TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84

Super. It will only allow us to do what churches already do but allow us to organize and be better prepared. It will make things much safer.

mojo84

EEllis wrote:
mojo84 wrote: Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.

Your answer of government protects us is wrong. All it is is another tax and interference.
No it's not "WRONG" because it isn't a yes or no question. There are benefits and negatives to all things and pretending otherwise is just a lie. Companies ignore background checks all the time even now that they are required. If there were no regulation anyone could put of a uniform and call themselves a security company and in your world there is no regulation or law to prevent such. It doesn't make the public safer to do away with regulation it makes the market free, it's not the same thing.

How did the rapist get hired with the government rules requiring licensing in place? Can you say government licensing prevent bad lawyers, insurance agents, plumbers, electricians?

mojo84

Not sure if you did a ninja edit or if a mod deleted your above comment. If a mod did it I apologize. I do think it is enlightening regarding your beliefs.

mojo84

EEllis wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
EEllis wrote:
Jason K wrote: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?
While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Thanks to the government for keeping us safe. We all need someone to save us from ourselves.
So you don't care that the local apartment complex has a uniformed guard that had a rape conviction? Yes that has happened. I don't look at it like govt saving me from anything. Sure the low income and obviously ignorant residents deserve what they get because they didn't bother to check or believed the companies lies when they did ask. The govt is never any help to anyone at an time no matter what. Heck they might pay that guard who works at the grocery store $10 when if they could hire convicts they could either get a convict cheaper or use that to leverage the guards pay to $8. How dare the state interfere!!!

Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.

Your answer of government protects us is wrong. All it is is another tax and interference.

mojo84

EEllis wrote:
Jason K wrote: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?
While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Thanks to the government for keeping us safe. We all need someone to save us from ourselves.

mojo84

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

mojo84

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.

mojo84

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

gugisman wrote:Back to my original question... If anyone knows anything about any new or reintroduced bill on this issue, please share.

I don't think it's time yet. Charles should be able to answer your question in due time. Hopefully, it will be addressed in 2015.

mojo84

I'm just trying to make sure it is real clear as I know many are unsure about this and I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression in this area. I don't want anyone to unwittingly get in trouble and incur legal expenses and I don't want their to be an issue and the anti gun nuts to use it as amunition against the Church.

I agree. I was concerned back when I was part of the Sargeant at Arms group in my Rotary Club.

Now, if a church or member makes an I formed decision about how to deal with this, that's up to them in my mind.

mojo84

Abraham wrote:Am I the only one to find the semantics being discussed confusing?

Sounds like a WHOLE LOTTA gray area in this matter.

That's why Charles started this thread promoting the bills addressed in the op. This needs to be addressed legislatively to clear it up.

mojo84

Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
carlson1 wrote:How does this stop deacons and ushers from carrying? At my church they are not part of any security. I am the Pastor and I am more responsible than my men to make sure my people are safe.

You didn't read my entire sentence. I said "deacons and ushers that are also responsible for helping make sure the church and members are safe". If they don't have this as part of their responsibility in your church, then it doesn't apply in your particular case.
I think the whole issue is if you make it an official function of their position, THEN it is illegal. Our ushers, pastors, deacons, choir members, all watch out for the other members of the church. If you have your hired police officer doing the 'security' and everyone else just doing their church functions, then it's OK. By your definition then a pastor or other official at the church who has a CHL would not be able to carry because by default they are responsible for the safety and overall well-being of the members.

By the way, it's not my " definition". I also acknowledged it may not be in every case as not all churches have the same responsibility for those positions. I also never said "safety". I specifically addressed " security".

mojo84

When it's outlined as one of the responsibilities in the deacon and usher manual that these groups are to provide security to supplement.t and support the hired cop, I think it's official. I disagree with it being that way and I'm sure we all could split hairs and argue the point to justify to make it say what we want. If Charles wants to correct me on this, I'll be happy to take his legal opinion to our pastor, chairman of the deacons and church legal council to correct them.

mojo84

carlson1 wrote:How does this stop deacons and ushers from carrying? At my church they are not part of any security. I am the Pastor and I am more responsible than my men to make sure my people are safe.

You didn't read my entire sentence. I said "deacons and ushers that are also responsible for helping make sure the church and members are safe". If they don't have this as part of their responsibility in your church, then it doesn't apply in your particular case.

mojo84

It's against the law if they are carrying out any duties that involve providing security.At our church, the deacons and ushers are involved in providing security and responding to breaches of security in conjunction with the hired off duty cop. As a deacon, technically, I can't carry when I'm "on duty", we have a rotation system in place, as part of our responsibilities are to provide a certain level of security. When its not my weekend to be " on duty", technically I can carry.

It's covered in this thread. This is why the laws need to be changed.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 19 matches

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups

Re: Church Volunteer Security Groups