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.