Question about HB 152: Electronic security employees; carrying concealed handguns.

imported post

What is an electronic security employee?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB152

This bill amends § 9.1-139, which outlines the requirements for security guards. The full text of the added paragraph:

O. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a licensed electronic security employee who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308, and who may lawfully possess a handgun, from carrying a concealed handgun for personal protection during working hours, so long as the employee does not represent to the public that he is carrying the handgun in the course of his employment.

imported post

I believe they are referring to people who install/work on electronic security (ie, card readers, magnetic locks, etc.) but I could be wrong.

imported post

GuitarMan270 wrote:

I believe they are referring to people who install/work on electronic security (ie, card readers, magnetic locks, etc.) but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Ahhh.... I had some visions of a hybrid cross between "Mall Cop" and "RoboCop".

:shock:

TFred

imported post

What does this do for private property rights? My place of employment has electronic security devices, and a big fat "No Weapons Allowed" sign on the front door.

These security employees are not LEOs, so they wouldn't be exempt from the private property prohibitions would they?

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

What does this do for private property rights? My place of employment has electronic security devices, and a big fat "No Weapons Allowed" sign on the front door.

These security employees are not LEOs, so they wouldn't be exempt from the private property prohibitions would they?

TFred

Click to expand...

The bill states that nothing in § 9.1-139 shall prohibit...

The bill does *not* state that nothing in § 18.2-308 shall prohibit... Such as, § 18.2-308(O):

O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.


So my personal opinion is that the security employee would not be execmpt from private property prohibitions.

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

TFred wrote:

What does this do for private property rights? My place of employment has electronic security devices, and a big fat "No Weapons Allowed" sign on the front door.

These security employees are not LEOs, so they wouldn't be exempt from the private property prohibitions would they?

TFred

Click to expand...

The bill states that nothing in § 9.1-139 shall prohibit...

The bill does *not* state that nothing in § 18.2-308 shall prohibit... Such as, § 18.2-308(O):

O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.


So my personal opinion is that the security employee would not be execmpt from private property prohibitions.

Click to expand...

Your assessment sounds reasonable.

It will be interesting to see if any big companies (who generally use electronic security services) come out with a position on this. I can see a lot of security contractors walking right on in without batting an eye at the signs on the doors.

TFred

imported post

Doesn't this mean an alarm company employee, basically allowing them to carry but disallows their employers from offering "armed response" services?

If so, I wonder if those aggravating Brink's/Broadview commercials will be redone. "My ex-boyfriend tried to break in!" "Relax, ma'am, we're sending over someone with a Glock right away."

Naahh, probably not.

imported post

TFred wrote:

What is an electronic security employee?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB152

This bill amends § 9.1-139, which outlines the requirements for security guards. The full text of the added paragraph:

O. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a licensed electronic security employee who may lawfully possess a handgun, from carrying a handgun for personal protection during working hours, so long as the employee does not represent to the public that he is carrying the handgun in the course of his employment.

Click to expand...

There! I'd support that.

Since it ONLY applies to CHP....I give it

imported post

TFred wrote:

What is an electronic security employee?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB152

This bill amends § 9.1-139, which outlines the requirements for security guards. The full text of the added paragraph:

O. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a licensed electronic security employee who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308, and who may lawfully possess a handgun, from carrying a concealed handgun for personal protection during working hours, so long as the employee does not represent to the public that he is carrying the handgun in the course of his employment.

Click to expand...

18.2-308 alreadydelineates whereconcealed handgun carry is prohibited. Additionally, employers may prohibit employees from carrying weapons of any kind while on the job.

What does "...not represent to the public that he is carrying ..." mean? If it's awarm day, and s/he is servicing an outdoorATM, can the tech remove his/her jacket, revealing a firearm?

What's driving the perceived need for this bill? It seems to me to be unnecessary verbiage.

imported post

2a4all wrote:

TFred wrote:

What is an electronic security employee?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB152

This bill amends § 9.1-139, which outlines the requirements for security guards. The full text of the added paragraph:

O. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a licensed electronic security employee who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308, and who may lawfully possess a handgun, from carrying a concealed handgun for personal protection during working hours, so long as the employee does not represent to the public that he is carrying the handgun in the course of his employment.

Click to expand...

18.2-308 alreadydelineates whereconcealed handgun carry is prohibited. Additionally, employers may prohibit employees from carrying weapons of any kind while on the job.

What does "...not represent to the public that he is carrying ..." mean? If it's awarm day, and s/he is servicing an outdoorATM, can the tech remove his/her jacket, revealing a firearm?

What's driving the perceived need for this bill? It seems to me to be unnecessary verbiage.

Click to expand...

Virginia requires extra training and yearly certification (just like a LEO) to be considered an armed security guard vs unarmed. I believe the purpose of this bill is to clarify that an unarmed electronic security employee may actually carry a gun while working as long as they don't try to act as an armed security guard.

imported post

SECURITY OFFICERS that carry handguns are required to be licensed by the state of VA Dept of Justice. as armed security personnel. This law is so that some security personnel, who don't normally come in contact with customers, may still carry for PERSONAL REASONS. This is a good law.

As for it being for CHP only, if they were to OC they would be required to be licensed as armed security, so it there to avoid confusion/conflict.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

As for it being for CHP only, if they were to OC they would be required to be licensed as armed security, so it there to avoid confusion/conflict.

Click to expand...

Perks for Permits = BAD LAW

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

SECURITY OFFICERS that carry handguns are required to be licensed by the state of VA Dept of Justice. as armed security personnel. This law is so that some security personnel, who don't normally come in contact with customers, may still carry for PERSONAL REASONS. This is a good law.

As for it being for CHP only, if they were to OC they would be required to be licensed as armed security, so it there to avoid confusion/conflict.

Click to expand...

So this bill creates a new class of security officer, to wit, the Armed for Personal Protection Unarmed Security Officer. I thought of an electronic security employee as a technician, notany kind of security officer. I guess if they feel like they need to be armed, then they should be allowed to make that call.

Sounds like parallel universe of Commonwealth Attorneys, though.

imported post

In October of 2008Locksmiths were added to to the license procedure that included security guards etc. If a locksmith had a concealed Handgun Permit they now had to pay for an armed permit and go through special training just to carry concealed when they go out on a lockout call.

I think this may be to correct that issue. Although I may be wrong.

imported post

Why are they revising technicalities in bad laws and not simply repealing it?

If they are going to require training/certification for armedsecurity personnel Iwould prefer a law that states, "Employees that are required by their employer to be armed, are required to pass state certification."

That addresses the specific need and stops creating exceptions. Most of these laws should simply be repealed with the comment "see 2nd amendment".

imported post

I'm still not certain that we know what an electronic security technician is.

Lots of good guesses, but does anyone know for sure?

imported post

Here it is, straight from the Virginia DCJS web site:

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/faq/catView.cfm?category=Electronic%20Security%20Employee

1. What is an electronic security employee?
   A person who is employed by an electronic security business in any capacity which may give him access to information concerning the design, extent, status, password, contact list, or location of an end user's electronic security equipment.
   
2. Are there any registration or training requirements?
   No. The individual only needs to submit the initial fingerprint application, fingerprint card, and fee.

The definition above naturally begs the question, OK, what's an "electronic security business?"

From the same source, http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/faq/catView.cfm?category=Electronic%20Security%20Businesses

What is an "electronic security business"?
Any person who engages in the business of or undertakes to: (i) sell; (ii) install, service, maintain, design or consult in the design of any electronic security equipment to an end user; (iii) respond to or cause a response to electronic security equipment for an end user; or (iv) have access to confidential information concerning the design, extent, status, password, contact list, or location of an end user's electronic security equipment.

Well, that definition is certainly wide open. Sounds like it was intended for burglar alarm and locksmith employees. Would your garden variety IT/computer weenie, of which I am one, quality? Would anti-virus and firewall software quality as "security equipment"? Why not? I've got access to system and administrator passwords and confidential information.

I wonder if this bill would override anti-gun employer policies, if any such existed. If computer geeks qualify, there are probably still a few thousand AOL employees that could use this law to beat AOL's anti-gun personnel policies. AOL got a federal court ruling some time ago that extended the definition of "workplace" to the parking lot where an employee might park their car. I'd love to ram that down their throats, but I'm not sure the bill, if enacted into law, would do so. And if it would, why not extend it to all employees and not just the few affected by this very targeted bill?

imported post

Maybe I am missing something but it seems like an awfully narrow change to the law. Why not specifically spell out who is required to get a certification and allow all others the freedom to exercise their rights?

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Maybe I am missing something but it seems like an awfully narrow change to the law. Why not specifically spell out who is required to get a certification and allow all others the freedom to exercise their rights?

Click to expand...

Penalty flag! Too logical - five yards!

Yata hey

imported post

markand wrote:

AOL got a federal court ruling some time ago that extended the definition of "workplace" to the parking lot where an employee might park their car. I'd love to ram that down their throats, but I'm not sure the bill, if enacted into law, would do so. And if it would, why not extend it to all employees and not just the few affected by this very targeted bill?

Click to expand...

There's already another bill in the hopper for that issue.

TFred