TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks mojo85... If I knew what the new or reintroduced bill looked like, I could track its progress. I plan to provide testimony when it is scheduled for conference or hearing. I suspect, this time around, many others will appear too.

You mean you can't get around the law just by calling security guards "courtesy officers" or "ushers" or "redshirts"?

When it's outlined as one of the responsibilities in the deacon and usher manual that these groups are to provide security to supplement.t and support the hired cop, I think it's official. I disagree with it being that way and I'm sure we all could split hairs and argue the point to justify to make it say what we want. If Charles wants to correct me on this, I'll be happy to take his legal opinion to our pastor, chairman of the deacons and church legal council to correct them.

Am I the only one to find the semantics being discussed confusing?

Sounds like a WHOLE LOTTA gray area in this matter.

Keith B wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:How does this stop deacons and ushers from carrying? At my church they are not part of any security. I am the Pastor and I am more responsible than my men to make sure my people are safe.

You didn't read my entire sentence. I said "deacons and ushers that are also responsible for helping make sure the church and members are safe". If they don't have this as part of their responsibility in your church, then it doesn't apply in your particular case.

I think the whole issue is if you make it an official function of their position, THEN it is illegal. Our ushers, pastors, deacons, choir members, all watch out for the other members of the church. If you have your hired police officer doing the 'security' and everyone else just doing their church functions, then it's OK. By your definition then a pastor or other official at the church who has a CHL would not be able to carry because by default they are responsible for the safety and overall well-being of the members.

By the way, it's not my " definition". I also acknowledged it may not be in every case as not all churches have the same responsibility for those positions. I also never said "safety". I specifically addressed " security".

Abraham wrote:Am I the only one to find the semantics being discussed confusing?

Sounds like a WHOLE LOTTA gray area in this matter.

That's why Charles started this thread promoting the bills addressed in the op. This needs to be addressed legislatively to clear it up.

Unfortunately, due to lobbying by the security industry, the law/regulation in place restricts the freedom of churches regarding security teams. One would have to review this thread, in entirety, to appropriately respond....

mojo84 wrote:When it's outlined as one of the responsibilities in the deacon and usher manual that these groups are to provide security to supplement.t and support the hired cop, I think it's official. I disagree with it being that way and I'm sure we all could split hairs and argue the point to justify to make it say what we want. If Charles wants to correct me on this, I'll be happy to take his legal opinion to our pastor, chairman of the deacons and church legal council to correct them.

I don't disagree with you on this. When they outline your job as security and it is written in a 'manual', then you would be illegal carrying. That is why I think there needs to be some thought to taking one of these roles and your CHL. I think the rule needs to go away as well or at least defined to on include members who voluntarily perform roles for organizations they are members of. The way the current law is written the Sargent at Arms for a fraternal organization could be deemed unable to legally carry.

I'm just trying to make sure it is real clear as I know many are unsure about this and I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression in this area. I don't want anyone to unwittingly get in trouble and incur legal expenses and I don't want their to be an issue and the anti gun nuts to use it as amunition against the Church.

I agree. I was concerned back when I was part of the Sargeant at Arms group in my Rotary Club.

Now, if a church or member makes an I formed decision about how to deal with this, that's up to them in my mind.

Back to my original question... If anyone knows anything about any new or reintroduced bill on this issue, please share.

gugisman wrote:Back to my original question... If anyone knows anything about any new or reintroduced bill on this issue, please share.

I don't think it's time yet. Charles should be able to answer your question in due time. Hopefully, it will be addressed in 2015.

I was approached by a couple of elders and one of the ministers a year or so ago after I responded to a medical emergency about this very issue, not necessarily CHl but the idea of a "security team". I warned them off relating that if the security idea is either expressly or implicitly related in their functions, it could be a problem. I also told them they need to assign someone to verify and maintain the readiness of their AED and post a prominent sign to where it is located.

Neither has been done to my knowledge.

To me, I see no difference between this and allowing some teachers to carry in the schools. The teachers are not "providing" security for the school, but are there and armed if needed. It's the same with the ushers, deacons, etc..in my mind. I guess it all boils down to if you call yourself a "security team"? Anyway, I too hope this gets clarified in the near future.

I can pretty well break it down for you. Here are two church personnel doing their jobs:

Not OK to carry as CHL




OK to carry (no mention of 'security' in the job description)

I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.

The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.

This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.

Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.