Wanting to safeguard others from harm especially in an active shooter situation is noble and I had no desire to insult anyone wanting to that, but an active shooter situation is only a single aspect of these bills. These bills would result in a CHL being a de facto security guard license when serving on a security team on church property. The problem is that security guards are often looked to intervene in situations where we would suggest that a CHL holder simply call 911. You wouldn't suggest that a CHL holder stop someone from breaking into a random car in the local Wal Mart parking. We wouldn't expect a CHL holder to escort a drunk out of the neighborhood Chili's. I think its bad idea to put CHL holders in positions where they would be expected to intervene in situations that they normally would only call 911.Charles L. Cotton wrote: I strongly suggest you not use that term in this context again. Volunteers wanting to help keep their fellow church members from harm, especially those in the children's wing, don't deserve to be insulted. Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows everyone to use force, including deadly force, to protect 3rd persons. Although Texas criminal laws allow this, if a church volunteer is an armed CHL, then he/she faces criminal prosecution if their function on a security team or group falls within the scope of Chp. 1702.
Every other organization that has volunteers is required to abide by Chp 1702 so I think it's valid to ask why churches need to be different than everyone else.The Annoyed Man wrote:
You are talking about "need," which is the dominion of liberals. Liberals used needs-based arguments to justify why people should or shouldn't be allowed to do something. FREEDOM eschews needs-based thinking. Just because you don't see the need, that doesn't mean that the need does not exist. Maybe for your church it doesn't. But that is NOT the same as saying it doesn't exist for any church. If you feel strongly about it, then if your church tries to implement such a program, you should protest it most vigorously to your church's leadership. If they won't listen, then you should find a church that agrees with your POV. But your insistence that the need isn't justifiable for any church flies in the face of personal liberty, and religious freedom. Frankly, some other church's needs aren't your business or mine. They should be free to meet their needs in the best way possible, given the budget they have to work with........which is a big driver of volunteerism, regardless of in what capacity.