GEORGIA CHURCH SECURITY LAWS

Below are two emails from a Georgia lawyer on the subject of volunteer church security. They are in no means a "for sure" opinion but a start on kicking the can down the road. I am hoping that soon will have a well written interpretation with links to author and his credintials. For now this can only be considered heresay but something well worth reading and pondering. Do not use this as basis for deciding the legality of your team or forming one. For the moment suggest any church with an in-house security bteam consult legal counsil about their proceedures. Hope this page is much more concrete in the near future.

I'm interested in the idea of writing some articles for a website that is about church security.

However, just about anything I write would only be strongly relevant and accurate as to Georgia law, because every state's laws are different on issues such as licensing of security guards or in-house staff whose job includes security; the laws of deadly force; and the potential legal liability of something goes wrong (either way-- your security team member gets trigger-happy and hurts the wrong person, or the team member doesn't successfully spot the threat and immediately take him down, and some innocent people are hurt).

As for the issue of licensing, the way I read the law itself, the O.C.G.A. statutory law on professional licensing, it doesn't apply to in-house staff members or volunteers who ONLY do their security duty for one place-- the place they work for. The company they work for doesn't have to be licensed as a private security agency, so how could the people working for that company get blue cards anyway? Maybe the law has changed since I looked this up in response to somebody else's question years ago, but that's what I recall finding in the law books.

But, I've called the Secretary of State's office and the mid-level person there (not a lawyer, but not a mere secretary either) said that anybody who does guard services has to have a blue card.

There's one source of "law" that I never looked at: administrative law. State rules and regulations enacted by the various agencies and boards through a delegation of authority by the Georgia General Assembly. This is another way that the statutory law can be contradicted by administrative law.

Of course, doing unlicensed in-house security, even where legal, can be a risky activity from a liability standpoint. Insurance companies might nix that idea, and insist on hiring a professional security firm to send licensed armed guards to that church.

Email Reply #2:

Last week I inquired of the Sec. of State's office as to a church's own in-house guards needing blue cards and the church itself being licensed as a security agency. The answer I got back from a director over there is that it's OPTIONAL for the church to be licensed, not required. Not if the employees only do their guard services for their own employer.

That begs the question: What about volunteer teams of guards? They're not employees.

I think (and don't hold me to this) that a team of volunteers is outside the scope of the SoS licensing law for a different reason: They're not engaged in "the business" of providing guard services. It's not a business if you don't sell any product or service, and you only give away a service to one particular institution that you care for and have close connections to. Don't you agree? The term "engaged in the business" is not defined in this particular law, in Title 43, so I think we'd use the plain English definitions that we might find in a dictionary.

Georgia's security guard laws and regulations are restrictions on THE BUSINESS of private security, not restrictions on any person's activity that is related to crime prevention and security. Make sense?

Church carry of firearms remains a hot topic. Reports of churches "opting in” and "opting out” and even "defying” Georgia’s weapons law have abounded in the media of late. Last week I discussed the three options available to a church in adopting a gun policy: 1) Do nothing (guns prohibited), 2) Adopt a carry policy (guns permitted) and 3) Adopt a no guns policy. Today, I’ll address liability issues.

Let’s say that the church bans guns. A crazed man comes in and shoots up the place, injuring several church members. Is the church liable? Maybe.

In any situation, the issue comes down to reasonable foreseeability. Could the church have foreseen this violent act and taken steps to prevent it? 99 percent of the time, the answer is no and the church is not liable.

Let’s say the church allows guns. A crazed man comes in and starts shooting the place up. A GWCL holder takes aim and brings the guy down. Our GWCL citizen is a hero to most. Alas, the crazed man’s family will say that he was misunderstood and wasn’t going to actually shoot anybody. They might sue. They’ll lose 100 percent of the time.

Let’s say the church allows guns. The church has no permission requirement, that is, no pre-authorization is required for any GWCL to carry in the church. A gun holder drops his gun. It discharges, shooting Aunt Mamie in the back. She’s a mean ol’ woman and survives, but she never did like that preacher anyway so she sues the church for allowing the knucklehead to have a gun without training. Does she win? She might. I’d have some insurance for that.

Let’s say the church allows guns. The church has a permission requirement, that is, Joe, our GWCL holder, gets pre-authorization to carry in the church. Joe drops his gun, it discharges, shooting Aunt Mamie in the back. She’s a mean ol’ woman and survives, but she never did like that young music minister anyway so she sues the church for allowing the poorly trained Joe to have a gun in the church. Does she win? She might. I’d have some insurance for that.

Let’s say the church allows guns. The church has extensive requirements in order to carry. First, Joe has to have training through the local police. He has to be background checked. He has to join the security team at the church and be trained in proper gun safety in the church.

Despite all that training, Joe drops his gun, it discharges, shooting Aunt Mamie in the back. She’s a mean ol’ woman and survives, but she never did like that guitar and drum set on the platform anyway so she sues the church for improperly training Joe. Does she win? She might. I’d have some insurance for that.

Final one. Let’s say the church allows guns. The church has extensive requirements in order to carry. First, Joe has to have training through the local police. He has to be background checked. He has to join the security team at the church and be trained in proper gun safety in the church.

Crazy guy comes in, shooting. Joe is on the mark, hits the crazy man and drops him. A bullet fragment ricochets out of the dearly departed and hits ol’ Aunt Mamie anyway. She’s a mean ol’ woman and survives, but she never did like those new songs in the hymnal anyway so she sues the church for getting shot. Does she win? I doubt it, but maybe. The reason is that the Georgia Code gives immunity to Joe for shooting the crazy dude, but not innocent bystanders. (OCGA 51-11-9). That is why I adhere to the old adage: gun control is hitting what you are aiming at. And nothing more.

Kelly Burke, attorney, former district attorney and magistrate judge, is engaged in private practice. He focuses on personal injury cases and corporate litigation. These articles are not designed to give legal advice, but to inform the public about how the law affects their daily lives. Contact Kelly at kelly@burkelasseterllc.com to comment on this article or suggest articles about the law that you’d like to see.

This is what I have so far. Use it for informational purposes but again, a lot of church security teams have been drug through civil courts across the country and been hit with multi-million dollar judgements. Everyones situation is likely somewhat different so consulting an attorney is strongly advised. Hope to be able to provide links to specialized legal counsel soon. God Bless All.

ALL OF THE PHOTOS AND TEXT ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED. NO PORTION MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT.