TexasCHLforum.com

As it currently stands, my church has greeters. These "greeters" work security over the parking lot during service. They also work security over the childrens building. However, they are not armed. The issue with this is, if someone wanted to grab a child, all the "greeters" could do is watch and call 911. Same with the parking lot. What if an estarnged spouse was to try and grab their ex. Or if someone was trying to steal a car and the "greeter" confronted them and the BG pulled a weapon.
All of these scenario's (and many others) could be handled differently if CHL was allowed in a volunteer security group were allowed.

As I stated before, this is one reason I am not a "greeter". I as well as a few others have a CHL and sit in stratigic areas of the church "just in case". But because of current law, we cannot form a security ministry and that is wrong IMHO

My wife takes care of 18 month to 2 year olds during our first service on Sundays. Her "boss" who heads up the childcare ministry has her CHL. No idea if she actually carries or not "on the job." My wife keeps her 9mm in her purse, stored on a shelf high up in a cupboard and well out of reach of any of the children.

She will do whatever she has to do to protect the babies in her care, law or no law, and regardless of certain CHL attitudes in favor of restricting personal liberty.

The Annoyed Man wrote:My wife takes care of 18 month to 2 year olds during our first service on Sundays. Her "boss" who heads up the childcare ministry has her CHL. No idea if she actually carries or not "on the job." My wife keeps her 9mm in her purse, stored on a shelf high up in a cupboard and well out of reach of any of the children.

She will do whatever she has to do to protect the babies in her care, law or no law, and regardless of certain CHL attitudes in favor of restricting personal liberty.

The only way it would be a violation today is if they made her part of a 'security team' or told her that her job was 'security' of the children. This is where it would become questionable as to her being able to carry. Just knowing that you are the childcare person and making sure they are 'safe and secure' is not a violation.

alvins wrote:i think charles needs to read post #8 thats why people keep referring to things you said.lol

Those were examples of how a church security team member's activities would differ from a 40 hr. a week security guard. That was clear in post #8 and I've repeatedly said it in subsequent posts.

Chas.

RPBrown wrote:As it currently stands, my church has greeters. These "greeters" work security over the parking lot during service. They also work security over the childrens building. However, they are not armed. The issue with this is, if someone wanted to grab a child, all the "greeters" could do is watch and call 911. Same with the parking lot. What if an estarnged spouse was to try and grab their ex. Or if someone was trying to steal a car and the "greeter" confronted them and the BG pulled a weapon.
All of these scenario's (and many others) could be handled differently if CHL was allowed in a volunteer security group were allowed.

As I stated before, this is one reason I am not a "greeter". I as well as a few others have a CHL and sit in stratigic areas of the church "just in case". But because of current law, we cannot form a security ministry and that is wrong IMHO

Sir these folks who work "security" in the parking lot have already violated TOC 1702 they are preforming the duties of a non commissioned security officer without a license. Also be careful suddenly thinking that if we get this bill passed that CHL holders should suddenly confront people who are breaking into vehicles. I teach armed security every week that their job is to observe & report not try to be LEOs they don't have the training to do those things. I teach them that their firearm is to protect themselves or a third person not to get in gun battles with BGs that is a police matter. Having said that understand that we are having about as many private security officers killed as LEOs so security is a dangerous job. I want this bill to pass so that we can have trained observers in our church that can plan for the horrible events that are happening in some areas of our society including churches. I hope if we get this bill passed that we only intervene when no other help is available & that force has to be used to prevent loss of life not to stop a simple theft or property crime let the police do their job we observe & report.

people....don't call your parking lot ministry "security"...call it a "Parking Lot Ministry" call the people "walkers" or "guides" do not call them security. gotta love lobbyists

I think we often turn a good conversation into a "spitting match" over language usage. The question is not what someone is called but rather the essential duties that they are performing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck chances are it is a duck and calling it a chicken is not going to change it.

OldGrumpy wrote:I think we often turn a good conversation into a "spitting match" over language usage. The question is not what someone is called but rather the essential duties that they are performing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck chances are it is a duck and calling it a chicken is not going to change it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Because churches are more like a big family than a business, and they are very much different from other volunteer driven organizations. 1702 costs money—money that some churches simply don't have.....and yet they may NEED to have this capability. That's all you or I or anybody else needs to know. It's not up to you or me to determine their need or its legitimacy..........unless you're a socialist or something.

Look out OCDO. There's a new bomb throwing extremist in town.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote:What is the purpose of these security teams? Nothing other than proper 30.06 notification prevents a CHL holder from carrying in a church. Concealed means concealed. Carry your pistol to church and pray that you never have to use it. You don't need to form a security team for that. Or are these security teams performing functions similar to private security companies (i.e. access control, physical security of facilities, responding to complaints)? If they are, then they should have to meet the same requirements as any other security company. Is anyone here a member of some type of church security team? Can you shed some light on the duties you perform.

I disagree that volunteers should have to comply with Chapter 1702 of the Occupations Code. Many if not most churches cannot afford to hire security companies and a volunteer one or two days a week is not in the same position as a 40 hour a week security guard. More importantly, most safety or security groups at churches I am aware of do not function like a security guard in that they will call 911 if there is a problem, unless there is insufficient time. They spend more time helping people find locations on the church campus, helping people with limited mobility, and herding kids back into their classes. Under current law, if they serve in this capacity and are a CHL, they cannot carry their handgun.

HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

I just had this conversation with my BIL. He, and several members at his church, had discussed doing something in the way of having CHL's act as security. I advised him that if they had "ushers", "concierge", "deacons" or something else roaming around that "happened to be CHL" then they were good but they should have nothing on their charter or paperwork anywhere even "suggesting" security work, especially in light of CHL. Such a law would be a wonderful relief to churches and those that would protect the flock. It could certainly relieve the need to be "deceptive" through euphemism.

I remember years ago, I was asked to walk the parking lots quite a bit. I suspect it was because I was a known CHL holder but that was never mentioned.

The pastor of the parish we attended before buying our house in La Grange was firmly pro-2A. In fact he was a constitutionalist and gave many homilies that included instructions on our freedoms and relationship to Church teachings.

He knew there was an ample supply of CHL gun guys in the membership and he always made certain that we were "ushers" during high profile Masses and events.

Anygunanywhere

For those who aren't sure what the current problem is, here's an advisory opinion from the Texas Private Security Bureau, which operates under DPS, about the law as it pertains to church volunteers performing security related duties as those are defined in 1702:

May 10, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.

However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security department of Private Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See Tex. Occ. Code §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

You can see it in its original context on their web site here.

This has been posted in other threads, but http://www.carlchinn.com has some good info on the topic of church security. Mr. Chinn has also written a decent book on the topic "Evil Invades Sanctuary."

Not wanting to change subject but it appears this might have a bearing on some of the schools allowing concealed carry also. A local school where a friend is employed is considering allowing certain employees to carry if they have some additional training the school would require. Another possibility that has come up is hiring a school security office (or possibly forming thier own police force of 1) and having that individual "oversee" the concealed carry folks. In reading the previous posts, it appears this would not be legal if I understand right. What if the security officer or school officer did not direct the concealed carry folks but had knowledge of who they were? One other question - would the school dictating certain training like crisis intervention or possibly tactical training by itself be a problem even without the security officer issue?

treeman wrote:Not wanting to change subject but it appears this might have a bearing on some of the schools allowing concealed carry also. A local school where a friend is employed is considering allowing certain employees to carry if they have some additional training the school would require. Another possibility that has come up is hiring a school security office (or possibly forming thier own police force of 1) and having that individual "oversee" the concealed carry folks. In reading the previous posts, it appears this would not be legal if I understand right. What if the security officer or school officer did not direct the concealed carry folks but had knowledge of who they were? One other question - would the school dictating certain training like crisis intervention or possibly tactical training by itself be a problem even without the security officer issue?

You are correct, the bills also impact schools.

Chas.