Is There A Place for Weapons Detection Systems in Houses of Worship?

Some of the strongest arguments in favor of WDSs in religious facilities come from churches that have actually installed them. A head of security for one such church (who asked that his institution not be identified) credits magnetometers with keeping violence out of the holy building. The church is located in an urban environment frequented by the homeless, mentally unstable, and transient. He says that security has found at least one large knife outside the church that was likely abandoned when the owner saw that the church screens for weapons.

This urban church hasn’t faced some of the disadvantages of WDSs that are articulated later in this article. For example, the security director says that the cost is manageable, including the hiring of multiple officers to operate the system, such as one with a wand magnetometer to follow up on someone who triggers an alarm. And training on the system was simple, he says.

Moreover, the equipment has not caused delays, backups, or complaints. The system usually picks up items such as nail clippers, pen knives, and box cutters. Security temporarily confiscates each item and places it in an individual evidence bag. Items are returned when the person leaves.

The security director emphasized that visitors and congregants aren’t treated like concertgoers or sports fans entering a stadium or other venue. “We do this with dignity,” he says. And staff and parishioners alike say they feel safer.

For institutions that are adamant about adding the technology, “The way the issue is presented is key,” says Bob Howard, Director of Emergency Management for the city of Sandpoint, Idaho. “It may be best accomplished by presenting it as a way for protecting kids, first of all, then spouses and elderly members.”  If a house of worship conducts a security questionnaire of its congregants and solicits ideas, Howard says, “You might get buy-in for the detectors at that point.”

The Case Against WDSs

“The day U.S. religious institutions regularly install metal detectors is the day when worship in this country is changed irrevocably,” says Paul Goldenberg, the Founder of the Secure Community Network (SCN; the nation’s first full-time faith-based threat and information-sharing center) and former Vice Chair of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Faith-Based Advisory Security Council. “These institutions were built for openness and inclusion.”

As chief of the first statewide office in the United States committed to the investigation of hate crimes and domestic terrorism, Goldenberg has investigated hundreds of faith-based crimes and attacks on religious institutions, including the toppling of gravestones a few feet from where his own father is buried. Yet he doesn’t consider WDSs to be a viable option.

Mark Genatempo, a house-of-worship security expert and Goldenberg’s colleague at Rutgers University’s Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience agrees. “I believe we would lose something intrinsic to the ‘freedom of religion’ aspect of our society that we could never get back, making our houses of worship into fortified institutions.”

Other common objections, besides disturbing the sanctity of the environment, include intimidating worshipers, who will stay away. “I think it may cause attendance to shrink, only because there could be a perception of ‘no trust,’ explains Sandpoint’s Director of Emergency Management Bob Howard.

The main detection technologies present their own issues, says Jeff Slotnick, President of the security firm Setracon and one of the co-founders of SAFE Washington, a security and intelligence partnership led by the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. Magnetometers are often triggered by harmless objects like belt buckles and require at least one secondary screener to do a follow-up wand scan. During major holidays or large events, the HOW might need multiple portals and screener teams. Otherwise, the crowd will create backups at the front doors, which facilitates attack opportunities. 

“Metal detectors don’t catch ceramic weapons,” adds Paul Wade, a security trainer for the CEN and a former officer with the Orange County (CA) Police Department. “I think these machines also lead to a false sense of security.” 

Manufacturers of other types of WDSs, such as radar/millimeter-wave, thermal, and visual-based, especially when the devices incorporate AI, say they can detect nontraditional weapons. But there have been reports of such systems missing knives, bombs, and other types of weapons.

Genatempo, of the Miller Center at Rutgers University, adds that WDSs won’t stop a determined adversary. “They’d simply go in through one of the many doors propped open or unlocked,” he says. “Or just approach the magnetometer, draw a weapon and start shooting right there.” At best, he contends, the “attacker would simply go to a softer house of worship down the block.”

But for a community protecting its flock, displacement may well be better than the alternative.

WDSs also require significant funding to purchase, install, operate, and maintain, including operational expertise and management that most HOWs can’t resource. Genatempo says that while there may be a place for WDSs at special events in HOWs, everyday use is simply not sustainable for most institutions.

Another argument against WDSs is that religious facilities will rely on the systems as a panacea or full-blown security program—hence Wade’s comment about lending a false sense of security. Critics also say that when someone actually enters with a gun, religious institutions won’t be equipped to respond.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” admits Jason Lindley, a former Arizona State Police Officer and advisor to CEN who has trained church security teams. “You’ll have people that want them and will make them feel more at ease. Others will be anxious by having them there.”

These concerns cross faith communities. “I believe a balance between securing the mosques and keeping them safe while preserving the friendly and welcoming environment is critical,” says Dr. Ahmed Soboh, Chairman of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, and Religious Director of the Islamic Center of Yorba Linda. “If the detectors would create a feeling of fear or threat, we would avoid them. The last thing we want is for someone to say: ‘I have felt fearful here and I will pray at home instead.’

One consequence of WDSs is that legally carrying congregants will have to leave their guns behind. “If I’m a criminal, I want to do my activity where I know it’s a gun- or weapon-free area,” Phoenix’s Lindley says. “I’d be able to inflict a lot more damage because I would be met with little to no resistance.

In many parts of the country, the right to carry a gun is cherished as much as the right to free exercise of religion. Gun owners may switch congregations if their weapons are banned. And even if they stay with their HOW and leave their guns at home, they won’t be able to defend against an active shooter unless they have an arrangement with the staff and clergy to carry their weapons. That causes its own issues, such as who gets selected for that role.

Other Approaches

Several experts contacted for this article offer alternatives to WDSs. Some suggest welcoming weapons—legally carried and owned by members of the congregation—rather than barring them.

Daryl Kramer, a CEN affiliate member and former private sector coordinator for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, advocates leveraging the trained, certified gun-carrying members in the congregation. “Have churchgoers get certified for open carry and allow them in,” he advises. “More armed and trained security responders in churches mean less chance that an active shooter can kill.”

Some houses of worship adopt a sort of “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy.” Lest they get a reputation as an easy target, these facilities don’t ban guns. Nor do they explicitly welcome them. They rely on some members of the congregation who are known or assumed to carry guns to respond to an assailant.

Many experts emphasize human intelligence and observation over physical systems, recommending that HOWs train greeters, ushers, and other staff on nonverbal behaviors. “The bad guys will always give clues as to their intentions,” says Michael Boler, a consultant with CEN with expertise in racial reconciliation and training the underserved in Indianapolis. “The problem is we lose focus or just don’t know what to look for.” Boler’s solution? “Spend money on training greeters and be creative with suspicious behavior recognition.”

SAFE Washington’s Slotnick and the Miller Center’s Goldenberg offer similar advice. During high-threat times, congregations can perform the same function as a WDS with far less cost: “Good policies and procedures, such as banning backpacks, supplemented by a physical screening and visual search,” advises Slotnick.

Technology is far from anathema, however. Goldenberg says that tools such as panic alarms can be critical components of a holistic security posture.

And WDSs may well have a place. “Although weapons detection technologies can be valuable security tools, it’s important that any specific solutions be evaluated and implemented as part of a comprehensive security plan that combines people, training, policies, equipment, and other resources,” says Robert Graves, regional security advisor to SCN’s National Capital Region. “Organizations and facilities vary widely in their needs and priorities. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for security.”

Dickson Skipper, former head of security for the Billy Graham Association, recommends pairing trained greeters with uniformed off-duty police officers. Skipper says: “A marked police car prominently placed in front or in the parking lot also provides a good deterrent.”

At bottom, the decision on whether to use WDSs comes down to the results of a risk assessment and the culture of the facility. As Skipper puts it, “Churches are one of the most difficult places to protect because they are meant to be open and provide a friendly welcome. What I tell folks is, ‘What do you consider an acceptable risk?’ You can’t have your church operate like a prison.”