TexasCHLforum.com

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs. I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole. Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon. My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades. As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

SA-TX

When did signs go down due to CHL protest. Do you have actual examples of such?

Based on searches here Taco Cabana seems to be the most well-known example. Here are some other examples of signs coming down and judge for yourself if they are a result of "CHL protest" (one is where a CHLer in MN has their equivalent sign removed).

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49631&p=609167&hili ... ed#p609167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42882&p=518285&hili ... ed#p518285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27354&p=312372&hili ... ed#p312372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point was: Have any business reversed course after initially posting an anti-gun or fully compliant 30.06 sign? Yes there are examples of this. Sign today or as a result of the OC zealots doesn't necessarily equal forever. As mentioned, I personal know that Fry's Electronics in Arlington one had a 30.06 sign but room it down some number of years ago.

SA-TX

Two of those threads are 3 years old and one is 5. Look in Texas3006.com and see all the new postings this year alone. Sorry, I don't think the facts are on your side.

gljjt wrote:

SA-TX wrote: My point was: Have any business reversed course after initially posting an anti-gun or fully compliant 30.06 sign? Yes there are examples of this. Sign today or as a result of the OC zealots doesn't necessarily equal forever. As mentioned, I personal know that Fry's Electronics in Arlington one had a 30.06 sign but room it down some number of years ago.

SA-TX

Two of those threads are 3 years old and one is 5. Look in Texas3006.com and see all the new postings this year alone. Sorry, I don't think the facts are on your side.

We are saying different things. I agree that new signs are bad and they are worse when "pro-gun" groups are the cause. If there has been an increase in postings lately, that is bad. However, it doesn't mean that they will stay forever as there are some examples of signs coming down. Note that I did not say that more were coming down than going up.

I find it interesting that I'm asked to defend the proposition that any signs have come down yet my original reply was to someone who said that (I'm paraphrasing) "CHLs will soon be irrelevant due to all of the postings". REALLY?!

SA-TX

One example every two years supports MY argument, not yours actually.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:One example every two years supports MY argument, not yours actually.

I'm not making an argument. I merely pointed out a fact: that although signs are bad they are not necessarily forever. Are these the only examples? Probably not but they are enough for my purposes. All CHLers should hate new legit 30.06 signs. Only time will tell if "they will make CHLs irrelevant" but I highly doubt it. The number of legit signs I encounter are very, very few. My real point is to not blow the issue out of proportion.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:One example every two years supports MY argument, not yours actually.

I'm not making an argument. I merely pointed out a fact: that although signs are bad they are not necessarily forever. Are these the only examples? Probably not but they are enough for my purposes. All CHLers should hate new legit 30.06 signs. Only time will tell if "they will make CHLs irrelevant" but I highly doubt it. The number of legit signs I encounter are very, very few. My real point is to not blow the issue out of proportion.

SA-TX

From my experience, it appears the rate of signs going up is way more than the rate of signs coming down. If they are going up much faster than coming down, we lose. Let's see. Gateway Theatre, Regal Theatre, Flix Brewhouse, Sprouts, Whole Foods... All places I use to go. All posted 30.06 since OCT went wild. The issue isn't out of proportion for me. These zealots have negatively affected me. Plus they have forced previously ambivalent places I frequent make negative statements regarding firearms: Target, Chipotle, Starbucks, Jack in the Box. I am a customer of all of these.

I strongly disagree with your assertions.

jmra wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

android wrote:

RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.

I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).

Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.

Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allow people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.

Chas.

I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.

IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.

First of all, one of my votes was for #3, so I couldn't agree with you more. At my own church, the pastoral staff have organized two first responder teams, one medical, and one armed. The medical first responders are (no surprise) doctors, nurses, paramedics, and EMTs in private life. The armed first responders are all off-duty cops who are church members. I have had this discussion with several of them who are also friends of mine and who are aware of both my CHL status AND that I carry at church. I sought them out and broached the subject with them because I had a concern: in the event of an active shooter situation, I am going to do whatever I can to protect 1st my family, and 2nd anyone immediately around me.......NOT because I am Batman, but because I am a husband, father, and grandfather, and the members of my church are people I consider to be my "extended family". I can't protect all of them, but I can protect those right near me. My concern was that I didn't want to be shot by a member of the armed first responders if I were to produce a firearm during an active shooter situation. So I thought it important to bring the issue up with the armed team-members that I know, trusting that they would inform those that I don't know of my identity. There is a fairly large number of CHLs who attend my church, almost certainly a significantly higher percentage than among the general population. In a church with an average weekly attendance of around 1,500, I personally know of quite a few people who have their CHLs, but that isn't all of them, and that doesn't include the ones I know are off-duty LEOs. Occasionally, one of the CHLs I know will "out" someone to me whom I didn't know had a CHL.....so there are a lot of us out there.

Interestingly, even though I am very much in favor of #3, this does raise a significant safety issue. Can you have TOO MANY guns around in an active shooter situation? My guess is that most LEOs would answer this with a fairly emphatic "yes".......not because they are anti-RKBA, but because they understand that a lot of people who are perfectly legal to carry and who have perfectly stable personalities will NOT have even a fairly minimum level of training in an active shooter situation, and therefore the likelihood of a fratricidal shooting is higher by some degree or other.

The current state of the law, for now, deals with that by including only LEOs in that privilege. YES, the security guard industry lobbied hard for this restriction, and it is a very self-serving restriction which benefits them above all others; but even if you take them completely out of the picture, it is a reasonable assumption that experienced LEOs are less likely to be involved in a fratricidal shooting than non-LEOs.

Before anyone here gets their dander up about that, remember that the 15,231 members of this board (the majority of whom have never posted more than once or twice) represent a tiny fraction of the total number of CHL holders in the state. Even if everyone of us was tactically minded AND TRAINED, we would not necessarily represent the typical CHL holder. Furthermore, as we know from our own discussions on this board, not all of us are intimately and confidently familiar all the time with all of the law. My words about church response are not limited to members of this board. I only know of 3 CHL holders associated with my church who are/were members of this board besides myself. One of them hasn't posted since 2008. One of them has moved on to another church several years ago, and the 3rd is a more recent member. I'd bet that some of the CHLs at my church are just some old guy with a Kel-Tec .32 stuck in their pocket. So we here on this board are not typical. We tend to be better informed about the law. We tend to be better trained or at least concerned about training. Etc, etc.

So, even if #3 passes, churches have a vested interest in making sure that those who are to be part of their armed first response teams are going to be qualified for the job. In the same way that school systems around the country are beginning to provide training for teachers to be armed first responders, churches should have the opportunity to do that. They don't have to pay for it, just organize it. Those LEOs who currently volunteer can—if they wish—be part of the training either as students OR instructors. It seems to me that it would be useful for the LEOs to get to know and become familiar working with non-LEOs who sign up. Those members who want to participate can pay for their own training. Perhaps the price per student can be varied according to how many sign up. I would personally be willing to absorb this kind of expense on behalf of my church, and I suspect that most who were interested in this kind of participation would themselves be willing to do the same.

But in a nutshell, I do think that implementation safety should be part of any discussion in passing #3. It may be less of an issue in a small church with 50 members where everybody knows everybody else fairly well, but in larger churches like mine with an average weekly attendance of 1,500 spread over 3 services, even after having been a member since september of 2006, I don't know everybody. I'm not sure it is even possible. And forget about the mega-churches, which bring the issues to a whole new level. Safety implementation is going to be a big issue in getting this passed.

TAM, everything you stated is correct. However, we also need to consider that CHLs attending church now are highly likely to respond to an attack on their congregation so the current law does nothing more than prohibit coordination or even the training you suggest. I would strongly oppose any attempt to add a training requirement to a bill for 2015, although I just as strongly agree that it would be beneficial. It should be an option for churches. DPS is currently working on the class for CHL Instructors to become certified to teach a class for teachers focusing on how to protect students. One option for churches would be for their CHL's who volunteer to take this class.

I also agree that COPs who are members of larger churches could mistake a CHL for the shooter, but I'm not worried about responding officers making this mistake. The event would be over long before they arrived. The possibility of a mistaken identity is even more reason to pass this law so churches could have meetings to coordinate, even if a CHL is not an official member of the security team. I realize some will argue that this can be done now, and that could well be correct. However, I would never recommend such meetings, nor would I ever attend one, for fear that some prosecutor like the drunk in Travis County would file charges. The argument would be that attending a security meeting would make one a de facto member of a security team or operation.

My experience both as a police officer (also a firearms instructor for the department) and a competitive shooter is that most LEO's can't shoot any better than the vast majority of citizens. It seems that the only ones who can are those who are interested in guns aside from them being a tool of the trade. A friend who was a 28 year veteran of the Houston Police Dept. said it best, "when you see a COP drawing his gun, DUUUUCK because there's no telling who's going to be hit!"

Chas.

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.

As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

Why not as long as they aren't training terrorists?

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

Yes. The only requirement is that the CHL "regularly attend."

Chas.

HB2535 in 2013 wrote:Sec. 1702.3245. CERTAIN VOLUNTEERS. (a) This chapter does not apply to a person who provides volunteer security services on the premises of:
(1) a private primary or secondary school at which the person is employed; or
(2) a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship if the person is a member of or regularly attends that established place of religious worship.

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

I would think so. Doesn't the original language about CHL in churches and .30-06 call them "houses of worship"? That would certainly include mosques. Whether a certain piece of the law says "church" or "house of worship", I am pretty sure that a court would use the terms interchangeably, and therefore mosques would be covered.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

I would think so. Doesn't the original language about CHL in churches and .30-06 call them "houses of worship"? That would certainly include mosques. Whether a certain piece of the law says "church" or "house of worship", I am pretty sure that a court would use the terms interchangeably, and therefore mosques would be covered.

(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

It looks to me like a Mosque would apply also.

Good to know.