TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

That's your decision and you have every right to make it. Others chose to help their fellow church members, or children in the case of schools. Neither you nor those who feel differently are wrong; it's an individual decision.

My choice is not to imitate Nero and fiddle while Rome burns.

Chas.

Amen!

the Bible says to take care of the widows, children and others who can't take care of themselves...take a look around your church, if you don't have them in your church, you're going to the wrong church

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

here's the question: why should a church, say a smallish to mid-size but is low-income that wants to have some security, not allowed to? even though they have CHL's in their membership? The state says they have to spend their dollars on getting security licenses for their CHL members...that's a tax...that's illegal. OR they have to hire off-duty cops how is that right? The $ need be spent paying the youth pastor so security doesn't happen in an organized manner.

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Security Guard training includes qualifying once much as we do (unless his company requires more) and usually thats all they will pick up a weapon other than to put it on (sadly much as a lot of CHL's do). However, there are those of us that practice on a regular basis and are quite proficient with their firearms. I know several on this board that meet that statement. Myself, I dont practice as much as I used to only because of the lack of ammo, but still get to the range every couple of weeks and an occassional trip to an IDPA event helps as well. Therefore, I believe that I am more qualified to protect my family than a licensed security guard.

Now, if you would really like to help your church, have the local police department come and give an active shooter presentation. WE had that done and at least now the congregation (or most of it) knows what they should do if the unimaginable happens.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to resort to protecting our family but this world has not been perfect since Adam took the bite from the apple.

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

All I can tell you is if this law had not been passed many LEOs would be left out of those cushy church jigs and a lot of other small organizational events. I would be willing to bet there was some donations made to the effort by those associations.

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

All I can tell you is if this law had not been passed many LEOs would be left out of those cushy church jigs and a lot of other small organizational events. I would be willing to bet there was some donations made to the effort by those associations.

You might be right, but we still have to buy our guard cards to work plain clothed at events like any other tax payer.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.

Same questions you would have to ask yourself if you were protecting yourself and/or family. Same responsibility and consequences.

Earlier in this post, I stated that the way the law is currently written, I carry at church to protect myself and my family. Now, if something happens and I have to use my weapon to protect my family or myself, and I wind up protecting the congregation as well, then so be it.

The same applies if you are at a crowded mall or movie theater What would you do in those cases? Not protect your family because you are afraid of hitting a bystander? Thats what the liberals do and want everyone to do.

In the overall scheme of things, it's your choice to shoot or not in these cases. I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to protect my family.

There are times that you may not be able to protect yourself and I would hope one is thinking about bystanders. Is your family worth more then the bystanders? A gun is not a magic tool and has to be used accordingly. As such one needs a plan in the event you cannot use the gun, or try and use it and are wounded or worse killed. I do carry at church for personal protection.

I find the security issue interesting. The guard card is there to ensure one has the proper training if they are working as a security guard. To work plain clothed personal protection one must have the level iii and iv cards. If one is set up in a formal "volunteer" security program then shouldn't they have the training to ensure they can hopefully stop a threat? Tough question.

I don't believe for a second that this is about training. It is about the security industry holding small organizations hostage while lining their pockets. How did the law get passed in the first place? I have a pretty good idea it was lobbyist for the security industry and associations representing LEOs.

Wouldn't be police associations as I just shelled out $110 bucks to get my level III/I4 card for an off duty job that I have...

All I can tell you is if this law had not been passed many LEOs would be left out of those cushy church jigs and a lot of other small organizational events. I would be willing to bet there was some donations made to the effort by those associations.

You might be right, but we still have to buy our guard cards to work plain clothed at events like any other tax payer.

I have no problem wearing a "uniform" in order to protect my loved ones and my church family. But, the current law not only prohibits us from organizing a group, it also prohibits us from wearing anything that identifies us as providing security whether we are armed or not. Why? Not because we are not properly trained, it's because of money and special interest groups like the one that represents you.
Another point you are obviously missing is that you are obtaining your level III/IV for a paying JOB. We are talking about volunteering our time to protect our family and friends. Big difference.

As long as this bill has been left pending in committee, I am afraid it is not to get much more attention. I would love to see this move forward, but the future is not looking good.

The rub that is being overlooked is the fact that the cards for licensed security personnel have to be applied for by a licensed security company on behalf of the person and is only valid if they are employed by a licensed security company. Sounds like the church would have to become licensed in order to obtain the individual licenses...I have no idea what the cost is for the institutional license would be to obtain/maintain...then, would it cause problems with the church in it's non-profit status?

Great discussion by the way...

Not saying it doesn't happen but I have never seen a church use a security guard service to provide security during church services. It's always been off duty police officers.

I have a feeling both the security industry and police associations/unions that oppose the voluntary security efforts and the government doesn't want to pass up an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.