Church Congregations Consider use of Armed Guards

From: Columbus Dispatch

At St. John’s Evangelical Protestant Church, leaders take seriously their job of protecting the flock.

Even before the shooting that left more than two dozen dead at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in December, surveillance cameras monitored the Downtown church’s grounds, visitors had to be buzzed into offices, and ushers were trained in how best to respond to emergencies.

But the discomfort level rises when the discussion turns to the best way to handle a weapon-bearing intruder, said the Rev. Virginia Lohmann Bauman, senior pastor over the United Church of Christ community of about 350. Like people at many other worship places, St. John’s members don’t feel that armed security guards belong in the sanctuary.

Click for Article

Arkansas Senate Passes Church Guns Rights Bill -

From: USA Today

The Church Protection Act

The Arkansas Senate has passed a bill lifting a ban on carrying concealed weapon in church.

The proposal, which goes to the Arkansas House for consideration, would allow churches to decide which, if any, worshippers with concealed carry permits can bring their firearms inside.

The measure passed 28-4 on Monday, KATV reported.

Click for Article

When Guns Stopped a Rampage - ePanic Button

Security at Church: This is an excellent article from Johnny Lee the President of ePanic Button. The mainstream media has been overflowing with reports of why guns are bad. Johnny does a great job sharing the other side of the story!

When Guns Stopped a Rampage

By: Johnny Lee

In the wake of the tragedy at the Newton, CT school shooting, there has been a call for more gun control laws to prevent similar events. The logic is if a person intent on mass violence were unable to obtain a firearm, violence and shootings can be prevented. Citizens and law makers want to restrict who can obtain a firearm, specifically people with mental health issues. A fine point involves types of firearms and accessories such as large capacity magazines. Even the generic term “assault weapon” has conflicting definitions for those familiar with firearms. Regardless of the weapon’s appearance, all semi-automatic firearms have been identified by some as too dangerous for the general public.

But the heart of the gun control argument is there are too many guns, and adherents point to the growing number of reports that provide timelines, graphs and catalogs of workplace and school shootings. Opponents of gun control measures state that readily available firearms can actually stop these events, but lack a similar collection of accounts when armed citizens ended rampages. This following short list does not include cases of armed citizens stopping robberies, which kill many more people than mass shootings.


December 2012, Clackamas, OR – Clackamas Town Center Mall
As the Mall shooting in Oregon is still a current news topic, one story that has not garnered much attention is why the shooter, identified as Jacob Roberts, ended the rampage to take his own life. Nick Meli had a concealed carry permit and was one of the shoppers when the shooting began. Meli confronted Roberts with his sidearm but did not fire because a bystander could have been hit. Roberts might have killed himself when he realized he faced an armed individual. While impossible to ever determine definitively, the assailant may have feared being wounded and did not want to survive to face court and public outrage (video of interview).

August 2012, San Antonio, TX – Bonham Academy
While focus is on school safety, there is also the case of a woman who had just dropped off her child at school when her ex-partner, who had a history of abuse, confronted her and began arguing. She had just filed for divorce the week before, and as common in abusive relationships, he was not going to let her leave him. His anger escalated to the point where he began stabbing her. An armed citizen with a concealed carry permit drew his gun and stopped the assailant.

January 2009, Houston, TX – Texas Components Corp
Julie Parker entered the technology company where her father worked carrying a bow and what appeared to be a handgun. She shot one worker in the chest with an arrow and then pointed the fake firearm at other workers. Two employees were armed and returned fire, striking her and forcing her to retreat to a restroom. She aimed her bow at arriving police officers, causing them to shoot her again. Parker survived to face charges for the assault.

December 2007, Colorado Springs, CO - New Life ChurchMatthew Murray killed two people at a missionary center before traveling 80 miles to his second target, an affiliated church. Police described him as being armed with an assault rifle and two handguns with as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He killed two teenage sisters and wounded their father in the church parking lot before entering the church building. Jeanne Assam, a volunteer guard and parishioner, fired her own weapon at Murray, ending the rampage by killing him.

July 2006, Memphis, TN – Schnucks Grocery StoreAn employee, upset over a workplace dispute, grabbed a knife and wounded eight co-workers. As he chased one employee out into the parking lot, the manager of a neighboring business in the same shopping center intervened. According to an interview with the manager, “When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground. He saw my gun and that was pretty much it.”

May 2008, Winnemucca, NV – Players Bar and Grill
A man entered a crowded bar looking for members of a family with whom he held a grudge. Ernesto Villagomez found and killed two young men before another patron pulled out his firearm to shoot and kill Villagomez. Although the intervening patron was initially apprehended, he was released after Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide.

August 2005, Albuquerque, NM – Walmart
Again we have a customer, not an employee, intervening to save a victim as seen in this video. A female employee was working behind the counter when her ex-partner approached her with a knife and began stabbing her numerous times. A co-worker tried to intervene, but a customer rescued her. The 72-year-old customer had a concealed carry permit and a 9 mm handgun that he used to kill the assailant. The victim survived the assault.

Whether a firearm is the cause or cure for senseless violence, real prevention is based on establishing communities and relations that limit grievances and frustrations assailants perceive and experience. If a threat has been identified, it needs to be reported and the appropriate interventions put into place. The concern on the actual crisis may be short-sighted if it is the only focus.

Link to ePainic Button



Update: Arkansas Lawmakers Advance Guns in Church Bill

From: Insurance Journal

An Arkansas Senate panel advanced a proposal this week to allow concealed handguns in churches, but rejected an amendment to require places of worship to carry more insurance if firearms are permitted.

A House committee also endorsed a resolution encouraging government officials to not infringe on gun rights, the first among several bills aimed at loosening firearms restrictions in the newly Republican-controlled state Legislature.

Click for more

Arkansas Pastors Discuss Need for Guns in Churches

From: Arkansas Matters

As legislators discuss allowing churches to determine whether people with concealed carry permits can bring guns into their sanctuaries, pastors are giving their take on the controversial proposal.

Moments before families filled the pews at St. Mark Baptist Church for Wednesday night service, Pastor Phillip L. Pointer said he understands the need for more security in the nation's sanctuaries. His church utilizes security staff to monitor the premises during services, but will only authorize police officers to carry weapons during worship service.

Click for More

Fargo Church Comments on Armed Guards in Church

From: Grand Forks Herald

On any given Sunday, a handful of members of the Bethel Evangelical Free Church in Fargo may be wearing a black shirt and an earpiece — much like a federal agent.

They may have an array of medical or law enforcement training — some are retired police officers or military members — who provide security for upwards of 2,000 churchgoers that attend every week.

A select few may even be strapped with a concealed weapon under their Sunday best.

Senior Pastor Matthew St. John said Wednesday the program, known as Gatekeepers, has been very successful since it was implemented four years ago and has been well received by the Fargo Police Department — who has provided some training for the program, he said.

Click for Article

Court upholds Georgia Ban on Guns in Church

From: The Washington Post

A federal appeals court has upheld Georgia’s ban on bringing guns into places of worship.

The Rev. Jonathan Wilkins, a Baptist pastor, and a gun-rights group had argued that church members should have the right to carry guns into worship services to protect the congregation.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday (July 20) that a Georgia law adopted in 2010 does not violate the Thomaston congregation’s First and Second Amendment rights.

Gun-rights advocates might want a weapon for self-defense, but that is a “personal preference, motivated by a secular purpose,” the court ruled.

Read More

God, Guns and the Church: The Darkest Valley

From: Huffington Post - Religion

This reflection on Psalm 23 and gun violence in the United States was delivered at both N. Portland's University Park Church and SE Portland's Sunnyside Church by the Rev. Chuck Currie on July 22.

Our schools and churches and movie theaters are places we should expect to be safe. In these places we worship, we learn and we are entertained. But in recent years all these places -- along with shopping malls and restaurants and public parks -- have in moments of terror become killing fields as people with often-great mental instability who have access to weapons meant for battlefields open fire on innocent crowds causing mass deaths.

Read More

1 Killed in Weekend Church Shooting

Pastor's mother killed after gunman opens fire in church

From: Fox News

{A pastor's mother was shot and killed when a gunman opened fire in a Colorado church Sunday, FOX 31 reports.

Yolanda Marant, a representative for The Destiny Center, confirmed to FOX 31 that 65-year-old Josephine Eccles, the mother of the church's pastor Delono Straham, was shot and killed when a unknown gunman entered the church and began shooting.}

Click for Story

NOCSSM - Armed Church Security Teams

The below letter is from Chuck Chadwick of The National Organization of Church Safety and Security Management. Chuck was asked to contribute to our series on Guns in Church. I am a little behind in posting this article, but still wanted it to be available here for you to read.


Armed Church Security Teams -
What is legal? Who is liable? Who is qualified?
By: Chuck Chadwick, NOCSSM

Dear Brian, Recently I was asked to contribute to a series of articles about Guns in churches by our friend Brian Gallagher of "SecurityatChurch.com".  Due to travel and time restrictions we were unable to respond, but we read all the responses from others. I think good points were made about the necessity of a security program and the need to have, what we call, "Intervention Capable" reactors/responders as part of a Security Team. From our contacts within thousands of churches we have seen the entire gambit of inventive solutions that churches have come up with.  Some mega-churches hire dozens of active local police officers to be present during services, both uniformed and plain clothes.  Some rely on off duty law enforcement congregation members.  Some rely on volunteer civilian "Concealed Carry" individuals. The main areas of concern are, First - what is legal in your state? Second - who's liable if something goes wrong, as in a shooting of innocent bystanders? Third - what should be the measure of who is qualified to be in this "Intervention Capable" (pronounced "Armed") role? What is legal? As pointed out in the various responses to Brian's request for opinions, each state may have different laws that dictate the legality of arming a Security team.  Texas requires a private security license while Colorado requires only a Concealed Handgun permit. Who is Liable? The first thing we think of when approaching this issue is "Insurance".  When active law enforcement or private security shoots someone, intentional or not, the majority of the liability will rest first on the local municipal government or the private security company's insurance.  With any other individual the liability will rest on the individual and the church that authorized the security team. Numerous insurance companies have dedicated entire web sites and resources to Church Security and Safety issues.  Understand that it is not in the interest of these insurers to promote "armed civilian security teams" as this increases the risk that they might have to pay a claim against the church. However, as much as they might resist, numerous insurers are "insuring" these civilian concealed carry permit teams as a part of their coverage.   Who's qualified? In the resources provided by the insurance companies there are only vague references to "Training", but no clear path to what is "adequate" for training. The typical course of police training in Texas consists of 576 hours of training in subjects ranging from fitness to firearms.  The typical course of private security training in Texas consists of 60 hours of training. The typical Conceal Handgun Permit requires only 8 hours of training.  Some states don't even require the individual to fire a handgun. Several years ago we saw the need for some type of training that would serve as a standard for church security teams that was both legal and acceptable to insurance companies.  After working with one particular insurance company for two years and investing thousands in research and development we were left high and dry by the company's management and threatened with law suits. That is when we retreated to our present platform which meets the Texas state private security requirements and abandoned any hope of working with any insurance company to promote a national standard. Conclusion /Opinion - Because of the challenges involved with developing a recognized national standard of "qualifications" we do not believe there is an easy answer for churches who want clear path to an acceptable program of qualifications and training needed for armed church security teams. All of our efforts have gone into adhering to each state's requirements for professional security licensing of individuals to perform armed commercial security work for churches.  This way we are leaving the training and certification standards to the state and not someone's opinion. About the author: Chuck Chadwick founded the National Organization for Church Security and Safety Management (NOCSSM) www.nocssm.org  in 2002.  He is also president of Gatekeepers Security Services (GSS) www.gatekeeperssecurity.com and the Christian Security Institute (CSI) www.christiansi.org.  GSS being a state licensed security services company and CSI a state licensed security training school.

Guns in Church - Final Thoughts...

I hope you found last weeks post on guns in churches helpful. I tried to solicit some of the best people I know to comment on the topic. We were given prospective from former and current law enforcement officers, church elders, NRA members, CCW holders, fire and rescue chiefs, paramedics, a professional gun magazine author and more. We also received input from an individual who has been involved in a church shooting. I tried to get people to comment that were also from different parts of the country. We accomplished this with prospective from the North, South, Mid-Atlantic and the Mid-West…

There will never be a time that everyone will agree on this issue; however, I hope that seeing these different perspectives will be helpful in planning for your church environment. I do not think that there is one universal answer for all churches. The right choice for your church will be based on multiple factors to include location, size, membership and more. I think this weeks posts can serve as a good reference tool for churches when approaching and researching this subject.

Please feel free to continue to send in your comments. 

Thanks for helping share this information with others.

"Armor Bearers" Become Common in Churches?

Note: This article was written by Bob Chauncey who runs the Church Security Institute (not to be confused with the Christian Security Institute, which is run by Chuck Chadwick). Bob published this story on his blog and offered to share it with us to aid in this weeks topic of guns in churches.

‘Armor Bearers’ Become More Common in Come Churches

By: Bob Chauncey

www.Churchsecurityinstitute.wordpress.com

This minister is the “armor bearer” of his Senior Pastor. An armor bearer — a Biblical reference to the one who carries the spear & shield of a warrior — is traditionally the person in the church who assists the pastor in everything from adjusting the temperature in the sanctuary to picking up visitors at the airport to running interference for the minister.

This minister’s day job is working as a deputy sheriff. But on Sundays, for the past 10 years, he has been the spiritual bodyguard of his Pastor. During the service, he is seated behind the pastor, his attention directed at the congregation in the pews.

“I’m looking for new people coming into the sanctuary. I see what clothing they are wearing, if they have their hands in their pockets. I look at their ankles — a bulge could be a firearm,” said the armor bearer, who has served as an armor bearer for more than half his life.

In many churches, the armor bearer is not armed and is not responsible for protecting the minister. He is more of an unpaid personal assistant. “The term ‘armor bearer’ was basically a person who assisted the pastor,” one pastor. “What it has evolved into is men and women who are prepared to assist and deter any kind of attack.”

In most small churches, the responsibility for church security falls to the deacons, ushers and greeters. While larger churches can afford private security and off-duty police officers, small churches rely on the keen eyes and quick responses of a few men trained to intercede.

Greeters are instructed to watch for people entering the church who behave oddly or look suspicious. Ushers are trained to deal with those who become disruptive. Often, it is someone who arrived at church intoxicated, high or angry. Without disrupting the service, ushers will escort the person outside the church.

“The key to security of a church is not about bodyguards. It’s about layers of security — from the guy directing traffic to the greeter to the deacons who might help them to their seats,” said a former security director, who now heads his own faith-based security company.

Rarely are they required to intercept someone who is violent or threatening — nor are they expected to put themselves in danger. “You can’t tell people to put themselves in harm’s way,” said one pastor.

“I consider that my role — to make sure the man of God is protected,” said one armor bearer, who served in the Army and nearly 10 years in law enforcement. “Before he would die, I would die. That is my job.”

At one Worship Center, trouble has to pass through the discrete but discerning eyes of greeters and ushers who are instructed to sense danger from the averted gaze, the sweaty-palm handshake, the shirking of an embrace. If trouble makes it past those full-body screeners, there’s the person or persons who i/ares the Armor Bearer.

If lethal force is required,” said the pastor, “we have a person serving here who is armed and dangerous.

At the same time, nearly every congregation has men and women with military and law-enforcement experience whose training and background have prepared them to step in when there is trouble inside the sanctuary. Churches need a Safety Security Plan, Teams to carry out the Plan in order to Be Prepared for whatever may come, a natural disaster, fire, medical illness or injury, disorderly or disruptive persons, a lost child, kidnapping or even an attack.

It’s too late after it happens to be sorry you did not have a Plan… take time to make one before it happens so you can show you were Good Stewards of what He provides, a church should have a Good Shepherd, usually the pastor or Rabbi, or ministry leader, whose job, like the Shepherd, is to provide for and protect his flock under his care.

Guns in Church? An Armed Citizen's Perspective

Note: This article is written by Matt Larson. Matt is writing from the prospective of being an armed citizen. Matt is not a LEO; however, he does have extensive experience in emergency operations as a former fire and rescue chief and paramedic. Matt does a great job in this article presenting information on current laws and regulations related to carrying guns. Matt also does a fantastic job stressing the importance of gun safety!

Guns in Church?  An Armed Citizen's Perspective

By: Matt Larson

Throughout the United States, more and more private citizens are lawfully carrying firearms concealed on their person for protection.  In every state but one (Illinois), some form of lawful concealed carry is in place.  In most states, any law abiding citizen who meets minimum training standards must be given a permit to carry a firearm upon application.  In three states, no permit is required – anyone who can lawfully own a gun can carry it concealed.

In a few states, lawfully armed citizens are prohibited from carrying in places of worship. These states are:

· Georgia (Bill in committee to allow carry) {Updated}
· Arkansas
· Louisiana
· Michigan
· Missouri (unless given permission by the minister or similar official)
· Mississippi
· North Dakota
· South Carolina (unless authorized)
· Texas
· Utah (if posted)

Statistically speaking, if your church is not in one of these states, Illinois, or the District of Columbia, the overwhelming probability is that one or more persons in your congregation are armed.

But having an organized, formalized armed response team is another matter entirely.  I would strongly encourage any church considering organizing such a team get an attorney involved from the outset.  There are a great many legal pitfalls here, and having competent legal counsel is vital.  Just one example is that in many states, if you are employed as a security guard – even as a volunteer – your concealed carry permit does not permit you to carry a firearm in that capacity.

All of that said, I am writing this more from the perspective of the armed citizen, and I am going to leave the organizational aspects to others.  Two excellent articles have already been posted here on these topics, and I would advise anyone interested in the field to read them.

I want to talk about 4 things in this article.  The first is safety, and some of the safety measures that should be in place where people are going to be armed.  Then, I want to discuss the three phases of an armed conflict: preparation, the fight, and the aftermath.

Safety

Safety is and must always be the first concern.  Take, for example, the recent tragic death of a young parishioner in a Tampa, Florida church.  A member of the congregation was showing a firearm to another member.  He believed that he had unloaded the gun, and handed it to the other person.  That person pointed the gun at the wall of the closet they were in and pulled the trigger.  The gun discharged, and the bullet passed through the wall and struck a young woman in the head, fatally wounding her.

There are 4 cardinal rules of firearm safety:

· ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

· NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

· KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

· BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT

The incident above violated all four, and a life was lost as a result.  Beyond that, there was no sufficient reason for the gun to have been handled there and then. 

But the incident raises a valid safety concern.  If you are going to have an organized group of people carrying firearms in your church, you need to provide a safe area for any unavoidable handling of the guns.  This includes a safe direction in which to orient the firearm when handling it, such as an outside brick or concrete wall, a sand bucket, or a commercial product designed to absorb an unintended discharge.

Preparation

Preparation encompasses everything one does before the outset of violent hostilities.  This includes training, mindset and practice.  I'll be blunt – if your only training was the 2 hour long class needed to get your permit and your only practice is standing in a range booth calmly punching holes in stationary pieces of paper, you are not trained to use a gun in a defensive situation.  If you are not mentally prepared to align the sights of your pistol on another human being and kill him or here, you are not ready to use a gun in a defensive situation.  If you never practice with your firearm, you are not ready to use a gun in a defensive situation. 

In my opinion, anyone who carries a firearm for protection should invest in quality training on at least an annual basis.  There are many qualified defensive shooting instructors throughout the country who offer classes for the armed citizen.  Defensive shooting is a shooting discipline unto itself.  You must learn to draw from the holster while moving.  You must learn to shoot while moving.  You must learn not just how, but when to shoot.  These are perishable skills, and you will need to refresh them from time to time.  As a well known shooting author once said, "Thinking yourself armed because you own a gun is like thinking yourself a musician because you own a piano".

Mindset encompasses the will to deploy force against another human being, potentially including taking a human life.  This is a moral and ethical decision that every person who owns a firearm for defense should seriously consider.  One must understand that the criminal doesn't struggle with this issue – for many serious criminals violence is a way of life, and they will deploy it at will.  Understand that the gun is not a talisman which will protect you from harm by it's mere presence. Understand that once the gun has been drawn, the conflict is going to end with the assailant surrendering or with bloodshed.  Once you have rung that bell, it cannot be un-rung. 

Practice is necessary to preserve the skills you have learned.  Shooting skills are perishable and degrade with time.  I would strongly urge anyone who carries a gun for protection to actively participate in IDPA, USPSA, Steel Challenge, or any other shooting sport that requires you to shoot while moving, shoot at moving targets, etc.  If your only training and practice is to stand in one place and shoot at a stationary paper target, then the chances are that you will stand in one place and trade gunfire with an assailant.  This is a proven, time tested recipe for getting yourself killed.

 The fight

Hopefully, it never comes to this, the actual life-and-death fight to save yourself or someone else from imminent death or great bodily injury.  This is the moment every serious student of the defensive pistol trains to avoid at all costs.

But the bad guys get to make plans, too.  And sometimes their plans work out better than ours.

I am not going to get into shoot / don't shoot criteria here.  The law varies from state to state, and this is a topic you should have picked up in training.  Know your local laws. 

I just want to touch on a few points here.  The first is that when it is time to fight, fight.   Consider the nightmare scenario of an intruder opening fire in a church service.  People are being hurt or killed.  This is what is known as an "active shooter" scenario. This is no time for discussion.  This is no time for "fairness".  You are not obligated to warn the shooter, or give him a chance to surrender, or talk him into seeing the nature of his wicked ways.  All of that is just a good way to get yourself or someone else killed.

If the fight is on, you need to finish it now.  If you have a clear shot on the active shooter, take it.  Prosecute the fight to the conclusion – shoot him to the ground.  Continue shooting until the threat stops. 

Understand that real life shootings are nothing like the movies or TV.  Rare indeed is the single gunshot than instantly incapacitates an assailant, who then falls bloodlessly and silently to the floor.  Reality is much uglier.  Even after suffering a mortal wound, a human being can continue to fight for a couple minutes or more. A bad guy can fire a lot of shots in those couple of minutes…

Make sure the fight is over before you holster your gun.  Remember that wolves travel in packs, and do a good scan of the area before you assume everything is over.

The aftermath

The worst has happened.  You’ve been forced to shoot another human being to protect yourself and / or someone else.  The assailant is lying on the ground in a pool of blood, perhaps thrashing and screaming.  People are panicked.  Hopefully, nobody else is injured, but that may well not be the case.

What you say and do in the next few minutes and hours will have an impact that lasts the rest of your life. 

Hopefully, your church has a disaster plan that includes handling medical emergencies, and at least basic first aid can be administered to the wounded.  Which brings us to a serious item to consider – how to handle the wounded assailant.  Do you attempt to treat him?  How do you know he doesn't have another weapon?  These are things you should consider long before you have to make the decision.  Remember that whole preparation thing?

In short order, the police are going to arrive, along with ambulances, fire trucks, reporters and gawkers of all kinds.  The first thing you need to do is avoid having a "blue on blue" situation. 

The police are arriving at the scene of a shooting.  They don't know you, or the guy on the floor with all the holes in him.  They are going to secure the scene and make sure nobody else is harmed.  If you're standing in the middle of the room with a gun in your hand, things can go bad in a hurry.  We naturally turn toward sounds that we don't expect, and if you have a gun in your hand and turn toward the arriving police officers, they may well take you as a threat and respond accordingly.

Having someone meet the responding officers and let them know that the fight is over and the guy with the gun is a good guy can save your life.  Consider this in your preparation phase.

OK, so the police are there and you've made sure you're not going to be mistaken for a bad guy and shot.  Now what?

Remember, the police do not know you.  What they do know is that someone has been shot, and someone (you) did the shooting.  Expect to be ordered to the ground, very probably at gunpoint.  Expect to be handcuffed, very probably roughly.  Expect to be searched.

Do not resist.  Do not argue.  Comply immediately with all commands.  Remember that the officer does not yet know you are the good guy – and he or she wants to go home to the family at the end of the shift.  That means ensuring their safety by securing the potential threat.  You are that potential threat.

So now the police are in control of the scene.  You're out of the woods, right?  Wrong.  What you say and do in the following minutes and hours can be the difference between going home to your family and going to prison for a couple decades.

You've just been in a fight for your life.  You are flooded with adrenaline, you are emotionally compromised and you are in no condition to give a detailed accounting of what just happened.  Understand a couple of things here.  First, the police officer you talk to initially may very well believe that you did absolutely the right thing.  But they are not the end of the chain – what you say will be considered by the officer's supervisor, a detective or two, a prosecutor and maybe even a grand jury.  Second, you're not going to be thinking clearly and you're not going to have a clear recollection of everything tat just happened.

As an example, even trained police officers are unable to recall exactly how many shots they fired in a shooting.  Stress plays tricks on the memory.  But if you give a statement and say you fired two rounds when you actually fired 5, somewhere up the chain someone will look at it and think "did he forget, or is he lying?" 

One noted expert in the field of defensive shootings, recommends that you make a very concise initial statement to the police along the lines of:

"Officer, I was attacked by that man.  I was in fear for my life and I defended myself.  There is his weapon (if applicable), there are the witnesses (if applicable), and I will sign a complaint.  I will give you a full statement after speaking with my attorney.  I do not wish to answer any questions at this time without my attorney present." 

People can – and have – talked themselves into a jail cell after a completely justified self-defense shooting.  The things you say now, in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event, will be evaluated later by people who are not under stress and who may read something entirely different into your words.

Speaking of people, expect that you will be discussed in the media, savaged in the comment section of your local paper, shredded on internet discussion forums, etc. 

I hope this piece has provided some food for thought.  I don’t want to dissuade anyone from carrying a firearm for protection.  Having been a paramedic for almost 15 years, I have seen what criminals will do to other people to get what they want (or even just for amusement).  I believe in the right to protect oneself.  But I also believe that there are more than a few people out there carrying firearms who have not given all of these issues due consideration.  I hope this article leads to some self-discovery and honest self-evaluation for those who do choose to carry in church and elsewhere.

Be safe out there.

Armed Security in Churches

Note: The below article is written by one of my readers. Gary is a former LEO and is writing primarly from the background of small churches under 100 attendees. Gary illustrates many good points; however, is coming from a different prospective of some of my other contributors to this topic. What I think is important is that we hear the prospective of multiple qualified individuals prior to trying to decide what is best for your congregation. Please feel free to comment. Gary is more than willing to engage in conversation on these issues. 

Armed Security in Churches

By: Gary Martin

The recent accidental shooting and killing of a Florida pastor’s daughter at church has once again ignited the debate about whether or not guns belong in churches.  As a former law enforcement officer, my unequivocal answer is “yes, they do”.  When rare incidents such as this accidental shooting occur, it is important that we as a society keep things in perspective.  In today’s world, it is prudent for churches to take effective steps to protect their congregations from potential violence.  Incidents like this should not be used as an excuse to strip us of our rights to do so.

Churches are “soft targets” and can sometimes be tempting ones, especially to terrorists.  They are not immune from having violent people coming into them and shooting at the congregation or pastor.  Churches have been attacked many times in other countries by terrorists, and there have been several non-terrorist attacks on congregations here in the US as well. There is also the possibility that terrorists are making plans to hit several churches on American soil at the same time in a terror version of “shock and awe”.  While such a massive attack may never materialize, it might be prudent to at least consider it as a possibility, and develop appropriate, effective responses to deal with that contingency should it occur. For more information on this threat, see these links:

http://www.christianemergencynetwork.org/news/al-qaeda-call-for-attacks-on-houses-of-worship

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2012/02/05/how-iran-could-win-a-war-against-israel-and-the-united-states-in-one-hour/

Many security experts, legislators and forward thinking pastors are calling attention to this possibility and are encouraging churches to be prepared to defend themselves. Here’s one example:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/259301/

The one thing all church security experts agree on is that for any kind of security preparations, layered defenses are best.  Those layers can involve untrained CCW permit holders up to and including professional active duty law enforcement officers.  Most experts whose opinions I’ve read say that it is appropriate to have armed security guards to help minimize the damage caused by an active shooter before police can arrive.  The hard reality is that a well armed active shooter can cause considerable carnage before the police show up, even with nothing more than a few semi-automatic handguns.

Churches that are designated gun free zones are at much higher risk of large scale loss of life than those that have the option of armed responders who can react immediately.  Where many experts drop the ball, in my opinion, is their insistence that only active duty law enforcement serve on church security teams.  Many churches don’t have active duty police officers in attendance, don’t have enough of them, or can’t afford to hire them.  Even then, there is precedence for uniformed police officers doing special duty and private uniformed guards being the first ones killed in an attack.  The best defense against an active shooter is to quickly meet the attack with a strong deadly force response.  If the suspect has many responders to deal with he may quickly be overcome by the sheer difficulty of trying to mentally manage a highly dynamic situation like that, and of having to dodge a hail of bullets coming back at him. 

Here are some resource pools where armed church security guards could be drawn from in a congregation. They are listed in order from minimum to maximum protection.

1. Members of the congregation with no prior law enforcement or military training who have concealed carry permits. In order for this group to be even minimally effective, the church needs to avoid being a gun free zone.  The effectiveness of these volunteers can be greatly enhanced by having them attend formal training for church security. There are many organizations that offer it. In addition to them being more effective tactically with training, they will also be better at making good decisions.  Training may also help to mitigate insurance company concerns.  If however, a church is unwilling or unable to organize formal training due to budget constraints or other reasons, their CCW permit carriers should still be allowed to carry concealed so that they have at least some hope of stopping an active shooter and minimizing the loss of life before law enforcement can arrive several minutes later.  This can be especially important during those times where there may be higher risk of terror incidents against churches.  This may be the only option available to many small churches.

2. Current or past members of the military.  Some of them may have training similar to what law enforcement officers have. And the ones who don’t may still be well prepared mentally and tactically to respond well during a real active shooter incident. Like the first group, they would also have CCW permits, but would have a higher level of training.  It is likely that churches of all sizes could have members of this group in them.

3. Members of the congregation with past law enforcement experience.  While their training may not be as current as active duty officers, and they won’t have the same legal immunities or arrest powers as active duty officers do, they have received training on how to handle armed confrontations. They may also have real world experience doing it from when they were active duty.

4. Plain clothed, active duty police officers.  For any incident that does not involved the brandishing of a weapon, or an active shooter, it is probably best for all other responders to call them from wherever they are in the church at the time, and wait for them to arrive to handle the situation. They are the best option because they have current training, arrest powers, the legal right to detain and question, and have certain legal immunities that no civilian has.  However, they need to be in sufficient numbers, and in locations within the church and parking lots where they can quickly respond.

What I’m proposing is a layered approach where as many of these resource pools that are available are involved in the security for the church.  Who responds first would depend on the threat level.  If it’s just a suspicious person who hasn’t yet reached the point of active shooting or brandishing a weapon, the most highly trained responders should handle it.  However, if there is a sudden outbreak of active shooting, that in my opinion is an “all hands on deck” situation. Whoever is closest should respond immediately, and others should back him/her up as quickly as possible.

One obvious concern with this approach, though, is whether or not CCW permit responders who are not part of the formal security team could get mistaken for one of the bad guys. In my opinion, while it is possible that that could happen, odds are it won’t in most cases. I can’t base that belief on hard empirical evidence, because there have been so few church shootings where a CCW permit holder was allowed to be armed and was able to stop an attack.  What it comes down to is a judgment call as to which is more important: stopping the attack as quickly as possible to save lives or risking a more chaotic situation where the CCW permit holder could be placing himself at risk by being mistaken as a bad guy.  In my personal opinion, the greater risk is to allow the perpetrator to keep shooting at innocent, unarmed people until the formal security team member(s) can arrive.  I am also theorizing that there are likely to be dynamics that can work in favor to lower the risk to the CCW responder:

1.     Witnesses who observed the initial exchange of fire might know who is who.  They may quickly jump to the verbal defense of the CCW permit holder. My expectation is that if they saw him being threatened by the security team or law enforcement officers, they would be almost hysterical in their efforts to protect the good guy by pointing out who he is to other responders.  Security team members and law enforcement officers need to PAY ATTENTION and LOOK for indications like that before just opening fire on someone. They should not be so concerned about their own safety that they’re willing to sacrifice an innocent person’s life by jumping to conclusions when people are screaming at them to not harm a legitimate responder.

2.     The CCW permit holder would probably have the common sense not to fire at the security team, or anyone else who wasn’t firing at him.  The bad guy is the one who keeps firing no matter what. The good guys are the ones he would see showing some restraint as they challenged him to put his weapon down.  If the threat was over with, he would most likely comply with the request without hesitation.

3.     The perpetrator’s behavior, clothing and/or what he is saying could easily tip off responders that he’s the bad guy.  Is he wearing a long trench coat during warm weather to conceal his guns?  Is he screaming “Allah is great” while he’s firing?  Is he shooting at women and children or firing randomly at anyone? Is he firing his gun in a direction where there are no armed responders firing back at him? In contrast, the true responder would ONLY be aiming his gun and/or firing at another armed person who has already fired shots at innocent people, or who was threatening to do so.

4.     If someone on the security team witnessed the initial exchange from a distance, he may already know who is who and can pass that information along to other responders by the most expedient means possible.

When I was an LEO, I received no training whatsoever as to how to distinguish the good guy from the bad guy in active shooting situations, even though I served in a state that had concealed carry laws for decades.  It was just left up to each individual officer to use his best judgment and common sense.  I think this needs to be addressed in the form of more formal training.  If there is someone who is reading this blog who can assemble a list of indicators that responders can look for to distinguish good guys from bad guys when they’re not wearing any clearly distinguishable markings, please ask Brian for permission to publish that list.  However, if possible I would prefer that it be based on empirical evidence, not just speculation as I have engaged in above.

Guns in Church from an Elders Prospective

Note: I received the following comments from a colleague who is an elder at a Michigan church that is currently working through the matter of how to handle church security as it relates to concealed carry. He holds a concealed pistol license, is an avid shooter and is also a freelance writer for magazines that review and report on firearms and the shooting industry. As you read his comments, keep in mind that Michigan law requires a church's presiding officials to grant or deny permission for someone to carry concealed on church property.

Below are his thoughts related to guns in church:

"I actually haven't found many articles that address this topic. On the one hand, of course, the stories such as those found on goodguyswin.org are very helpful as are the NRA's Armed Citizen reports. And the principles of those encounters usually apply in church settings. On the other hand, the reason that there's not much to read about church settings is that the notion of carrying in church is quite new, and at a surface level,seems (but isn't) inconsistent with what most regard as basic Christian principle -- trusting God, loving others, "How could we allow guns in church?", etc.

It begs more detailed study and discussion, of course, and I think the theology and facts bear out that carrying guns in church does not actually violate any biblical principles of self-defense nor Christian love. In fact, it may be a wise course of action. All that to say: Part of what [people] are looking for is found at least in having some well-developed theology of self-defense and gun ownership and use. For an excellent introduction to that I recommend Wayne Grudem's lecture. See also the essay on self-defense in the resources at the back of the ESV Study Bible.

Moreover, a study of church security incidents would be helpful to help establish that violent situations do actually occur in churches (and your web site is very informative).


PROCESS

With those as a foundation, this process unfolds in my mind: it seems each church's leaders should be further challenged to think through physical security measures, irrespective of concealed carry weapons for security, ushers, or in the congregation. Church leaders should consider the principles that apply to handling any incident: What are their thoughts on the use of a pocketknife, kubotan, pepper spray, etc. as tools of self-defense? Continue that line of thinking -- and the tools that might be used -- all the way to the use of firearms (by trained, responsible people). Then consider what weapons are likely to be used by lawbreakers (firearms and other lethal tools). Unfounded biases (on the part of church leaders) against firearms will show themselves quickly as each kind of tool is considered and what level of security is considered appropriate. One test: If a church locks its doors at night then they obviously see some need for physical security. That kind of thinking needs to expand to handling incidents where the congregation is in the building and something goes down that is a threat to life.


WHO CARRIES

Personally, I'm not against concealed carry in church but I prefer that is occurs within the context of an organized volunteer security force that is comprised of ushers and some key people planted in various parts of a sanctuary. This of course provides a context for ushers to train in how to handle an incident -- and at least some notion of who's carrying -- but also gives church leaders the opportunity to say "no" to some requests for carrying concealed weapons in church (e.g., Michigan law requires a church's presiding officials to grant or deny permission for someone to carry concealed on church property). With this, church leaders, who have so much on their plate already, have the luxury to be able to 1) simply delegate security to a small security force and 2) be able to say "no" to those who ask because of #1 -- they already have a security team in place who are armed, trained, etc. Moreover, there's a good kind of shepherding that the people of the church can benefit from when they hear from their leaders that the ushers are trained to handle general security measures. Of course I don't recommend publicizing that some may be carrying firearms; rather, congregations should know, as a general principle, that they are cared for on a multitude of levels when they're on church property.


MILITARY, POLICE, CIVILIAN

The matter of experience and training is important but in my opinion there are civilians who practice and practice so well that they are actually more competent and careful than those who have military or police experience. My point is not to denigrate military and police training, which is valuable and can be a great asset -- especially when it comes to awareness. My point is to emphasize the need to train and practice, regardless of one's background. Every church building is different in layout and construction; every incident that goes down is probably different as well. So this matter of security is far more than just having a gun in the congregation. It's helpful at least; but it's far more than that. A coordinated usher/security team can (we hope) spot trouble before it occurs and act accordingly. Again, this is what church leaders need to consider when it comes to security.


CHURCH LEADERS

Bottom line is that church leaders need to be informed on these issues and pressed to organize something when it comes to security -- as a matter of the faithful shepherding of their congregations. Leaders need to lead in this area. Likewise, however, church leaders need to realize that congregants with concealed weapons are not necessarily the best people to serve on security teams. Most church leaders don't know about or think about concealed carry laws or how it applies to their congregations, which can be different, state-to-state. They also don't know about all of the many resources that help in this area (your web site, church security conferences and webinars, etc.). So all of this must start with education and awareness of the church leaders. A congregant with an interest in church security must carefully and wisely introduce the idea to a church's leadership. Not: "I'd like to carry my gun in church" as the first thing he says but "I'm interested in helping out with ushering at church" and then discerning the level of efficacy the church leaders have toward security. From there he can bring in educational materials and resources to help make the points and gain interest in enacting thoughtful security measures in a church."

Guns!? In a Church? - Think About It Series

Note: This is installment #1 of a series of posts. Carl is writing from the perspective of a midsize to larger church. I encourage you to go to Carl's website and read about his story. Carl was involved with the Focus on the Family hostage situation in the 1990's and then most recently as a member of the security team at New Life Church in Colorado during the shooting at their church. As Carl likes to put it... "Lighting never strikes twice in the same spot, but you can be in two different places that lighting will strike" (I quoted that to the best of my memory)

Guns!? In a Church?

By: Carl Chinn 

The debate over firearms in our country exists even within firearm owner circles. Some feel guns should not be allowed on a church security team at all, some feel it is fine to know they are in the audience and will be used if needed, and some feel only law enforcement trained individuals should carry in a church environment. I disagree with all those extremes.

When a ministry allows agents of protection to carry firearms, they are essentially making a statement that, “We are here for the hurting. But if we cannot help them and they become a threat, we are authorizing you to intervene with appropriate means up to and including the use of deadly force if needed.”

As harsh as this may sound, I agree with such a stand. But there are absolute pre-requisites in my opinion. Guns should be allowed on qualified members of a team only as long as;

1.      It is within a legal jurisdiction.

2.      The ministry leadership endorses it.

3.      There is a carefully planned training and qualifications program. It doesn’t have to be an expensive or even cost centered course – but if team members are armed, they should be practicing together and evaluating the environment together.

4.      It has been confirmed with the church insurance underwriter

5.      I urge every church to get an attorney to serve (as a team volunteer if possible) on security plan development. If the church has no attorney, this issue of armed defenders is too important to trust to chance. If you have an incident, you will be forced to have an attorney. That shouldn’t be the first time you meet – present this article to him or her for discussion as you develop your own policies.

Protection is needed in our houses of worship, and there are many cases where a firearm is the only protection capable of stopping an assault. In those cases, more people will die if the assault is not stopped.

The firearms debate may rage if your community discovers you use armed defenders in your ministry. Be certain you are ready to address a news conference if you make that decision. Ministries are responsible for the actions of their appointed representatives.

Use caution with ministry security team participation by any who are dogmatic about gun rights, martial arts, or similar issues. When it comes to determining the appropriate use of force in response to incidents, you do not want anyone with dogmas that could cloud their judgment. In addition to the obvious concerns regarding excessive force injury, there are other consequences.

If an incident occurs at a ministry where an appointed security individual was instrumental in mitigating a threat by using force, count on extreme scrutiny from media, attorneys for the offender, the general public and potentially even from the congregation. Whether it was justified or not, doesn’t change the fact that public examination can be expected following significant use of force. Segments of any size of community oppose firearms, any form of protective action and / or detest faith-based ministries. And there is a host of antagonists beyond your community ready to jump all over it if they can. Such folks may cause as much trouble as possible; with all the media momentum they can muster to discredit the ministry after such an incident. For the same reasons law enforcement agencies steer away from radical employees, so should ministries.

For example, let’s say a person is outspoken on the right to defend ourselves with firearms and has been active and zealous in 2nd amendment rights protection. Perhaps they have written letters to the local editor, staged protests against gun restriction legislation, or in similar ways expressed bold passion in support of such issues.

Such zeal is sufficient cause for pause in considering them to represent a ministry in protective actions. They have left a trail of published and / or witnessed fuel for litigation. If an attack was stopped with the use of deadly force by the character referred to in this example, the liability risk for the ministry is exponentially higher.

Of course armed defenders with military, law enforcement or security credentialed experience are excellent considerations for the carrying members of a security team. Be careful however of considering only people from these backgrounds. Conversations about credentials are often driven by pride, competition or exclusivity. If there are those who feel called to serve in this capacity, don’t rule them out just because of a lack of related employment history or credentials. While they should meet moral qualifications and exhibit relative aptitude, the best team members may have never operated in an official security or uniformed protection capacity before.

It is wrong for uniformed professionals to advocate they are the only ones qualified to carry a firearm for protection of others. It is true that some can be entrusted with carrying a firearm in a protective manner, while others cannot. However, many of those ready to become trained defenders have no law enforcement credentials. While it is often best to draw from credentialed pools for armed defenders, remember that decisions of whether to call the qualified or qualify the called are over our pay-scale.

There is a grey line of distinction between an intentional team and CCW members in the congregation. CCW members that are not part of an intentional team are a reality for any team to be aware of – they are out there. In some states the conceal carry laws exclude the ability to carry a firearm in a place of worship. In states where it is legal (and realistically even in those where it isn’t) the truth of the matter is that there will always be a certain number of congregants in the audience who will be carrying deadly force. To just know that and quietly rely on them to “spring to action if needed” is as reckless as burying our head in the sand denying that they are in our congregation.

I am certainly not opposed to the freedom to carry. I am against posting signs declaring a gun-free zone. If anyone obeys it, it sure won’t be the bad guys with guns. But good guys with guns are a reality every team needs to be aware of. There is a sliding scale of realism to understand with this subject which is directly related to the size of church. In a church of 20 congregants, those CCW members may be “the team”. If so they know each other and should train together. If the church has 20,000 in the worship service with an intentional team that has trained together there may be some unknown CCW holders eager to get involved if a scenario goes down.

It is best to have a designated team authorized and trained to be armed defenders if your laws allow such. When the aggressor comes to your organization, those trained individuals will manage the attack until they can effectively transition the incident to responding law enforcement agencies. If you don’t have the trained and equipped members, you may have off-duty plain-clothes officers who do not know each other, mixed with untrained defenders, all shooting at bad people, each other, and innocent bystanders with panicking crowds diving to avoid the skirmish. And the reality remains, that even with trained operators some of those people may come into the mix. Talk about how your team might handle that scenario.

In a live fire situation, there is plenty of confusion to go around even among team members who know each other and have trained together. I don’t care if the crowd is 20 or 20,000, there will be some measure of chaos. I have been a hunter all my life -- I don’t even hunt with people whom I know little about – I hunt with people I trust around a firearm. It is that much more important to have a team who has trained together be responsible when an incident is occurring. Untrained zealots or unknown and non-uniformed professionals joining the mix is more likely to happen the larger the church. But as much as is realistic, your congregation should know that there is a designated and specific team of defenders should an incident occur.

In just about every major shooting, the possibility of multiple shooters must quickly be considered. At the shooting at New Life Church in 2007, the report of a second shooter was developing even as the shooter was entering the building.

Within seconds of hearing that there may be a second shooter, and while taking a position of readiness for the gun battle, I had a total stranger show up behind me yelling in anger. After quickly checking his hands for a weapon (due to the second shooter alert), I told him he needed to get behind me and out of the building. I simply had to make a judgment call he was not the second shooter quickly based upon his demeanor and apparent lack of a weapon.

I use my experience to emphasize the value of having trained armed defenders who know each other and are working as a team, but being ready for those who throw themselves into the mix. Had New Life not had a functioning team that day, the responses to the gunman would have been left to a loose knit group of responders who could have potentially increased injury as they were dealing with the threat. I had a front row seat to the chaos potential.

I hope your authorized armed defenders will never need to reveal their firearm. It is truly the very last option, and even if drawn it should be their primary hope that they can hold the aggressor at bay until law enforcement arrives, guide those tactical first responders into effective positions, and quickly turn the situation over to them. However, if the speed of the attack is moving too fast to allow for any of this, there may only be one realistic way to resolve it – and the bigger the caliber the better (another front row seat observation I had on the day of our shooting).

Think About It…

Ø  Tunnel vision works for both victims and attackers. If an active shooter comes into your crowd, and sees you coming towards him with a firearm as other innocent people are fleeing, you have captured his attention and aim. That is the first moment of intervention and protection, even if there is no shooting at that moment.

Ø  Protection of the offering (theft) is not an appropriate use of deadly force. Make sure any on the team who carry understand use of force is only applied when loss of life of others appears certain.

Ø  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine School shooters) intentionally used solid jacketed bullets for maximum carnage. They purposely wanted each bullet to continue as far as it could inflicting a far reaching field of injury. One of the trainings your team should do is that of discussing bullet types to carry. Maximum stopping power with minimum ricochet and wall penetration (exactly the opposite of the Harris / Klebold model) should be a priority.

Ø  Drill on recognizing elements of the deadly triangle (opportunity, intention, and capacity) as team preparation for using deadly force. In order to be considered as a justifiable evaluation that loss of innocent life is certain, the attacker must clearly exhibit the opportunity, intention and capacity (all at once) to kill victims. Drill on active scenarios of 2 but not all 3 elements.

Ø  Consider Verbal Judo, other official de-escalation techniques and non-lethal weapons as a higher training priority than firearms training. Ask your local law enforcement where such training is available in your area. Find free web-based options to conduct your own training. Some violent crimes can be avoided with such tactics, others cannot. If an incident goes down, you want to exhibit that you have emphasized less than lethal response training, leaving deadly force intervention as a last resort.

Ø  You need to be certain of your own rules of engagement, preferably detailed in a clearly understood response continuum. If a situation goes down, whoever used a firearm to stop the attack will be whisked away by investigators soon after (if they are still alive). Count on them being grilled on the rules – they better know them off the top of their head. They won’t get time for a refresher course on the way to the station. Include that potential ride and interview as part of your team training. How much is your defender going to hold to the “I can’t speak until my attorney is present” model? It is a good model, as long as it is within reason. To clam up and not say anything if there are still active bad guys on the scene would be irresponsible. Be reasonable with sharing known information that could benefit the safety of responding officers or congregants still in harm’s way. Aside from that, get that attorney who helps your team in there with you.

Ø  Like federal agents or plain-clothes officers, church security operators rarely wear uniforms. So like those plain-clothes first responders, they need some kind of identification that can be quickly deployed when a peaceful environment deteriorates rapidly into a violent crime scene. Please consider having all of your weapons-toting security operators carry a safety banner that can be deployed as an incident is going down, or immediately after (when most “blue on blue shootings” happen). Based on some hairy momentsafter our shooting experience, I now do not carry a weapon unless I have my DSM (“Don’t Shoot Me”) banner on my hip. Designed by a veteran SWAT officer, check them out at www.dsmsafety.com.

Ø  Of over 336,000 congregations in the U.S., nearly 60% of them have fewer than 99 people in their membership. The vast majority of these do not have the budget to hire extra-duty officers, nor are there any law-enforcement members in their pews on any given Sunday. Even if there are, many law enforcement agencies forbid off-duty officers from volunteering in security roles. There is nothing wrong with having non-law enforcement trained and ready to protect and allowing them to be ready with the proper tools. The smaller the church, the easier the training can be, but there must be some level of training if you are serious about protection.

Ø  Any business gears up with the proper amounts of staff at busier times. Movie theaters have more staff on hand on Friday and Saturday evening than any other time of the week. Electric utilities have more people in the middle of a hot day, and law enforcement has more officers on duty on Friday and Saturday night than any other time. Agencies typically have fewer officers on duty on Sunday morning than any other time of the week. So if you choose to “just let law enforcement deal with any threats”, your standard wait of 8 minutes might be longer if the wolf comes on Sunday morning.

Ø  There are some states now extending the “make my day law” beyond the home to commercial environments and even churches. The latest of these is Oklahoma who in recent days assigned House Bill 2988 to the House Judiciary Committee. It is well on the way to becoming a law which will expand the legal authority of churches to protect themselves in violent situations.

Ø  In states where it is not legal for citizens to carry a firearm in church, there are often laws allowing properly qualified security professionals to do so. TheChristian Security Institute is a good option for training volunteers to become state level certified armed defenders in states where such certification is needed. Contact them at (972) 712-8818 to see if they offer training in your state. Even if your state doesn’t require licensed armed defenders, it is good due diligence to bring these professionals in to train your team if your church can budget for it.