TexasCHLforum.com

Just saw this posted on Facebook and figured this was also a good place to share.

http://www.prestonwood.org/about/news-e ... st-century

Greybeard, thanks for posting this. I just went to the site and signed up.

As President of our church counsel, I feel that one of my responsibilities is the safety of our congregation. Whether that be fire systems, theft deterrent or God Forbid an active shooter.

I don't want to say that our church is pro gun. But since both myself AND my Pastor took or LTC class together and we do have a sanctioned shooting club... Well.. you get the idea...


Anyway, thanks again for posting...

Having awareness training sounds like common sense to me. Adding a layer of security is a good measure to reduce the risk of being victimized.

I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

Yes - remove the unnecessary restrictions that serve only to protect the security industry.

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

Yes - remove the unnecessary restrictions that serve only to protect the security industry.

I'm not sure I understand, the restrictions were removed, passed and signed in SB2065 was amended with the content of HB421 (that did not get voted on) to include the exemptions. Am I missing something else?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB2065 was signed by the Governor today! Churches finally have the much-needed exemption from the Private Security Act.

Thanks to everyone who supported HB421. Although we didn't get that Bill passed, we did put its language into SB2065. I will withhold my comments about the opponents who testified against HB421.

Chas.

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

Yes - remove the unnecessary restrictions that serve only to protect the security industry.

I'm not sure I understand, the restrictions were removed, passed and signed in SB2065 was amended with the content of HB421 (that did not get voted on) to include the exemptions. Am I missing something else?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB2065 was signed by the Governor today! Churches finally have the much-needed exemption from the Private Security Act.

Thanks to everyone who supported HB421. Although we didn't get that Bill passed, we did put its language into SB2065. I will withhold my comments about the opponents who testified against HB421.

Chas.

Why is it necessary to prevent houses of worship from using the word "Security" anywhere on the persons of those providing security? Or from wearing a standard uniform that distinguishes them as the providers of security at the facility?

restrictions were lifted. Churches can implement whatever security measures they want, security teams, parking lot security, whatever they want to do......with members.

bblhd672 wrote:
Why is it necessary to prevent houses of worship from using the word "Security" anywhere on the persons of those providing security? Or from wearing a standard uniform that distinguishes them as the providers of security at the facility?

I guess your referring to the section in red below:

SB 2065 adds Section 1702.333 to the Texas Occupations Code exempting a person from the requirement to be registered or licensed with the Private Security Program if providing volunteer security services on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship. The individuals may not wear a uniform or otherwise give the impression that they are a peace officer, personal protection officer, or security officer.

I suppose because a peace officer, PPO and security officer are all licensed and have to have a certain level of training and continuing education for their license and the volunteer's no longer have that restriction if acting as security. When acting as a PPO (Level 4 license) the officer is usually in plain clothes and must conceal the firearm. I can't speak to the intent of the bill, so I can only take an educated guess that they do not want anyone to be confused by a uniform on a volunteer.

I actually am a volunteer security person at my church, I prefer to be as inconspicuous as possible. I don't see any conflict with the law as is.

One of our members who is an Elder in a small church in Flower Mound came out yesterday to discuss his concerns. At my suggestion, he did some research then posted this on Facebook this morning. I had planned to be on the road that Tuesday, but rearranged so I can also attend. I suspect it will include strategies similar to the "Avoid, Deny, Defend" taught by DPS in the School Safety Certification courses.

Maybe not-so-coincidently, I did a special "pastors" class back in October and had 9 people. One of the things I suggested they also consider is a carefully selected and very discreet "designated rifleman".

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

Yes - remove the unnecessary restrictions that serve only to protect the security industry.

I'm not sure I understand, the restrictions were removed, passed and signed in SB2065 was amended with the content of HB421 (that did not get voted on) to include the exemptions. Am I missing something else?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB2065 was signed by the Governor today! Churches finally have the much-needed exemption from the Private Security Act.

Thanks to everyone who supported HB421. Although we didn't get that Bill passed, we did put its language into SB2065. I will withhold my comments about the opponents who testified against HB421.

Chas.

Why is it necessary to prevent houses of worship from using the word "Security" anywhere on the persons of those providing security? Or from wearing a standard uniform that distinguishes them as the providers of security at the facility?

Without going into detail, that provision was necessary to pass the bill with our language. The Committee agreed with an opponent of the bill that untrained/unlicensed volunteers should not be wearing a uniform that gives the public the opinion that they meet the training and licensing requirement to be a "security officer" or peace officer. Rather than kill the bill as the opponent requested, the committee added the uniform provision.

I don't see this as an issue and it certainly will not be addressed in 2019 or any other legislative session. Why in the world open this law up to amendment or repeal just because some want to appear to be what they are not?

Chas.

Greybeard wrote:One of our members who is an Elder in a small church in Flower Mound came out yesterday to discuss his concerns. At my suggestion, he did some research then posted this on Facebook this morning. I had planned to be on the road that Tuesday, but rearranged so I can also attend. I suspect it will include strategies similar to the "Avoid, Deny, Defend" taught by DPS in the School Safety Certification courses.

Maybe not-so-coincidently, I did a special "pastors" class back in October and had 9 people. One of the things I suggested they also consider is a carefully selected and very discreet "designated rifleman".

I most likely will attend with others from our church.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I hope that this spreads and that small churches who cannot afford to hire off duty policemen or private security firms can be helped in protecting their congregations.

The legislature needs to take this up again in 2019 and recognize that the private security lobby is only interested in their own self preservation, not the lives of Texans as they worship.

Are you referring to this? https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 5#p1156785

Yes - remove the unnecessary restrictions that serve only to protect the security industry.

I'm not sure I understand, the restrictions were removed, passed and signed in SB2065 was amended with the content of HB421 (that did not get voted on) to include the exemptions. Am I missing something else?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB2065 was signed by the Governor today! Churches finally have the much-needed exemption from the Private Security Act.

Thanks to everyone who supported HB421. Although we didn't get that Bill passed, we did put its language into SB2065. I will withhold my comments about the opponents who testified against HB421.

Chas.

Why is it necessary to prevent houses of worship from using the word "Security" anywhere on the persons of those providing security? Or from wearing a standard uniform that distinguishes them as the providers of security at the facility?

Without going into detail, that provision was necessary to pass the bill with our language. The Committee agreed with an opponent of the bill that untrained/unlicensed volunteers should not be wearing a uniform that gives the public the opinion that they meet the training and licensing requirement to be a "security officer" or peace officer. Rather than kill the bill as the opponent requested, the committee added the uniform provision.

I don't see this as an issue and it certainly will not be addressed in 2019 or any other legislative session. Why in the world open this law up to amendment or repeal just because some want to appear to be what they are not?

Chas.

ok, so the only restriction now is that you can't wear a "uniform" and it's going to be subjective to "whomever" as to what a uniform is? Have I got that straight? I might have missed that during the session in the adding and taking.
I can't imagine a church member wanting to wear a "uniform", wear a suit, put on a colored name tag. There, you're done.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Without going into detail, that provision was necessary to pass the bill with our language. The Committee agreed with an opponent of the bill that untrained/unlicensed volunteers should not be wearing a uniform that gives the public the opinion that they meet the training and licensing requirement to be a "security officer" or peace officer. Rather than kill the bill as the opponent requested, the committee added the uniform provision.

I don't see this as an issue and it certainly will not be addressed in 2019 or any other legislative session. Why in the world open this law up to amendment or repeal just because some want to appear to be what they are not?

Chas.

As always, your knowledge of inside the legislation trumps (no pun intended) mine. I stand corrected and retract all my remarks about any shortcomings in church security laws after passage of SB2065.