TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Re-published with permission from http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com. Permission is granted to republish without editing.

Although I have been in the political and legislative arenas for almost all of my adult life, I am not going to get into politics while parents and other family members are grieving as a result of a mass-murderer in Florida. People who know me will find this statement unusual, but I don’t care one whit about politics, political parties, or left v. right. I don’t want to merely make a point, I want to make a difference. I want to change Texas law so that schools can tap into a giant reserve of experience and talent to protect our kids in school. The cost to schools will be little or nothing, so budget constraints will not be a factor.
In 2017, we changed Texas law to exempt volunteer church security personal from the Texas Private Security Act. This much-needed change allows people to volunteer to serve on their church’s safety team without fear of violating the law. Volunteers who have a Texas License to Carry a Handgun (LTC) can also carry their self-defense sidearms while serving. Thousands of church members are now serving their congregation at no charge making churches much safer than they were prior to September 1, 2017.

Schools should have the same ability to utilize volunteer security personal to help protect our kids. There are many tens of thousands of military veterans and former peace officers who would be willing, no eager, to serve their community and schools by volunteering their experience and expertise to protect schools. Appropriate background checks would be performed on all volunteers and the Legislature could even require such volunteers to have a Texas LTC.

Volunteers who are not military veterans or former peace officers should also be able to serve as volunteers. The Legislature could require these men and women to successfully pass the Texas School Safety Course created by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety in order to serve. (Only LTCs are eligible to take the School Safety Course and receive a certificate.)
I will draft a bill for the 2019 Texas Legislative Session that will accomplish this goal. The only opposition to the volunteer church security bill came from the security industry. Their motive was clear; they wanted to preserve an income stream. The “concerns” about training was merely a smoke screen for their true goal of protecting the industry’s income. We will likely see the same groundless claims raised against a volunteer school security bill, so Texans need to be ready to demand passage of this bill.

I will publish more information on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com as we get closer to pre-filing for the 2019 legislative session. Be ready to join in the campaign to pass legislation that will truly protect our school kids. As the old saying goes, talk is cheap; it’s time to make a difference.

Scott B. wrote:. . . Most districts will refuse such services, I imagine, BUT they won't be able to credibly say something can't be done outside of a constitutional convention or feel good/do nothing AWB legislation.

anygunanywhere wrote: If you ever want to learn how to launch a MK48 torpedo and what all goes into torpedo fire control and target tracking and analysis, look me up. Not all "combat" is done on the ground.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: If you ever want to learn how to launch a MK48 torpedo and what all goes into torpedo fire control and target tracking and analysis, look me up. Not all "combat" is done on the ground.

Trust me, I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's service. I am simply saying that for the purposes of this thread topic, which is school security, if we want to exempt veterans from training, then we need to make sure those veteran's actually handled a firearm as part of their service. Army = yes. Air Force / Navy = Maybe. I am impressed with anyone's ability to launch a torpedo, and I'm sure it is plenty complicated, but it is not really all that relevant to school protection (unless the shooter happens to be attacking from the bottom of the swimming pool). Same goes for my training on how to calculate fire direction commands for a howitzer. Interesting and possibly also impressive, but not all that relevant.

Personally, I would be in favor of requiring volunteers to have a LTC, at a minimum. Realistically, they probably need a more targeted training that includes things like rules of engagement, coordination between security force members, and skills other than direct engagement of a shooter like how to effectively get exposed students to cover, first aid, etc., etc. I, personally do not think that any type of military service would be completely sufficient on it's own.

AJSully421 wrote:I am a licensed Level 3 Commissioned Security Guard, Level 4 Personal Protection Officer (Body Guard) and the Executive Officer of a Security Company, and a LTC holder.

I say let's do it.

Whatever it takes... require retention holsters, not allow OC, require to pass a MMPI psych test like a Level 4 bodyguard has to, but let's open up law abiding citizens to be able to carry in all schools one way or another.

You might also add an exemption for a licensed Level 4 since they have done a psych eval already. Just a thought.