed in specific conversations with Private Security Bureau officials that this applies to volunteer security functions in a church setting.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is: If you're protecting yourself and your family, you're fine. If you're protecting the congregation you need to be licensed.

Thank you for posting this. I hope this settles this issue. I vote we make this post a sticky

[RiverCity.45]

Well, the rub on 'verbal notice' is yes, while it is legally sufficient according to the law, how can you 'Prove' you gave someone verbal notice?
Without a recording, witnesses, or some other proof it becomes your word versus theirs. In a court of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that generally wouldn't stand.

Well, one could point out his original post as "proof." But I'm suspecting a church-going guy isn't going to be too keen on lying about whether he was told about the policy just to game the loopholes.