While at Church Last Night...

[remington79]

I know you said you were just visiting and that's why you went, but I'd talk to your girlfriend and explain why you won't be attending anymore. I don't care if there are LEOs attending or not. Outside of work I trust no one for my safety but me.

[gigag04]

New church.

[snorri]

Lets discuss...

What's to discuss? Find a church that shares your beliefs and morals.

[Heritage1]

Beating a dead horse, but you have been given notice. Continued carry at the church could cost you your license. Or at least a nightmare if the LEO saw/inquired again.

Find a church that doesnt have a problem with concealed carry and invite the future in-laws (small jab) to your church.

[sjfcontrol]

And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.

I'm curious about this. Would it make a difference that the "security person" was NOT being paid? My instructor gave the example of someone's x-boyfriend calling her at work, and threatening to come down there and make trouble for everybody. Your boss (not the threatened woman) then asks you to sit in on a meeting "since your armed and can protect us if he shows up." Since the boss is paying you for your regular job, you now become "a paid security guard".

In the situation regarding the church, no-ones getting paid (presumably), so what makes it "security"? Making plans to handle "issues" as they may develop, perhaps involving the actions of other individuals, does not make you a guard -- I do that in my own home!

[ELB]

And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.

I'm curious about this. Would it make a difference that the "security person" was NOT being paid? ...

No, being paid or not would not make a difference -- you generally have to be licensed by the state to provide "security." If you don't call it "security" ... then maybe.

The following is the opinion of the DPS on volunteer church security teams. It is on the DPS website, in their "Private Security Bureau" section, under "Opinions."
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/psb_opin_sum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Church Volunteer Security Patrol
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.

[A-R]

And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.

I'm curious about this. Would it make a difference that the "security person" was NOT being paid? My instructor gave the example of someone's x-boyfriend calling her at work, and threatening to come down there and make trouble for everybody. Your boss (not the threatened woman) then asks you to sit in on a meeting "since your armed and can protect us if he shows up." Since the boss is paying you for your regular job, you now become "a paid security guard".

In the situation regarding the church, no-ones getting paid (presumably), so what makes it "security"? Making plans to handle "issues" as they may develop, perhaps involving the actions of other individuals, does not make you a guard -- I do that in my own home!

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it's buried somewhere in Occupations Code Chapter 1702

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... ightType=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the answer lies in this section quoted below and basically if you're acting like security you cannot carry a firearm while doing so unless you have a Security Officer Commission (CHL doesn't qualify). This is what's been explained to me before. As I understand it, if you're acting as non-commissioned security you may not carry a firearm even if you have a CHL (security commission trumps CHL basically).

But splitting hairs over the defition of "employed" as a Security Officer? That's a legal question I can't answer. Probably has something to do with official duties within an organization, even if the duties are unpaid and the organization is non-profit - but I'm way out on a limb there and IANAL.

Sec. 1702.161. SECURITY OFFICER COMMISSION REQUIRED. (a) An individual may not accept employment as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.(b) An individual employed as a security officer may not knowingly carry a firearm during the course of performing duties as a security officer unless the board has issued a security officer commission to the individual.(c) A person may not hire or employ an individual as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.610, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 4.48, eff. September 1, 2009.

[gigag04]

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... ightType=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why go through the legwork of actually reading laws when you can just post your question on the internet and have it answered

[bdickens]

No reference is made to any specific requirement for oral notice.

I meant to say: no reference is made to any specific requirement for the wording of an oral notice.

[PATHFINDER]

I'll be brief. New Life Church in Colorado Springs - CHP holder in attendance stopped mass shooter - after 3 people shot killing 2. My daughter and her family regularly attended New Life at that time but were out of town that Sunday. Find another church and invest in a mag pouch.

[wally775]

Security?

This exact scenario was posed to the DPS sergeant conducting our Instructor training
Class. This in no way is meant to start the Church thread all over again so disregard that part of the answer.

Question from student;
So since I have a CHL my pastor said he was going to ask a bunch of us CHLers to
perform security during church because we have had some trouble before. As long as we
stay concealed it would be ok. Correct?

Answer from DPS sergeant;
No. You cannot carry on church property as a CHL even if the pastor asks you.
If you carry for security reasons you would have to have a security license with firearm.
If you have a security license that allows you to carry a firearm it must be open carry.
If you carry concealed while as security (not counting PPO) then you violate the security statute. If you carry as CHL while security you violate security and CHL statute.
And even if you had a security license allowing firearm you would have to be working for a licensed security company that had a contract for that church.

Seemed like the jest of the answer was don’t even think about calling yourself any kind of security as a CHL. Regardless of the no carry at church statement it would appear the only thing you could do is carry and know that things would be more secure with you concealed. Once you bring the subject up of performing any type of security you have exposed yourself to other issues that are clear issues and carrying in church is a non issue.

I am sure there are people on this forum more astute than myself but this was the question
and the answer. I might not like it but law wise it does seem to make sense.

I have of course written from memory so it is not verbatim but it is very close.

My opinion and worth twice as much as you paid.

[AJ80]

Security?

This exact scenario was posed to the DPS sergeant conducting our Instructor training
Class. This in no way is meant to start the Church thread all over again so disregard that part of the answer.

Question from student;
So since I have a CHL my pastor said he was going to ask a bunch of us CHLers to
perform security during church because we have had some trouble before. As long as we
stay concealed it would be ok. Correct?

Answer from DPS sergeant;
No. You cannot carry on church property as a CHL even if the pastor asks you.
If you carry for security reasons you would have to have a security license with firearm.
If you have a security license that allows you to carry a firearm it must be open carry.
If you carry concealed while as security (not counting PPO) then you violate the security statute. If you carry as CHL while security you violate security and CHL statute.
And even if you had a security license allowing firearm you would have to be working for a licensed security company that had a contract for that church.

Seemed like the jest of the answer was don’t even think about calling yourself any kind of security as a CHL. Regardless of the no carry at church statement it would appear the only thing you could do is carry and know that things would be more secure with you concealed. Once you bring the subject up of performing any type of security you have exposed yourself to other issues that are clear issues and carrying in church is a non issue.

I am sure there are people on this forum more astute than myself but this was the question
and the answer. I might not like it but law wise it does seem to make sense.

I have of course written from memory so it is not verbatim but it is very close.

My opinion and worth twice as much as you paid.

Did this instructor training happen before 46.035(i) came about?

[dac1842]

The LEO, if acting with the authority of the preacher has the authority to ask you to leave in the car. The preacher without any doubt does. Now the one issue I did not see mentioned. The preacher mentioned they were looking at forming a security team in the near future and someone may contact you then. Be wary of this under DPS guidelines if the team is made up of anyone other than peace officers, the church must then obtain a security license. Not a cheap endeavor when you have armed folks

[Jungle Work]

The simple answer is I wouldn't set foot in that Church again.
And if the GF didn't like it, I'd dump her.
Many Pastors, Preachers, Priest and Rabis are Pacifist and don't believe in self defense.
I don't need those kind of folks as a spiritual leader.

Jungle Work

[The Annoyed Man]

[quote="sjfcontrol"][quote="The Annoyed Man"] And having an unarmed security detail (if made up of church members, it would HAVE to be unarmed, since your CHL does not grant you authority to carry as a security person) is not as good as being able to defend yourself in extremis.[/quote]
I'm curious about this. Would it make a difference that the "security person" was NOT being paid? My instructor gave the example of someone's x-boyfriend calling her at work, and threatening to come down there and make trouble for everybody. Your boss (not the threatened woman) then asks you to sit in on a meeting "since your armed and can protect us if he shows up." Since the boss is paying you for your regular job, you now become "a paid security guard".

In the situation regarding the church, no-ones getting paid (presumably), so what makes it "security"? Making plans to handle "issues" as they may develop, perhaps involving the actions of other individuals, does not make you a guard -- I do that in my own home![/quote]
There are at least a couple of people on staff at my church who know I carry, and have expressed their approval. I think if there were an informal crew of people such as myself who cooperated to provide some kind of sub rosa security detail NOT at the direction of church officials, that would probably be legal. The wisdom of such a thing would depend very much on the hearts and discernment of the individuals involved.