Church Designed Security Team worries me

[Greenleaf4902]

Member of a church which is about to implement a security team with formal quarterly training and a long list of qualifications to be involved. All very formal. Sounds a little over the top to me but perhaps with the legal system we have today it's required? This is far far far far way and above obtaining word of mouth permission from the church's pastor to simply carry a gun. The qualifications and training mirror FBI or CIA.

So my concern primarily is a state of Ohio law listed in the church's formal outline which gives a reference to how to carry/holster a pistol. Is there, cuz I don't know of one????

The other detail given in the description of the security team is that drawing a pistol is a last resort in a threatening situation and hand to hand combat is to be employed prior to resorting to drawing a conceal carry pistol.

Sorta worries me as this operation procedure outline is drawn up by an NRA CCW instructor. Um, hand to hand combat is something we are to employ in a deadly or life threatening situation prior to drawing out a deadly force weapon? Not what I have been instructed with by USCCA and my CCW instructor.

Should I have a problem with that reasoning? I have a meeting with members and am not sure if this is a concern I should have

[Greenleaf4902]

ORC 2923 .125 (B) (4)
Has nothing to do concerning how to holster and concealing of said firearm. It is an outline of the CCW application process.

[Brian D.]

I'd have to read these things for myself to form any thoughts and comments.

[sodbuster95]

If the opportunity to participate in that security team were offered to me, I would politely decline.

[djthomas]

I'm no lawyer but there's a lot of problems with this. This really should be vetted out by a lawyer who is intimately familiar with the ins and outs of armed security in Ohio, because that's essentially what this is, other than the fact that these will be proprietary guards and not licensed security guards.

I suspect all these crazy rules are intended to overcome objections by certain members and avoid liability. On the surface they kind of make sense. All should agree that deadly force is a last resort. But language requiring one to go through hand to hand techniques when deadly force would otherwise be authorized actually increases liability when the team member is stabbed or shot to death.

We've had a few of these discussions come up over the years and when the lawyers have chimed in there have been a few consistent considerations. One in particular stands out to me: The liability protection concerning CHLers on private premises has never been tested in court. When that day comes the courts are going to have to evaluate the legislature's intent. It's quite likely that the courts would conclude that the intent was to protect private property owners if Joe Schmoe CHL does something bad in his own capacity, say a customer in a store shoots someone by mistake. The intent was to give places an incentive to not post. That's completely different than Joe Schmoe Security Team Member acting in an officially armed capacity on behalf of the store owner following the store owner's armed security manual.

Counterintuitively the more specific the church gets about training, duties, weapons procedures and what have you the more liability the church is taking on. First, liability for a team member screwing up and second, liability to a team member injured or killed while following established but poorly thought out or executed procedures.

I've seen it recommended that the church establish a basic security plan with no mention of guns, weapons or combat techniques. Any mention of the use of force should be general and say something like "the use of force should be avoided, however when absolutely necessary it must be applied lawfully, bearing in mind the team member's capacity as a private citizen." Then somewhere at the bottom the plan states that security team members may, but are not required to carry a concealed handgun on the premises, bearing in mind rule number X (whatever rule covers use of force). Once you cross the line to requiring someone to carry a weapon you're fully responsible for everything they do, plain and simple.

But what about qualifying and stuff? That never, ever goes in writing. On the other hand if the gun loving folks on the security team like to go shooting once a quarter for fellowship well then that's their business. But they surely don't save targets or record scores. However if along the way someone seems to behave in an unsafe manner or isn't interested in keeping up relations with others on the team well that's grounds to be taken off the security team and the problem kind of resolves itself.

I'm with sodbuster - I'd politely decline to be involved in this team unless some serious changes were made.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

And what kind of liability (specifically Errors & Omissions) insurance does the NRA instructor have regarding creating the security training and policies for the church?

If the church screws up (which I think they already have) and gets sued (becuase this is FAR beyond CHL law), their insurance company would surely like to recover their losses from whomever's hare-brained idea this was.

[djthomas]

And what kind of liability (specifically Errors & Omissions) insurance does the NRA instructor have regarding creating the security training and policies for the church?

Hence my recommendation for a lawyer well versed in Ohio law concerning armed security. A CHL instructor can develop a course of fire but the policy should must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. Then again as I said, I don't think there should be any kind of formal course here.

Given the hypersensitivity to liability I'm frankly surprised that an NRA instructor is being allowed as much rope as he is. You'd think they'd want an OPOTA private security or law enforcement certified person. Maybe the NRA instructor is that, I dunno. Or again, maybe this hasn't been thought through as thoroughly as they think. The whole you don't know what you don't know/just enough to be dangerous bit.

[Mr. Glock]

Illustrates the merit of taking churches off the mandatory CPZ list.

Joe Schmo operating as a individual citizen on their own, to defend their life, would probably do better than a rule book encounter of gradually incremental use of force policies by a non-LEO church security team under these terms of engagement formed by someone with minimal qualifications.

(Generally speaking, we don't have all the details)

[MyWifeSaidYes]

... maybe this hasn't been thought through as thoroughly as they think. The whole you don't know what you don't know/just enough to be dangerous bit.

This.

[Greenleaf4902]

Valid points. All of them. There are a number of persons involved in the program including myself. This is groun floor and know of one LEO involved. I have voiced concerns via email as I have yet to attend a formal meeting which, from description, thete will be several upcoming.

I don't know which of the individuals assembled the operating procedure manual/outline. It could have been just one. It could be taken from a tv script of Mayberry RFD . I don't know yet.

The armed individuals are a small segment of the team as a whole. It begins with the car parking team. Then door greeters. The camera survelance (spell that correctly? ) the worship ushers. The lookouts at locations throughout who remain on a particular post (area) the the roaming team who walk about.

Anyone of the members can be armed. If a CCW card carrying citizen of state of Ohio.

I would agree it would be better to allow al who want to carrybe permitted to do so and have a security system/team who are watching and observant but it sounds like the church as a whole isn't going to be onboard with simply allowing "guys with guns comming and going as they please"

I not a lawyer and thus know nothing about legal rammifications concering the implementation of a security team I have many questions myself. I certainly cant know who or when or how which individuals or group cnan and would he held accountable for which action against another etc etc etc.

It has been stated on this forum in the past; don't simply obtain permission from the pastor to carry your gun. Thete neefs to be a formal plan in place and I guess this is it even though it a little more complex than I could have ever guesse or hoped for

[djthomas]

It has been stated on this forum in the past; don't simply obtain permission from the pastor to carry your gun. Thete neefs to be a formal plan in place ...

Not quite. With respect to satisfying the Ohio Revised Code there is nothing about permission being in writing. Verbal is OK, assuming the person who gave it is alive, or enough other folks could corroborate. Hence the suggestion that the permission be in writing. Nobody ever said anything about a big formal plan for the purposes of allowing concealed carry. A written security plan is not a bad idea per se, it really should just stay away from firearms other than giving permission to team members if they have a CHL.

Practically, I and a number of other LEOs I know consider a member carrying in their own church to be an internal affair. If a church member is found carrying without permission but otherwise not doing anything stupid it's really unlikely that the church is going to jam one of its own members up on a felony. They might censure or do whatever the church does to mete out discipline but again, that's an internal matter. A quick story:

I responded to a disturbance call at a church youth dance a few years ago. A visitor had been ejected for inappropriate behavior and when he forced his way back in two beefy adults carried him outside and held him until we arrived. When I pulled up as they say "in front of God and all these witnesses" one of the adults told me he had a CHL and was armed. Did I ask to see his CHL? No. Did I ask to see his permission slip from the church? No. Did I ask him to show me the posted sign saying guns are allowed? No. Did I ask for a copy of their security policy? Nope. I smiled, said "good for you" and went back to the matter at hand.

[Greenleaf4902]

Thank you for your time and reply. I will pass these concerns and comments along. The overall outline seems stellar. Looksouts, Internal Medical team, Evacuation Plan, Bomb Crisis, Tornado, but this is ground level and I would hope changes will be made to the armed security guard portion of the program. I didn't sign a contract and can simply walk away from it any time. I keep my options open.

[sodbuster95]

Hence my recommendation for a lawyer well versed in Ohio law concerning armed security. A CHL instructor can develop a course of fire but the policy should must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. Then again as I said, I don't think there should be any kind of formal course here.

Looking at this strictly as a function of risk management - if someone from the church were to ask my legal opinion on this then I would, based on what I know here, likely advise them to dump the "formal" policy/training and go completely hands-off. As the law stands, the organization has minimal legal exposure by simply doing nothing (I.E., not giving permission to carry and simply ignoring the issue entirely). That exposure might arguably go up if they give verbal permission to individuals to carry per state law (though I sincerely doubt it), but even then it stays minimal.

However, once the organization gets involved in mandating training requirements, response techniques, etc., they've taken an exponentially more active role and (I think) there could be a strong argument made in favor of those individuals now acting in an agency capacity. I.E., the organization could become directly liable for their actions.

Of course, this is all separate and apart from regulatory requirements for what is essentially an armed security force (versus individuals exercising a right).

[concreteguy]

ORC 4749.01 & ORC 109.78. Our church change the title of those doing some of the duties you described to "Monitors".

[ChurchGoer]

Does anyone have an example or suggestion for a church that DOES want to grant permission to a few individuals to carry?