TexasCHLforum.com

Keith, I think it goes beyond what the deacons or ushers are wearing. It has to do with what they are assigned to do as part of their responsibility.

mojo84 wrote:Keith, I think it goes beyond what the deacons or ushers are wearing. It has to do with what they are assigned to do as part of their responsibility.

The photos were kinda toungue-in-cheek, but see my note about no 'security' in the job description.

gugisman wrote:I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.

The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.

This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.

Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.

I have now highlighted the portion in red that takes care of the issue. It boils down to NOT making 'security' a function of the job. If you want security guards, hire them. Otherwise your job function is 'usher, greeter, choir member, parking lot traffic guy, etc.

I also made the same distinction about job description in my original comment on this subject. As you know, it's hard to decipher tongue in cheek and sarcasm on the internet.

The guy in the security vest is definitely in violation if he is carrying and not licensed as a security guard. The other two, it is not evident by looking at them and what they are wearing. It could easily go either way depending on what their manual says their responsibilities are.


I too have now hilighted in red where I made it clear it depends on the deacons, ushers and other volunteers assigned duties and responsibilities.

gugisman wrote:I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.

The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.

This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.

Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.

I'm curious what proof you have that the contract security industry is doing any type of lobbying on this matter. I work in this field and I know of no position either for or against. The company that I work for wouldn't take a contract at a church, it's just not the type of business that we do.

I don't have the links to share but I did do 'due diligence' before repeating what I read. Some information is in this thread. With a little research you should be able to find the same records that I found.

I'll try to give a real life example to illustrate the need to amend/change/repeal the (pertanent) section/s of law:

There are many retired state, federal and local LEO's in my church who are willing to be part of a church security team.

These members are part of the church family. They have 'buy-in' that a part-time, or temporary hire security officer most likely will not have. They know the layout of the buildings, escape routes, areas of cover and/or concealment, and so on. They know how each other should/will react in a crisis situation.

These men and women have retired from law enforcement careers - and as such, they are very well trained, and, for the most part, they're always armed.

If a church would prefer to use them, as volunteers, why would anybody or entity object? They shouldn't... What are the possible 'reasonable' objections?

Nonetheless, under the current law, they would be required to obtain the license that a security officer must have.

Retired LEO's, other CHL holders, and the church, are being innapropriatly restricted. When a law restricts a church from protecting its own members, its freedom of worship, or assembly, is infringed.

gugisman wrote:I'll try to give a real life example to illustrate the need to amend/change/repeal the (pertanent) section/s of law:

There are many retired state, federal and local LEO's in my church who are willing to be part of a church security team.

These members are part of the church family. They have 'buy-in' that a part-time, or temporary hire security officer most likely will not have. They know the layout of the buildings, escape routes, areas of cover and/or concealment, and so on. They know how each other should/will react in a crisis situation.

These men and women have retired from law enforcement careers - and as such, they are very well trained, and, for the most part, they're always armed.

If a church would prefer to use them, as volunteers, why would anybody or entity object? They shouldn't... What are the possible 'reasonable' objections?

Nonetheless, under the current law, they would be required to obtain the license that a security officer must have.

Retired LEO's, other CHL holders, and the church, are being innapropriatly restricted. When a law restricts a church from protecting its own members, its freedom of worship, or assembly, is infringed.

no the 1st amendment is not being infringed or subjugated to the government by not allowing churches to use unlicensed member as security. the law does not in any way alter the way in which you worship, meet or assemble, merely restricts to licensed individuals the job of security or law enforcement at the meeting/worship place. that does not constitute infringement in any manner like it or not.

JP171 wrote:no the 1st amendment is not being infringed or subjugated to the government by not allowing churches to use unlicensed member as security. the law does not in any way alter the way in which you worship, meet or assemble, merely restricts to licensed individuals the job of security or law enforcement at the meeting/worship place. that does not constitute infringement in any manner like it or not.

If someone wants to argue the ban on CHL carrying in bars and high schools and NFL games infringes the right to bear arms and therefore violates the Second Amendment, that's reasonable. If someone wants to argue the CHL requirement to carry infringes the right to bear arms, that's also reasonable. But I ridicule the argument the First Amendment is violated by requiring churches to follow the same security guard laws as everyone else.

TresHuevos wrote:

gugisman wrote:I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.

The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.

This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.

Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.

I'm curious what proof you have that the contract security industry is doing any type of lobbying on this matter. I work in this field and I know of no position either for or against. The company that I work for wouldn't take a contract at a church, it's just not the type of business that we do.

Unfortunately, the legislative website doesn't have the witness list posted for the public hearing testimony on HB2535 on April 11, 2013, during the 2013 legislative session. However, you can watch the video of the public hearing and you will hear the testimony of security industry lobbyist, Allen Trevino of ASSIST. His testimony begins at 2:06:29. He testified against the bill and even falsely stated that the bill wasn't necessary because churches can already do what the Bill would allow. Then DPS Capt. RenEarl Bowie was called to testify as a resource witness and he refuted what the industry lobbyist has just stated.

Chas.

Do retailers that have internal loss control/security personnel have to hire only certified/licensed security guards?

gringo pistolero wrote:

mojo84 wrote:You are correct in your statement. However, this discussion is about church security groups and that it's illegal for people to carry while participating in church security activities.

Non-Church too. If you want to do security guard work, you need to follow the security guard rules.

The Occupations Code already has an exemption for volunteers with churches, but there's a catch. A CHL cannot be armed when serving as a volunteer. So church volunteers can perform the functions, but cannot be armed.

Chas.

DPS FAQ wrote: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.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/PSB/La ... in_sum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unfortunately, the legislative website doesn't have the witness list posted for the public hearing testimony on HB2535 on April 11, 2013, during the 2013 legislative session. However, you can watch the video of the public hearing and you will hear the testimony of security industry lobbyist, Allen Trevino of ASSIST. His testimony begins at 2:06:29. He testified against the bill and even falsely stated that the bill wasn't necessary because churches can already do what the Bill would allow. Then DPS Capt. RenEarl Bowie was called to testify as a resource witness and he refuted what the industry lobbyist has just stated.

Chas.

We, as an industry, lose very very little in having churches provide their own security. Security companies measure everything in hours per week, the smallest contract my company will pursue is a 168 (having one officer on duty at the site for 24/7). 5 to 6 hours for one day a week is going to lose a company money when you look at licensing, insurance, uniforms, overhead etc. It makes no sense for any group to even sniff around something like this unless they are coming at it from the perspective of the possibility of it developing into a gradual encroachment in other areas.

TresHuevos wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unfortunately, the legislative website doesn't have the witness list posted for the public hearing testimony on HB2535 on April 11, 2013, during the 2013 legislative session. However, you can watch the video of the public hearing and you will hear the testimony of security industry lobbyist, Allen Trevino of ASSIST. His testimony begins at 2:06:29. He testified against the bill and even falsely stated that the bill wasn't necessary because churches can already do what the Bill would allow. Then DPS Capt. RenEarl Bowie was called to testify as a resource witness and he refuted what the industry lobbyist has just stated.

Chas.

We, as an industry, lose very very little in having churches provide their own security.

I agree and this is one reason I was surprised to hear an industry lobbyist testifying. It must be a pure "not on my turf" philosophy. He lost a lot of credibility with the Committee when he said the Bill wasn't necessary only to have Capt. Bowie dispute that testimony. (Capt. Bowie is in charge of the DPS Division that includes security companies.)

Chas.

This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?