White settlement Church shooting

[Benson]

Honestly, as point blank as the guys were, would tackling the perp been a better option than drawing on him? No way can I put myself in their shoes, neither could any of us, but seems like that could have kept him from drawing his shotgun and taking shots.

I thought about this and it’s easy for me to Monday Morning Quarterback the event. However, I have learned that if a person wearing an overcoat and with a hood should be met at the door, checked and cleared. I get the overwhelming feeling of a wolf in the sheep’s pen. He should have never been there at all. But again, I’m not here to second guess but to learn from it.

[oktx]

I read something about him wearing a fake beard as well. Is this true?

[TGKIL]

I am only using your post to explain the old and new law.



You were absolutely correct that SB535 removed churches from prohibited locations.



The problem in reading that bill alone is that it cuts out most of the actual Penal Code section and just shows the changed part. If you go to the Penal Code and read the actual law but much further down (very long section) it says that the law prohibiting carry in churches does not apply unless they had a 30.06 sign.



So carrying in a church was only prohibited if the proper signage was posted. If that is true, why even have the law? Any place can prohibit lawful handgun license carry even today with a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.



I had to read it a couple of times to figure this one out back then.....



Any location could prohibit the lawful carry of a handgun even with a handgun license by merely posting the proper signs. Why was at church (and a couple of other places) different and placed under the prohibited places law?



The difference is...... one is a felony and one is a misdemeanor. So if Walmart put out a 30.06 sign and you violated the law, it was (and still is) a misdemeanor. If a church put out a 30.06 sign, it was a felony because of churches being put into the prohibited places section of the law.



What SB535 did was remove churches from the felony section. A church can still ban handguns by putting put out the 30.06 or 30.07 signs and it will still be against the law to carry in a church. Again SB535 didn’t change the requirement for the sign, it just changed the penalty by taking away the felony which is basically what you were correctly stating.



The other change in 2019 was for the private security law. A company acting as Private Security (not police officers) is required to have a state license. Several churches had their own security teams of just church members who were armed. It eventually came into the discussion that these church members were in fact acting like a security company requiring a license even though they may not be getting paid. It was a technicality that made churches possibly violating the law by having unlicensed “security”.



Was volunteering church members carrying handguns in church really the same as an unlicensed security company because they discussed “what if” scenarios?



I have my doubts however the legislature made it a moot point by changing that private security law and essentially exempted churches. I think it was SB2065.



Clear as mud?



2019 did not make church carry legal. It moved it from a felony to a misdemeanor if signs posted. Then we saw the waiving of a private security license for churches.



If anyone really cares at this point....

Tvc, thank you for a logical explanation! I appreciate you taking the time to help all of us learn, and not just talk down to others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PondPopper]

Your right...they're plenty of people out there that have no business with a firearm but the founding fathers didn't say "the right to bear arms as long as your properly trained". Why? Because they understood the impact of government oversight and regulations.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Thank you and I NEVER said they didn't have the "RIGHT". Not once...

[Michael]

Should it make me nervous knowing there are people out there carrying that can't even carry on a civil discussion on the internet without inciting conflict by calling other site members "ignorant", "stupid", "idiot", "clueless" or telling them to "stfu?"

[PondPopper]

Should it make me nervous knowing there are people out there carrying that can't even carry on a civil discussion on the internet without inciting conflict by calling other site members "ignorant", "stupid", "idiot", "clueless" or telling them to "stfu?"

Yes, VERY..

[RascalArms]

Should it make me nervous knowing there are people out there carrying that can't even carry on a civil discussion on the internet without inciting conflict by calling other site members "ignorant", "stupid", "idiot", "clueless" or telling them to "stfu?"

Unfortunately that’s the world we live in now Michael. Basic respect is beginning to be a lost art. Sometimes people forget we are mostly on the same side.

[oktx]

Should it make me nervous knowing there are people out there carrying that can't even carry on a civil discussion on the internet without inciting conflict by calling other site members "ignorant", "stupid", "idiot", "clueless" or telling them to "stfu?"

It goes back to everyone is brave on the net. Most wouldn’t say that to another man’s face. Same with the constant smart *** comments.

[tvc184]

Tvc, thank you for a logical explanation! I appreciate you taking the time to help all of us learn, and not just talk down to others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re welcome.

Thank you

[okrattler]

I think if you're going to carry you should practice at least and fairly often. No one should make you or should even have to make you. If you're carrying a weapon to protect your life and the lives of those around you,you owe it to them and yourself to be proficient with it.

The police have to qualify with their weapons what is it,twice a year? To me that's not nearly enough. There are civilians that are better equipped or at least more skilled to handle a threat than the police. I'd go so far as to say that. No disrespect to police officers I'm just saying a person that shoots and shoots often and trains to be good,will be good.

If your job is to take a life at a moment's notice to protect yours or someone else's I don't think shooting once or twice a year is cutting it.

[Michael]

I am only using your post to explain the old and new law.

You were absolutely correct that SB535 removed churches from prohibited locations.

The problem in reading that bill alone is that it cuts out most of the actual Penal Code section and just shows the changed part. If you go to the Penal Code and read the actual law but much further down (very long section) it says that the law prohibiting carry in churches does not apply unless they had a 30.06 sign.

So carrying in a church was only prohibited if the proper signage was posted. If that is true, why even have the law? Any place can prohibit lawful handgun license carry even today with a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

I had to read it a couple of times to figure this one out back then.....

Any location could prohibit the lawful carry of a handgun even with a handgun license by merely posting the proper signs. Why was at church (and a couple of other places) different and placed under the prohibited places law?

The difference is...... one is a felony and one is a misdemeanor. So if Walmart put out a 30.06 sign and you violated the law, it was (and still is) a misdemeanor. If a church put out a 30.06 sign, it was a felony because of churches being put into the prohibited places section of the law.

What SB535 did was remove churches from the felony section. A church can still ban handguns by putting put out the 30.06 or 30.07 signs and it will still be against the law to carry in a church. Again SB535 didn’t change the requirement for the sign, it just changed the penalty by taking away the felony which is basically what you were correctly stating.

The other change in 2019 was for the private security law. A company acting as Private Security (not police officers) is required to have a state license. Several churches had their own security teams of just church members who were armed. It eventually came into the discussion that these church members were in fact acting like a security company requiring a license even though they may not be getting paid. It was a technicality that made churches possibly violating the law by having unlicensed “security”.

Was volunteering church members carrying handguns in church really the same as an unlicensed security company because they discussed “what if” scenarios?

I have my doubts however the legislature made it a moot point by changing that private security law and essentially exempted churches. I think it was SB2065.

Clear as mud?

2019 did not make church carry legal. It moved it from a felony to a misdemeanor if signs posted. Then we saw the waiving of a private security license for churches.

If anyone really cares at this point....

By letter of the law, would it be legal for a church to post a 30.06 sign and still have volunteer members as part of a "security team" that were permitted to carry, or would that then require a licensed security company?

[tvc184]

I think if you're going to carry you should practice at least and fairly often. No one should make you or should even have to make you. If you're carrying a weapon to protect your life and the lives of those around you,you owe it to them and yourself to be proficient with it.

The police have to qualify with their weapons what is it,twice a year? To me that's not nearly enough. There are civilians that are better equipped or at least more skilled to handle a threat than the police. I'd go so far as to say that. No disrespect to police officers I'm just saying a person that shoots and shoots often and trains to be good,will be good.

If your job is to take a life at a moment's notice to protect yours or someone else's I don't think shooting once or twice a year is cutting it.

In Texas it is once in a calendar year. Some departments might require more than that but I would venture to guess that the majority do not.

I would also guess that a substantial percentage of officers only shoot during that qualification.

[tvc184]

By letter of the law, would it be legal for a church to post a 30.06 sign and still have volunteer members as part of a "security team" that were permitted to carry, or would that then require a licensed security company?

That is a darn good question that I have never heard asked.

I’m going to give an educated guess but I think I’m right.

The 30.06 is trespassing. To be trespassing there has to be a victim. For example you might have no trespassing signs up at your fenced in yard yet you let your next-door neighbor come over because he is your friend. The police cannot see him walk past the no trespass signs and file charges. The police are not the victim and neither are you because you have consented to the conduct.

If a store has 30.06 signs, it is my opinion that the store owner can still allow his employees to carry. It is his store. The 30.06 sign is a notice to the general public and not individuals who he allows to carry just like you can allow someone to visit your property even though you have no trespassing signs.

Therefore I think it would be entirely legal for a church (or any business) to put up 3006 or 3007 signs but give individual people authority to carry.

Some crimes are against the public welfare (no private victim needed such as DWI, UCW, underage alcohol, speeding, etc.) and some crimes are against an individual victim (assault, trespass, theft, etc.). Trespassing is against an individual and must have a victim willing to file charges or no crime exist in my opinion.

[Gherkin05]

Its gets tricky.. Much more demanding qualifications would be a good start..



I believe all should be able to carry but carry RESPONSIBLY!!!! To many are carrying, even licensed to carry, knowing dam good and well they aren't truly ready for that "responsibility" but that little piece of plastic in their wallet has now empowered them to do so, so they do, at he risk of everyone around them getting accidentally shot.....

If anybody truly believes that these very short and basic CHL classes are fully qualifying/preparing every individual that "passes", especially ones with 0 experience, to responsibly carry then your living in denial or you are living a pipe dream..

I can apprentice the sentiment of your statements but that’s like demanding people drive responsibly. Some do, many don’t. Part of living is a community.

There are plenty of gun laws to regulate irresponsible gun owners/actions.

2A is a nonnegotiable right. If you’re not a felon you should be able to carry without the feds or the state “approving it”.

[flywise]

I can apprentice the sentiment of your statements but that’s like demanding people drive responsibly. Some do, many don’t. Part of living is a community.

There are plenty of gun laws to regulate irresponsible gun owners/actions.

2A is a nonnegotiable right. If you’re not a felon you should be able to carry without the feds or the state “approving it”.

Absolutely the point i have been trying to make for years.
We either have the 2nd and or we dont.
I i say we need red flag laws the response it very loud and clear " Shall not be infringed"


But these same 2a scholars will say you should not be walking the streets with out some gov. idea of approved training and permission......thats pure ignorance and there is no question about it.