Critical legislation for 2015

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for your input folks. This is helpful.

Just to add a bit of trivia, I uploaded a pdf Excel chart showing the voting and percentage breakdown. It's on the first post in this thread. Obviously, the number will change periodically but I can't begin to keep it up to date by the minute. I'll update it and upload a new chart periodically. Every time you see the download count go back to "0" you will know a new chart has been uploaded. Again, this is for trivial purposes only; it means absolutely nothing.

Chas.

[Pawpaw]

I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.

IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.

I highlighted the hole in your argument in regard to my post. Like any segment of society, church leadership varies widely. If you don't believe that, think "Westboro". I don't care if you have 100 years of experience with "E&E teams", I'm willing to make a very large wager that experience is only with a very few churches, probably only one or two.

As I stated, I voted for this measure (in the poll) which means I do support it. I just would like to see some way to prevent some well meaning but misguided leadership team from going astray. I don't know how, or even if, that could be accomplished, but it is a concern.

Your reaction to my post sounds just like the OCT bunch, "If you're not 100% with me, you're against me."

[mojo84]

I believe there is no way to fill all the holes and prevent any misuse by writing more complex laws. There's always going to be people that test the boundaries.

[mojo84]

The issue I thought would be more popular is the abolishment of the fingerprint requirement. I don't like doing the fingerprints and feel like I'm being treated as a criminal.

[Pawpaw]

I believe there is no way to fill all the holes and prevent any misuse by writing more complex laws. There's always going to be people that test the boundaries.

I suspect you're right, but I wanted to raise the issue in case smarter people than I can figure it out.

Either way, I support the issue.

[CleverNickname]

The issue I thought would be more popular is the abolishment of the fingerprint requirement. I don't like doing the fingerprints and feel like I'm being treated as a criminal.

It would be nice, but pretty much every other choice in the poll is more important IMO, and we only have so much political capital to expend each legislative session.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The issue I thought would be more popular is the abolishment of the fingerprint requirement. I don't like doing the fingerprints and feel like I'm being treated as a criminal.

It would be nice, but pretty much every other choice in the poll is more important IMO, and we only have so much political capital to expend each legislative session.

Yes! This is the dilemma we face every session. There are so many things we want to do, but there's only so much time and influence to go around. Everyone voting in this poll has to do the same thing we do to set a legislative agenda, with one exception. We also have to evaluate whether something is even possible and this often has nothing to do with a bill's value.

Chas.

[jmra]

I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.

IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.

I highlighted the hole in your argument in regard to my post. Like any segment of society, church leadership varies widely. If you don't believe that, think "Westboro". I don't care if you have 100 years of experience with "E&E teams", I'm willing to make a very large wager that experience is only with a very few churches, probably only one or two.

As I stated, I voted for this measure (in the poll) which means I do support it. I just would like to see some way to prevent some well meaning but misguided leadership team from going astray. I don't know how, or even if, that could be accomplished, but it is a concern.

Your reaction to my post sounds just like the OCT bunch, "If you're not 100% with me, you're against me."

You read way too much into my response. At no time did I ever suggest that " If you're not 100% with me, you're against me" and to be frank, comparing me to the OCT crowd is crossing the line.

[jmra]

I believe there is no way to fill all the holes and prevent any misuse by writing more complex laws. There's always going to be people that test the boundaries.

[gljjt]

I just would like to see some way to prevent some well meaning but misguided leadership team from going astray. I don't know how, or even if, that could be accomplished, but it is a concern.

I think that is taught in your CHL class, what you can and cannot do. This would change nothing in terms of what is permissible or restricted under the law except it is no longer a violation to officially be eyes and ears for the church. Just like you do for yourself today.

As a side note, I'd be interested in knowing how many "event staff" ( you have seen the t-shirts) at air shows/kite festivals/music events/etc are licensed security officers.

[kenobi]

the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

I'm opposed to loopholes for special interest groups. If it's a bad law, repeal it for everyone.

[Charles L. Cotton]

the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

I'm opposed to loopholes for special interest groups. If it's a bad law, repeal it for everyone.

Churches are not "special interest groups." The only special interest group in this mix is the security industry who wants to protect its economic interests at the expense of church members. Your one-size-fits-all is why we restrict everyone's access to tools that can be misused rather than those who misuse those tools.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

I'm opposed to loopholes for special interest groups. If it's a bad law, repeal it for everyone.

it's a law FOR a special interest group!

[Tic Tac]

the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

I'm opposed to loopholes for special interest groups. If it's a bad law, repeal it for everyone.

it's a law FOR a special interest group!

in that case, the argument is even stronger to repeal the law instead of making exceptions.

[booze97]

1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.