TexasCHLforum.com

This really needs to be address this session. If schools can allow, train, fund, and pay stipends to their teachers to carry at school(and that's good) why can't volunteers at churches be on a "security" team? No uniforms or badges wanted or needed, just let us be active in our ministry in an organized way.

I tend to agree with this. Right now, the law seems to prefer that we just have an uncoordinated armed response with no prior planning. I struggle to understand how that is better than allowing people to coordinate their response plan to the most likely potential security scenarios a congregation may face.

It is a bit like legally banning a family from having any formal plan / roles for family members in the case of a fire.

Don't challenge a "rent seeking" crony capitalist business lobby. You will never win. The private security licensing regulations exist to protect the business interests of private security firms and former/current Fed & State LEO's who get special dispensation from the rules.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I tend to agree with this. Right now, the law seems to prefer that we just have an uncoordinated armed response with no prior planning. I struggle to understand how that is better than allowing people to coordinate their response plan to the most likely potential security scenarios a congregation may face.

It is a bit like legally banning a family from having any formal plan / roles for family members in the case of a fire.

I know I'm telling Noah about the flood, but It's not better! The only opposition is from the security industry and even that is silly. There isn't enough money in the church market to make a dent in their revenue.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I know I'm telling Noah about the flood, but It's not better! The only opposition is from the security industry and even that is silly. There isn't enough money in the church market to make a dent in their revenue.

Chas.

What is the likely outcome of this bill? It seems silly to protect the security industry at the expense of putting people practicing their religions at risk because their house of worship cannot afford to pay for security.

bblhd672 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I know I'm telling Noah about the flood, but It's not better! The only opposition is from the security industry and even that is silly. There isn't enough money in the church market to make a dent in their revenue.

Chas.

What is the likely outcome of this bill? It seems silly to protect the security industry at the expense of putting people practicing their religions at risk because their house of worship cannot afford to pay for security.

Only roughly 19-25% of the bills proposed in any legislative session are passed. Add the fact that this has a dedicated lobby against it and well... it is anyone's guess.

HB421 is very important. Just a matter of time before an attack at a church, or any place of worship.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... -new-year/

I emailed Rep. Capriglione [dist. 98] voicing my support for this bill. Received a response by mail today stating he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment [he is A rated by TSRAPAC] and supports the intent of this bill.

I have NO love for the security industry in Texas. They do have a well funded lobbying arm and for some reason ( money? ) they hold sway over our legislators. A prime example is when they managed to get a bill passed years ago that made it illegal for non full time Texas Peace Officers to work extra employment as security unless they had a security license. Despite the fact that most of these officers had more experience and training that the majority of licensed security guards. It was all about their wanting to monopolize the security market. While I have no issues with a group wanting to protect their income, I do have an issue with ignorant politicians not being able think logocally about a bill but simply voting to protect their donors. Today, part time and reserve officers are required to have the same training as a full time officer so it really makes no sense.

Okay, I will get off my soapbox.... for now.

It would be nice if the exemption was for all volunteer unpaid security, religious or secular. Why shouldn't a neighborhood watch have the same exemption?

Ameer wrote:It would be nice if the exemption was for all volunteer unpaid security, religious or secular. Why shouldn't a neighborhood watch have the same exemption?

If you broaden the scope beyond churches it has no chance whatsoever

Declare your group a church and you get to be exempt too.

The first amendment says the government has no authority to regulate the establishment of your own religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, so declare your group is a religion. The tax benefits are nice too.

Lambda Force wrote:Declare your group a church and you get to be exempt too.

The first amendment says the government has no authority to regulate the establishment of your own religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, so declare your group is a religion. The tax benefits are nice too.

That sounds like a good idea. The tax benefits sound appealing and, if Trump gets his way, you can spend money lobbying without losing that federal tax exempt status.

HB 421, relating to Volunteer Church Security Teams, is scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, March 07. Here is the complete text of HB421:

"85R1112 LHC-D, By: Rinaldi H.B. No. 421
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the exemption from application of the Private Security Act of certain persons who provide security services on a volunteer basis at a place of religious worship.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter N, Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, is amended by adding Section 1702.333 to read as follows:
Sec. 1702.333. PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP; CERTAIN VOLUNTEERS. This chapter does not apply to a person who is providing volunteer security services on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2017."

The bills primary author is Rinaldi, it has 4 co-authors: Krause, Leach, Phelan, and King (Phil).

It currently has 17 coauthors: Anderson (Rodney), Biedermann, Burrows, Cain, Flynn, Hefner, Keough, Lang, Metcalf, Sanford, Schofield, Shaheen, Stickland, Swanson, Tinderholt, White, Zedler.

I'm contacting representatives Tan Parker, and Lynn Stuckey today - to ask them to coauthor the bill. You can do the same with other representatives...

This bill does have a chance of getting to the floor. Just in case though, I will be suggesting an amendment, (in case the primary wording gets little or no traction), that 'exempts', or, "does not apply to" "Honorably Retired Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement Officers, pursuant to Title 18, U.S, Code, Sections 926C (d)(2)(B), and TX Occupational Code, Section 1701.357." This is a no brainer.... It will at least recognize retired LEO's, with their years of training and experience, as capable of performing security operations... as a volunteer, on a church security team.

I will testify on March 7th.

Anyone else care to join me???

Eric Inman
Ponder, TX

Sidenote: Matt Schaefer, once again, has introduced HB1267, which is very similar but includes "private schools" in the language. Thank you Rep. Schaefer!

HB421 in committee hearing in progress now

video feed http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=2646