How do you interpret this?

[ARV]

Now I know the vast majority of people here are not lawyers, but give me your take on this. I work in vermont as a security guard. Yes, unarmed, but hey its a paycheck that I need. Heres the link to the VT laws:http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=26&Chapter=059.
The section below is what I'd like some feedback on.

§ 3175c. Firearms training and certification

(a) A licensee seeking a firearms certification shall meet the following requirements:

(1) An applicant for a private investigator or security guard license to provide armed services shall demonstrate to the board competence in the safe use of firearms by successfully completing a firearms training program approved by the board.

(2) An applicant shall pay the required fee.

(3) An applicant shall obtain the age of majority.

(4) An applicant shall receive a satisfactory federal background check.

(b) No licensee may possess a firearm while performing professional services unless certified and in good standing under this section. (Added 2009, No. 103 (Adj. Sess.), § 32.)


So, that section would make it illegal to CC when on the job (as compared to any other person in the building who needs no license) without some certification from the state?

Did I get this right, or am I way off base with my reading of it?

 

[ping]

I found this in the link you provided:

The term "security guard" shall not include:

(1) Law enforcement officers certified under section 2358 of Title 20 while engaged in the performance of their official duties, including the rendering of security guard services provided such services have been assigned and approved in advance by the officer's employing department and payment for such services is made to the employing department.

(2) Persons who are not armed, who are engaged exclusively in the business of managing property of others, including incidental inspection for the purpose of discovering damage from entry, theft, vandalism or other cause.

(3) Persons regularly employed as security guards exclusively by one employer in connection with the affairs of that employer only, provided that the employer is not a security agency. (Added 1995, No. 144 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; amended 2009, No. 103 (Adj. Sess.), § 24, eff. May 12, 2010.)

In your post it says you are working as an unarmed security guard so I think number (2) might apply to you. (1) in your original post states "to provide armed services" which you are not. I personally believe this does not apply to you if you are working unarmed security. I would call the proper authorities and get a definitive answer if I was you.

 

[ARV]

I saw that as well, but above it i also read this:

4) "Security" means a person engaged for compensation in the business of protecting property or persons by providing armed or unarmed security service, or armed transport service, or the use of guard dogs. "Security services" includes:

(A) Prevention or detection of intrusion, entry, larceny, vandalism, abuse, fire, or trespass on private property.

(B) Prevention, observation, or detection of any unauthorized activity on private property.

(C) Protection of patrons and persons lawfully authorized to be on the premises of the person, firm, association, or corporation that entered into the contract for security services.

(D) Control, regulation, or direction of the flow or movement of the public, whether by vehicle or otherwise, onto the premises.







Who would you advise I call? State Police, AG's office, local PD?

 

[Len-2A Training]

AFAIK, a number of states have this sort of restriction.

Translated into common English, it means that if you are a security guard that you can NOT possess a firearm UNLESS you first obtain the special security guard license to carry a firearm. In states with CCW permits for civilians, this means that even though you have a CCW permit in that state, you can NOT carry any gun while working security w/o the special security guard permit.

 

[cekim]

AFAIK, a number of states have this sort of restriction.

Translated into common English, it means that if you are a security guard that you can NOT possess a firearm UNLESS you first obtain the special security guard license to carry a firearm. In states with CCW permits for civilians, this means that even though you have a CCW permit in that state, you can NOT carry any gun while working security w/o the special security guard permit.

Yup - FL has a similar distinction - anything that works out to "hired to be an armed guard of any sort" requires a different license and heightened licensing requirements and restrictions. Along with penalties for doing so with a "normal" CCW license...

 

[Gonzo]

Pretty sure NH has something similar.

 

[Tim94gt]

§ 3175c. Firearms training and certification

(a) A licensee seeking a firearms certification shall meet the following requirements:

(1) An applicant for a private investigator or security guard license to provide armed services shall demonstrate to the board competence in the safe use of firearms by successfully completing a firearms training program approved by the board.

(2) An applicant shall pay the required fee.

(3) An applicant shall obtain the age of majority.

(4) An applicant shall receive a satisfactory federal background check.

(b) No licensee may possess a firearm while performing professional services unless certified and in good standing under this section. (Added 2009, No. 103 (Adj. Sess.), § 32.)

My understanding is: Since you are a Security Guard, you need to demonstrate safe use of firearms to the Board of Competence.

 

[ARV]

so even to carry concealed, I would need the "armed guard" license?

 

[Gonzo]

If you're caught and want to keep your job and avoid legal hijinks, yeah.

 

[yanici]

AFAIK, a number of states have this sort of restriction.

Translated into common English, it means that if you are a security guard that you can NOT possess a firearm UNLESS you first obtain the special security guard license to carry a firearm. In states with CCW permits for civilians, this means that even though you have a CCW permit in that state, you can NOT carry any gun while working security w/o the special security guard permit.

Len, this "armed security guard license/permit" surprised me. So, you say that in MA if I wanted to be hired as an armed guard or even unarmed guard I would need more than my unrestricted LTC-A to carry? The reason I'm concerned is that I might be employed soon as a guard, maybe not an armed guard, but depending upon the situation I may want to carry concealed if allowed to. I tried to Google this but came up empty.

 

[cekim]

Len, this "armed security guard license/permit" surprised me. So, you say that in MA if I wanted to be hired as an armed guard or even unarmed guard I would need more than my unrestricted LTC-A to carry? The reason I'm concerned is that I might be employed soon as a guard, maybe not an armed guard, but depending upon the situation I may want to carry concealed if allowed to. I tried to Google this but came up empty.

While there may be, I am not aware of any such restriction in MA, but as mentioned, there are other states that have such requirements... IIRC, Boston requires all armed security guards to be sworn in as "special officers.", but I've not seen any state-wide Ch140 requirement here.

For the FL example see:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/FormsRequest493.html

You will note there are various types of licenses: A, B, R, G, etc... which apply to "armed in a professional capacity" in various ways and have varying training requirements as well as odd restrictions on what you can carry (caliber, etc...) while on duty.

 

[yanici]

Thank you, cekim. Yeah, I knew Boston had some requirements. I will not be assigned there however. I wondre if other municipalities have rules of their own as well?

 

[cekim]

Thank you, cekim. Yeah, I knew Boston had some requirements. I will not be assigned there however. I wondre if other municipalities have rules of their own as well?

Well, they can certainly impose "restrictions: employment" and require letters from employers - we've seen that.

Anything further, I don't know...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've never researched it, but don't think MA has anything in MGLs. Boston is allowed to "run amok" and make up their own laws.

From applying for my FL CCW, I found out about their restriction . . . I had to figure out which form I needed to send them as they sent me all of them and accompanying laws back in 2001.

 

[ARV]

well my question was mostly about the legal aspect,If i was carrying at work and it was discovered, I'd be fired on the spot. Something about only carrying half the week (I go to work in the morning, and home at night, no stops other than gas) just rubs me the wrong way.Wonder if Iwould be able to get the license/cert. on my own time and dime and convince them to let me CC on the job. I get what I want, and they get "free" armed security...hmm

 

[PantherarmsAR10]

well my question was mostly about the legal aspect,If i was carrying at work and it was discovered, I'd be fired on the spot. Something about only carrying half the week (I go to work in the morning, and home at night, no stops other than gas) just rubs me the wrong way.Wonder if Iwould be able to get the license/cert. on my own time and dime and convince them to let me CC on the job. I get what I want, and they get "free" armed security...hmm

your job probably still won't let you carry due to liability issues on their part.

 

[ochmude]

Thank you, cekim. Yeah, I knew Boston had some requirements. I will not be assigned there however. I wondre if other municipalities have rules of their own as well?

I worked armed security in MA (Springfield) for 2 years. Security in MA is a strange animal. Unlike everything else in MA, security is almost completely unregulated. There are no licenses or certifications to obtain in order to work as a guard and no training is required, regardless of whether you're armed or unarmed. The owner of a security company is required to have the same license required for being a private investigator, but individual guards don't even need clear criminal histories to work. In order to be armed all you need is a Class A LTC that's ALP, Employment, or Protection. No further licensing is required. HOWEVER, it would be prudent to obtain some sort of written memorandum of understanding with the local LE where you'll be carrying if doing so openly. Otherwise you can expect to be hassled on occasion if the police in your area are cranky.

The biggest problem, though, with the fact that security is so unregulated in MA is that you have absolutely no authority whatsoever to actually enforce policies established by the company or property manager. As an example, at one property I was assigned to we were supposed to check the ID of everyone entering the lobby of this apartment building. Someone would walk through the front door, we'd ask them for ID, they'd ignore us and walk into the elevator, and we'd report that they refused to present ID. This happened several hundred times per shift, so much so that we had a list of a few dozen generic physical descriptions that we'd copy and paste into the report for each individual that refused to present ID. Once, one new guard put his hand up and tried to prevent someone from entering until he presented ID. The guy complained to management and threatened to sue and the guard was nearly fired. Management didn't care that we were not able to actually provide any real security. They just wanted the insurance break. You wanna talk about security theater...MA pretty much sets the standard.

Oh, and none of this is applicable to the Rule 400 stuff Boston has going on. I cannot speak to that from experience.

 

[GSG]

To the OP, do you work for a licensed security company, or in-house for a private entity? Because this:

(3) Persons regularly employed as security guards exclusively by one employer in connection with the affairs of that employer only, provided that the employer is not a security agency. (Added 1995, No. 144 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; amended 2009, No. 103 (Adj. Sess.), § 24, eff. May 12, 2010.)

exempts in house security from the permit requirement. Also, keep in mind that there may be administrative requirements that modify the law somewhat.

Yup - FL has a similar distinction - anything that works out to "hired to be an armed guard of any sort" requires a different license and heightened licensing requirements and restrictions. Along with penalties for doing so with a "normal" CCW license...

The really funny thing is, in FL, the CCW course is a standard thing, but the G license course is 28 hours long, with lengthy discussions on use of force, carry laws, and 8 hours at the range for qualification, plus annual requal requirement. Still a G doesn't exempt you from waiting periods for guns or allow you to carry when you're off the clock, not even to and from work.

The reason I'm concerned is that I might be employed soon as a guard, maybe not an armed guard, but depending upon the situation I may want to carry concealed if allowed to. I tried to Google this but came up empty.

If it's not an off limits place to carry in Mass. there's nothing that can be done legally if you carry there. They may fire you over it if you're discovered.

The owner of a security company is required to have the same license required for being a private investigator, but individual guards don't even need clear criminal histories to work.

Felons can't be guards in Mass. That doesn't stop companies from hiring parolees or child rapists though.

Oh, and none of this is applicable to the Rule 400 stuff Boston has going on. I cannot speak to that from experience.

Just to be clear, Rule 400 applies to SPO's, although Boston proposed a city ordinance to require special licensing of all guards in the city.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...licensing-of-armed-security-guards?highlight=

 

[ARV]

GSG - I work In-House for a private company.

ochmude - I hear ya on the being ignored thing. That was the case when I started here. Things started to change. A couple months in we got a new boss, and if you dont listen, the first time it might be let go, esp if your new and dont know the rules. Do it a second time after being spoken to, you run the risk of being fired. Thats for employees, any non-employee that blatently ignores us is usualy hunted for by the boss as we cant leave the post for minor issues. They get thrown out if needed, or arrested by the local PD, but thats extreamly rare. The way everything is set up, if i deny entry to someone, and do so following my post orders, I CAN NOT get in trouble/fired for it. Ive refused to allow in supervisors and VP's or their guests that werent on the authorized list. Thats resulted in more than one angry phone call sent to my boss, both here and at home. Those calls have always resulted in a "Job well done".

 

[GSG]

GSG - I work In-House for a private company.

Then it would appear that you're golden. Call the VT security regulatory agency from a payphone and see if there's any fun restrictions they haven't told you about, and check your workplace policy to see if they'll fire you if you carry.

 

[ARV]

Then it would appear that you're golden. Call the VT security regulatory agency from a payphone and see if there's any fun restrictions they haven't told you about, and check your workplace policy to see if they'll fire you if you carry.

as it stands now, they would. With the right license obtained on my own time, no idea.

 

[GSG]

as it stands now, they would. With the right license obtained on my own time, no idea.

Keep in mind, if you're an in-house guard they may not even issue you such a license. But I know next to nothing about the regs in that state.

 

[5ilverado]

"... in MA is that you have absolutely no authority whatsoever to actually enforce policies established by the company or property manager. As an example, at one property I was assigned to we were supposed to check the ID of everyone entering the lobby of this apartment building. Someone would walk through the front door, we'd ask them for ID, they'd ignore us and walk into the elevator..."

In MA about the only "authority" security officers/guards have is as the agent of the property owner (manager. etc), all of which can refuse to allow a person on the property. The agents can then inform the person of such and advise them to leave. If the person refuses to leave upon notice, the person is trespassing. This is where the enforcement would come into play. It is the PD's job to arrest the person for trespassing, if the officer observes the person remaining on the property, after being asked to leave. Security may "enforce" rules and policy of the property owner by asking "violators" to leave. If (when) they refuse, you now have trespassing.

What other states regard as licensed security guards MA has Special State Police Officers (SSPO). All of which are employed by colleges,hospitals, government institutions (Dept. Mental Health), MSPCA or by statute certain Turnpike employees (not troopers). In MA they are essentially known at Campus Police. They are all academy trained and enjoy all immunities andmost of the same authority at "regular" police (investigate crimes, arrest..) Many of these SSPO's are unarmed even during the course of their employment, however are "Police" in the eyes of firearms licensing. A SSPO is about as close to a "Licensed Guard" as you get in MA.

 

[GSG]

What other states regard as licensed security guards MA has Special State Police Officers (SSPO).

Not really. Almost every state in the US requires a "security license" of some sort in order to be employed as a security guard. Other than having the ability to effect a standard citizens arrest (and occasionally increased criminal penalties for A&B against the licensed guard), they have no arrest or police authority.