TexasCHLforum.com

Just got a notice that HB421 was "reported favorably as substituted". I'm not sure exactly what that means (and I have been trying to follow the CSHB1911 thread to try to learn). Does "reported favorably" mean it was voted/passed by the committee to go to the house or does it mean they like what they have and still have to vote on it?

I know we won't be able to see the changes until (if) it goes on to the house so I'm trying to figure out how much I should be looking for the new text. I guess I'm also a little nervous as to what the "changes" are going to be.

"Reported favorably as substituted" means that the committee voted on a replacement (substituted) bill that was submitted to the committee and that replacement bill had enough votes to make it out of the committee and sent back to the chamber which the committee serves.

Once TLO gets updated, we will be able to see the text of the substituted bill and see how it compares with the originally submitted bill. Sometimes they can differ drastically, changing a good bill into one that would be opposed, and sometimes they contain only minor tweaks to clean up wording or unintended consequences. Only time will tell.

Great! Thanks. Any idea how long it takes for the substituted language to get posted? I don't know whether to blow the rest of the day watching or if it takes longer.

6-3 vote. Is there a way to find out who voted against it? I've dug around on TLO but I can't find a way to see the vote by committee members. Since there are 6 Rep and 3 Dem. on the committee I could make an assumption but I'd rather see the actual vote.

troglodyte wrote:6-3 vote. Is there a way to find out who voted against it? I've dug around on TLO but I can't find a way to see the vote by committee members. Since there are 6 Rep and 3 Dem. on the committee I could make an assumption but I'd rather see the actual vote.

The vote will be reported once the bill is updated on the site. The vote will be in the committee report.

Here is the substituted bill. Looks like all they did was make sure uniforms and such would not be worn.



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to an exemption from application of the Private Security
Act for volunteer security services provided at a place of
religious worship.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter N, Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, is
amended by adding Section 1702.333 to read as follows:
Sec. 1702.333. PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP; CERTAIN
VOLUNTEERS. (a) In this section, "volunteer security services"
means services or activities that are:
(1) regulated under this chapter; and
(2) provided without compensation or remuneration.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a person who is providing
volunteer security services on the premises of a church, synagogue,
or other established place of religious worship.
(c) While providing volunteer security services under
Subsection (b), a person may not wear a uniform or badge that:
(1) contains the word "security"; or
(2) gives the person the appearance of being a peace
officer, personal protection officer, or security officer.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2017.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85 ... 00421H.htm

That is the best place to go if you want to see the original vs. the committee substitute side by side.

So, when it says that you cannot give the appearance of a "personal protection officer", don't most body guards wear dark colored suits with ties?

Because, guess what I wear to church each Sunday...

Odd thing about the amendment is it makes things almost like they are now. Our "security team" are our ushers of which all but 1 has their CHL and carry at church.

RPBrown wrote:Odd thing about the amendment is it makes things almost like they are now. Our "security team" are our ushers of which all but 1 has their CHL and carry at church.

Technically, what your church's "security team" is doing right now is illegal. This bill makes it legal for them to be organized and to provide "volunteer security services".

This would also allow other LTCs to join and be a legally organized group. I have hesitated to put together a group of LTCs at my church because of concerns over running afoul of the law. The passage of HB 421 would certainly ease my mind about organizing a meeting of the LTCs and working with them to create a comprehensive plan for a volunteer church security team.

Papa_Tiger wrote:Technically, what your church's "security team" is doing right now is illegal. This bill makes it legal for them to be organized and to provide "volunteer security services".

This would also allow other LTCs to join and be a legally organized group. I have hesitated to put together a group of LTCs at my church because of concerns over running afoul of the law. The passage of HB 421 would certainly ease my mind about organizing a meeting of the LTCs and working with them to create a comprehensive plan for a volunteer church security team.

For the foreseeable future my church will probably continue to operate our own licensed security as we do want Lev III and IV. But this is a very much needed exception to the Occupation Code especially for small and medium places of worship - which is the vast majority of churches, synagogues etc.

Edited to include all of the quote from Papa_Tiger

The committee substitute was filed/adopted because of questions raised in the public hearing about volunteers wearing something that reads "Security." All the sub does is prevent wearing uniforms, "Security" jackets, etc.

Chas.

Seems like the "security industry" is winning this one.

bblhd672 wrote:Seems like the "security industry" is winning this one.

Working in the security industry myself, this whole thing really makes me scratch my head. I know of only one church (and it's a mega-church) in our city that has security and they even have PPOs for the Pastor. There's just not enough hours of work to be close to profitable.

TresHuevos wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Seems like the "security industry" is winning this one.

Working in the security industry myself, this whole thing really makes me scratch my head. I know of only one church (and it's a mega-church) in our city that has security and they even have PPOs for the Pastor. There's just not enough hours of work to be close to profitable.

This is going to sound harsh, but the security industry probably expects that increased attacks on churches is going to take place, thus increasing the likelihood that the industry will profit handsomely from it.

Sometimes we are too nice when dealing with opposition. Someone should have looked at the security industry people testifying and ask them why they wanted to allow the slaughter of innocent church going children in order to protect their profits.