• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Some really annoying guy

T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

From the state Constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

How does the notion of armed security guards relate to this? This would seem to prevent any armed security guards at all -- and rightly so, in my opinion. I don't want fleets of armed goons running around, private property or not.
 
E

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

The WaMu guy wasn't acting in the interest of public policy either. He didn't save anything except some of his employer's money. If the criminal had possessed a firearm, the employee would have potentially have caused an escalation where one might not have occurred.

Now, personally, if I was the owner of a business and an employee had the good sense and judgment to foil a robbery and then capture the criminal, I'd give the guy a medal, a raise, some free vacation time off with pay and maybe a promotion. That's because I would love to have employees with discerning eyes, sound judgment and the loyalty to protect their co-workers and my assets. WaMu doesn't agree with me.

I'm hoping the guy had 50 job offers from employers of like mind.
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

tai4de2 wrote:
From the state Constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

How does the notion of armed security guards relate to this? This would seem to prevent any armed security guards at all -- and rightly so, in my opinion. I don't want fleets of armed goons running around, private property or not.
Click to expand...
It doesn't ban security officers. It just places them outside of constitutional protection on the state level. Using the logic that you suggest, the constitutions of Kentucky and Missouri, which states basically that RKBA is protected, but nothing herein shall authorize the carrying of concealed weapons, bans concealed carry entirely. This argument was in fact used by the City of St. Louis in their attempt to have the CCW statute passed by the Missouri legislature struck down. The State Supreme Court ruled otherwise because the state had made exceptions in the past, repealed them, etc, from the full ban on concealed carry.
 
D

Dr. Fresh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
390
Location
, ,
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Dr. Fresh wrote:
K_Bjornstad wrote:
Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Many companies cannot afford to provide the training for armed guards. Also, many clients prefer to not have armed security guards. Many banks around Spokane have security guards who are unarmed too.

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that personis qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.
Click to expand...

If a security company or client wants unarmed security officers (to save money on insurance or protect from lawsuit, as you said), then they can make a policy stating this. If someone chooses to ignore the policy, they can get fired. This is how it works for every other occupation.

It should not be a crime.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the owner/company is the one that will be sued when someone gets shot, even if the guard was violating policy. It is a HUGE liability for the company, and a risk that any saavy business owner would not take.
Click to expand...
And how is that any different than any other business? I can go work at Wal-Mart or something, and carry legally (against their policy I'm sure). If I have to use it, they might get sued. How is security different? This should not be codified in law.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:
Johnny Law wrote:
Dr. Fresh wrote:
K_Bjornstad wrote:
Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Many companies cannot afford to provide the training for armed guards. Also, many clients prefer to not have armed security guards. Many banks around Spokane have security guards who are unarmed too.

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that personis qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.
Click to expand...

If a security company or client wants unarmed security officers (to save money on insurance or protect from lawsuit, as you said), then they can make a policy stating this. If someone chooses to ignore the policy, they can get fired. This is how it works for every other occupation.

It should not be a crime.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the owner/company is the one that will be sued when someone gets shot, even if the guard was violating policy. It is a HUGE liability for the company, and a risk that any saavy business owner would not take.
Click to expand...
And how is that any different than any other business? I can go work at Wal-Mart or something, and carry legally (against their policy I'm sure). If I have to use it, they might get sued. How is security different? This should not be codified in law.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think the law feels that there is extra risk for liability when it comes to security work. All in all, the law acts to "protect" the owner of the company in the case of a lawsuit, but I still disagree with it being a law.
 
T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
tai4de2 wrote:
From the state Constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

How does the notion of armed security guards relate to this? This would seem to prevent any armed security guards at all -- and rightly so, in my opinion. I don't want fleets of armed goons running around, private property or not.
Click to expand...
It doesn't ban security officers. It just places them outside of constitutional protection on the state level. Using the logic that you suggest, the constitutions of Kentucky and Missouri, which states basically that RKBA is protected, but nothing herein shall authorize the carrying of concealed weapons, bans concealed carry entirely. This argument was in fact used by the City of St. Louis in their attempt to have the CCW statute passed by the Missouri legislature struck down. The State Supreme Court ruled otherwise because the state had made exceptions in the past, repealed them, etc, from the full ban on concealed carry.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Thanks!
 
D

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

This whole argument basically boils down to finances.

Training a security officer (as required by state) to use a firearm, supplying said firearm, paying for the larger license, paying insurance cost increase... They all add up to money.

This expense is then passed on to any company that wants to have a armed security officer vs an unarmed one.

Most companies hire security to lower the cost of their insurance, and provide a generally more comfortable and secure feeling to their employees. 99 times out of a 100 that means they will just take the cheaper option of the unarmed security.

It is still benneficial to the client, in that they have security present and it lowers their companies insurance, but it also removes any liability of having a gun on site every day. Both for the client and the security provider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top