TexasCHLforum.com

casingpoint wrote:While there are still trespassers to contend with by whatever means necessary, one does not find such eloquence in court opinions today.

Ever read any of Scalia's? The man has a real way with plain English. There's a Blazing Saddles quote that would apply, but wouldn't pass the ten-year-old-daughter rule.

KD5NRH wrote:

casingpoint wrote:While there are still trespassers to contend with by whatever means necessary, one does not find such eloquence in court opinions today.

Ever read any of Scalia's? The man has a real way with plain English. There's a Blazing Saddles quote that would apply, but wouldn't pass the ten-year-old-daughter rule.

While reading some of the blunt way he worded things in the Heller decision, I laughed out loud. He knows what he wants to say, how to say it, and isn't afraid if anyone is offended. I think that' s a good quality.

That was the era of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. Few writers of speakers have that command of English today.

- Jim

I read Scalia's Heller opinion. Blunt is a good description. I was a little put off by the fact that he more than once stated a legal principle without giving any reasoning behind it. Somebody else noticed it, too, and wrote a law review article on it. Now those bloopers from out of the blue are in the dicta the lower courts will springboard from. The decision was very narrow. The dicta far too wide. The writing perhaps not his best. Considering Heller is destined to become one of the more standout case in American jurisprudence, it's shame Scalia didn't seize the moment to wax poetic.

casingpoint wrote:Considering Heller is destined to become one of the more standout case in American jurisprudence, it's shame Scalia didn't seize the moment to wax poetic.

Yes. I wish he'd gone a little more in the direction of his comments on Kelo; sarcastic, biting, but flowing and eloquent. It seems he writes more engagingly when he disagrees with the court.

That could be a good thing, though; a majority opinion, or a concurring opinion for that matter, need not be as much of a persuasive argument as a dissent given for future consideration.

This may not have anything to do with the original post, but so called "Mega Churches", IMHO coincide with televangelism. It is not about the reason people go to church; "Praise of the Lord", but rather a money making business. What true Pastor has a million dollar home? What Church that anyone here grew up in had a "Stadium" to preach in? Godliness is next to cleanliness, not Richness!

As far as I know, most religions preach "being a trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent individual. The same as, any Boy Scout here will recall. With no mention of becoming rich through religion.

As far as I'm concerned, "Mega Churches" prove to those that try to discount Godliness much easier, as they show it to be a money making business rather than true praise of God! I despise these so called churches, as well as televangelism!

Sorry for the rant, but it's a subject I feel very strongly about.

I have no interest in Flames. I simply wanted to express an opinion.

Hoss

HOSSISFREE wrote:This may not have anything to do with the original post, but so called "Mega Churches", IMHO coincide with televangelism. It is not about the reason people go to church; "Praise of the Lord", but rather a money making business. What true Pastor has a million dollar home? What Church that anyone here grew up in had a "Stadium" to preach in? Godliness is next to cleanliness, not Richness!

As far as I know, most religions preach "being a trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent individual. The same as, any Boy Scout here will recall. With no mention of becoming rich through religion.

As far as I'm concerned, "Mega Churches" prove to those that try to discount Godliness much easier, as they show it to be a money making business rather than true praise of God! I despise these so called churches, as well as televangelism!

Sorry for the rant, but it's a subject I feel very strongly about.

I have no interest in Flames. I simply wanted to express an opinion.

Hoss

I agree completely. My wife and her family go to a megachurch here in San Antonio (Cornerstone). I refuse to go.

I don't agree with the idea that any pastor/preacher should be making that much money and living in a mansion; all of that money should be going back to the church and its mission. It's great that the pastor brings so many to the congregation, but they should not be looking for any type of monetary reward for bringing in the flock.

OK, this thread had drifted and now talking about Mega-Churches, not security guards. Please bring the subject back on topic.

HOSSISFREE wrote:This may not have anything to do with the original post,
Hoss

so, uh, why not start your own thread, since nothing here is relevant to the original topic of security guards....

I know you don't have to show you chl if approached or asked to see ID but do they have the authority to disarm you if they discover you're carrying after approaching you? Do they have any authority to disarm you short of you going nuts and threatening people? (BTW, I agree with Hossisfree and Will38 say. WHY DON'T y'all start a thread to that effect?)

Doug.38PR wrote:I know you don't have to show you chl if approached or asked to see ID but do they have the authority to disarm you if they discover you're carrying after approaching you?

Not under normal circumstances.

Certain sites may be special, though; for example, there's no way under the regulations I've read that a security officer in Texas can be comissioned to carry a rifle, (must qualify with firearms by type, and there is no approved rifle qualifier course, nor any exception that I can find to allow it) but those guards (and yes, they are Texas private security officers) at the nuclear plant are carrying carbines. I would be surprised if whatever special dispensation allows that doesn't allow some extra authority on the client premises.

I posed the question about the rifles to TXInvestigator once, but he pretty much dodged it, so I'm guessing it's one of those things we're just not supposed to look closely at. Possibly some form of special state or federal law enforcement comission, or something to do with federal requirements for high-threat facilities overriding state regs, either of which would entail some special powers, making them not just run-of-the-mill security guards. At any rate, don't argue with the guy whose backup officers each have the muzzle of an M16 up one of your nostrils, memorize everything and let your lawyer deal with it later. Odds are, if you're on one of those sites, you'll have figured it out well before you got the clearance to enter: it's not the sort of place you'll end up accidentally while shopping at the mall.

Do they have any authority to disarm you short of you going nuts and threatening people?

Other than something very site-specific like the above, no. A guard will have no more authority than the property owner, so it comes down to what you could legally do to a guest in your house or a customer in your business. They can give you notice under PC30.06, but any disarm would basically require some very special circumstances that they could argue under PC9.22, since nothing else would cover it. 9.22 isn't something you ever want to depend on unless the alternative is very certain to be very bad, and security companies are far more liability-shy than private citizens.

Doug.38PR wrote: (BTW, I agree with Hossisfree and Will38 say. WHY DON'T y'all start a thread to that effect?)

go right ahead, ain't nobody stoppin' ya

Okay, what if one or all of the security guards confronting you is also an off duty peace officer. Some of the secuirty guards at this church are...one of the pastors own body guards (don't yo love that) at least is in plainclothes and is an off duty HPD officer? Can they legally disarm you then? I mean they are acting in the capacity of a security guard not a peace officer, that would suggest "no" on the other hand they are a peace officer whether off duty or not and, to my understanding, even an off duty peace officer can make an arrest, so that would suggest "yes"

Doug.38PR wrote:Okay, what if one or all of the security guards confronting you is also an off duty peace officer. Some of the secuirty guards at this church are...one of the pastors own body guards (don't yo love that) at least is in plainclothes and is an off duty HPD officer?

Once he identifies himself as a peace officer, he's acting as a peace officer.