Chl in Church

[SewTexas]

It would be really nice if it really can get cleared up this next session.

[jmra]

It would be really nice if it really can get cleared up this next session.

This whole thing is about money for security companies. Needs to be fixed.

[rtschl]

After one of Jimmy Meek's seminars (about 3 or 4 years ago) several of us asked about his statement that chl holders that are on an "eyes and ears" team could not be armed. His response is that he specifically requested information from DPS based on the opinion quoted below. To be fair to him he is only restating what DPS told him. DPS position is If it even looks like any type of "security" the state will pursue for having an illegal security company if person is armed. He told us about a mega church in Dallas that was caught and paid a fine. It is a class A misdemeanor that can result in a year in jail and a $4000.00 fine.

NOTE: At his seminars he has multiple vendors that will sell you services including security companies. He also spends time on sexual predators and the need to be proactive in your church for them as well. One of the vendors spoke about best practices to keep sexual predators from your kids and offered excellent suggestions. But they also are there to sell their services like background check systems etc.

From DPS website here is an official PSB opinion: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/PSB/La ... in_sum.htm
May 10, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.

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.

Ron

[ShootDontTalk]

I understand what this guy is saying, however sending police onto church property on a Sunday morning to conduct a stop and frisk type op to discover armed "security" (after all concealed means concealed) would probably result in immediate calls for the mayor and city council to step down and might cost the city millions in legal fees.

If I can provide "security" for my family and other innocents when I'm not at church, I see no compelling reason why the state should be concerned with me doing it while at church - beyond the obvious $$$ interests of security firms. I don't think anyone could suggest that the reason for security at churches is to control traffic or impress anyone with silly badges and shirts. Only the unthinkable occurring in a crowded church would ever warrant the weapon anyway. Having successfully denied the means to prevent such a mass shooting, who in government should the people hold responsible?

Edit: I'm pretty sure this is the same guy who did a newspaper interview prior to conducting one of his seminars where I used to live in which he stated that, according to Texas law, a CHL holder was barred from carrying in a church at all. He got called on that publicly during the seminar. The results were as you might imagine.

[jmra]

He told us about a mega church in Dallas that was caught and paid a fine. It is a class A misdemeanor that can result in a year in jail and a $4000.00 fine.

IIRC, this had more to do with clothing indicating a security team than it did being armed. It is also my understanding that none of the individuals were charged. In fact I can not find any instances where a church member with a CHL participating as a member of an E&E team has been charged under this code solely for carrying while serving on the team. Perhaps someone with better access to information can provide information to the contrary.
As far as JM's presentation goes, I can only give my impressions. I was left with the impression that he was an old school cop who believed that only "trained professionals" were equipped to confront these type of threats with a firearm. The impression I left with was anyone else doing so was not only likely to get themselves killed but also innocent people around them. Does this logic sound familiar?
Also, don't forget that this code has a direct financial impact on people pushing the services these organizations provide. It should also be noted that promoting a specific interpretation of this code could also be extremely self-serving. It would be very interesting to know their involvement in getting the code passed to begin with. No one will ever convince me that this code serves any purpose, as it relates to non profit organizations, other than to financially benefit security companies. Of course those churches who can not afford such services are left with two choices. I let you figure out what they are.
I will say one final thing, and again this is MHO, not only did the presentation fail to make our church more secure - the scare tactics used in the presentation so affected our volunteers that our security became more compromised. Like I said previously, it took almost a year to rebuild our E&E and Usher Teams.
The presentation I attended was conducted by JM. It was a number of years ago. None of the other people on his website presented nor were they in attendance. What I have stated here was my impressions of the presentation. My impressions could be in error and I welcome comments by those who had a different experience. I do not condone anyone violating any legal code nor am I suggesting that anyone should.

ETA: it should also be noted that the wide net cast by this code could be interpreted that anyone who does more than come to Church and sit in a pew while armed is violating the code. This needs to be fixed otherwise we simply make criminals out of law abiding citizens who refuse to allow the safety of their family to be compromised.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I understand what this guy is saying, however sending police onto church property on a Sunday morning to conduct a stop and frisk type op to discover armed "security" (after all concealed means concealed) would probably result in immediate calls for the mayor and city council to step down and might cost the city millions in legal fees.

If I can provide "security" for my family and other innocents when I'm not at church, I see no compelling reason why the state should be concerned with me doing it while at church - beyond the obvious $$$ interests of security firms. I don't think anyone could suggest that the reason for security at churches is to control traffic or impress anyone with silly badges and shirts. Only the unthinkable occurring in a crowded church would ever warrant the weapon anyway. Having successfully denied the means to prevent such a mass shooting, who in government should the people hold responsible?

Edit: I'm pretty sure this is the same guy who did a newspaper interview prior to conducting one of his seminars where I used to live in which he stated that, according to Texas law, a CHL holder was barred from carrying in a church at all. He got called on that publicly during the seminar. The results were as you might imagine.

Good points SDT

[SewTexas]

I actually considered going to one of these seminars a while back, then I studied his website some more and realized he's simply trying to sell more stuff and that really doesn't appeal to me....

I like all of the stats on his site though.

[troglodyte]

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.

Does the last sentence strike anyone as the defining clause?

IANAL and don't have a clue how it would really pan out but, to my small brain, it seems pretty clear. Straight from the DPS. No "uniform" = no license needed (assuming you're not operating as, or impersonating, a security business).

I think I remember hearing about the Dallas mega church and it was because they wore some kind of uniform but were not licensed under the PSB. I don't recall if CHL had anything to do with it or not.

This does need to get cleared up next session. I can understand the PSB not wanting unlicensed "security" companies out there and "uniforms" give a sense of certification so I'm fine with that aspect. Individual organizations should be able to provide their members with their own security as long as it is not passed off, marketed, or profited as licensed security.