Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: A letter I wrote...with your help

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221

    A letter I wrote...with your help

    Thank You to all who tried to help make the letter better and had constructive replies. I will let you know of the outcome.
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:40 PM. Reason: Only takes 1 to ruin it all.

  2. #2
    Regular Member markush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kenosha
    Posts
    175
    I applaud your effort and truly wish you the best of luck!

    I'm unclear if you are trying to get the company to allow regular employees to conceal carry their personal firearms while on duty or are trying to make a case that certain high risk guards should be trained and allowed to carry a side arm while performing certain tasks. If it's the latter I apologize that I didn't catch it when I skimmed through your letter and you can disregard my following rant.

    Maybe I'm just extra cranky today but...that's a lot of words there! I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing and just skimmed. I've worked closely with security personnel for several years and have to say I would seriously fear for my life if the vast majority of security that I have worked with were allowed to conceal carry personal firearms on the job! They were mostly police officer flunkies or wannabes. Yes we had the retired and even active duty officers working a second job but most were down right scary!

    I'm sure different security companies hire to higher standards but from my experience and stories I have heard I tend to believe that it just might be a good idea not allow security guards as a whole to conceal carry personal firearms while on duty! I can certainly see the company's point of not wanting to deal with their "unarmed" guards producing a personal weapon and shooting bad guys.

    Again, The best of luck!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    not the security company

    It is usually the request of the company that has contracted the security company that dictates if security officers are to be armed or un-armed.Also.The security company you are working for may not have the license,permits or even insurance to allow armed security.
    I have worked for companies that the security officer was nothing more than a receptionist after normal operating hours and for companies that did armed body guard services and I mean heavily armed. It all depended on the company contract.
    The security company gave the company whatever they wanted. Do you know alot of companies hire security companies for a break in insurance cost for fire protection.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I did make the effort to read from the top all the way to the bottom.

    Unfortunately, there is a difference between being an armed security officer and having your own handgun for your own self defense. The first entails the company meeting a host of state regulations for everything from training to type of handgun permitted. Armed security officers are also held to a set of legal standards that may have no relationship to what a private person might be able to do in defense of self or others.

    You might wade through this https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/440/II/26 (440.26) as you start to educate yourself on the subject.

    Then, if you think you need to carry a handgun on duty, get yourself qualified for and find a job as an armed security officer. I wish you luck.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    There was a thread not too long ago about my bank (North Shore Banks) posting "No Weapons" signs.

    I know for a fact they they now have a security guard on duty in the bank.... Unarmed....

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    None
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:37 PM. Reason: thanks for those who tried to help

  7. #7
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    I am happy (for lack of a better word) that you took the effort and time to write a letter to your employer regarding the right to bear arms. However as was pointed out, security has a whole different set of rules. I worked armed and unarmed security in the past, and was stated above holds true. Clients choose whether or not armed security fits the bill, and insurance company's may dictate a private companies ability to arm its employees. Don't be disappointed if the result is not what you hopped for, you took that extra step and made your point known.

    Keep that desire to make changes in your world, for when you give that up is when you truly have lost.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    None
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:38 PM. Reason: only takes 1 to ruin it all

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Since You Asked

    I don't think you should submit such a letter unless you don't need a reference from your current employer. If you do decide to go head, please make note of the suggestions. Best of luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by HolyOrangeJuice View Post
    I decided to write a letter to the company I work for. After reading all kinds of letters and emails that were shared by "YOU" on these forums I was able to write something I think will persuade them to my point of view. I feel it is only fair to share what I have come up with so i may give something back to "YOU". Obviously the letter would have to be modified for your use. [names have been removed]

    To whom it may concern,
    You cannot take the time to find out the name of the responsible manager? Not too impressive.

    My name is [removed] and I have recently started employment with [removed] security. I have been informed that we are not allowed to carry firearms while on duty. I am writing this letter in hopes to change that. I only ask that you read this and take everything into account before relaying a reply to me through the head of security.
    You just start a job and one of your first actions is this attention-getting stunt? I would suggest you get some advice from a mature, experience person whom you respect (preferably within the field) vs. a bunch of unknown netizens, who however bright and caring, have little in common with each other, let alone yourself.

    I assume you are aware that Wisconsin has recently passed legislation that permits law abiding citizens the right of self-defense and the ability to carry concealed weapons with a permit. It is also legal to openly carry a firearm on you without a permit with a few exceptions. Wisconsin has also included in their legislation immunity from liability for businesses that allow their customers and employees to carry firearms. I am asking that you allow [removed] security personnel the right to carry openly or concealed as they see fit.
    Whoa, coming off a little arrogant, aren't we? No matter what you were thinking when you wrote it, that first line says that you think the reader might not be as sophisticated as you would like him to be. "carry a firearm on you"? How does that differ from "carry a firearm"? Do you really think that "the right of self-defense" originated with Act 35? If you are not an attorney, I suggest you avoid stating legal conclusions. The nature and extent of any immunity has yet to be determined. Why not provide copy of the law, highlighting areas you think are important? "As they see fit"? - I don't think so. Even if an employer would give an employee free reign in how he carries, the law still has restrictions.

    I believe I can speak for the other security officers when I say the reason we would like to carry is for the protection of ourselves and our property. A security officer's job can be a dangerous one. We are often alone in dark buildings and parking lots where any number of situations could come up. I have heard a [removed] employee was kidnapped at gunpoint by her boyfriend in one of our parking lots. If [removed] security would have been called or already on site we would only be able to watch, call the police, and hope they arrived or caught the man in time before she was harmed.
    What is the basis for you being the SO spokesman? Was there an election? If it turns out that many, most or all of your coworkers are of a different opinion, you are going to look doubly foolish. Stating the obvious is patronizing and unnecessary. Your exemplification does not serve you well. Even assuming that you would have knowledge of all the facts, getting into possible exchange of gunfire is a recipe for many bad things happening. If it were an abduction, you would do more good by contacting law enforcement and taking other means to delay departure and/or staying in observation. This is probably why many businesses bar carrying - you are more of an officious intermeddler than a good samaritan or white knight.

    My main concern is when we are asked to secure the [removed] store and make the nightly money deposits at the bank. During this time we are alone with a lot of cash and unarmed. I have heard [removed] security personnel have been robbed in the past. When transporting the deposit we are vulnerable to people who do not care about what laws or policies that are in place to stop them from illegal activities.
    Since when did security officers become amenable for the safe deposit of company cash? This generally the resposibility of management or an armored car courier (if the amounts warrant). You might suggest that a different procedure be used.

    that If confronted we could give up the money and if they did not kill or wound us, call the police. If it escalated into something life threatening the police are only minutes away when seconds count.
    Being smart-alecky to the boss ain't a good move.

    I cannot tell you how many 911 audio tapes I have heard from home invasions to attempted robberies where the victim on the phone is killed while begging and waiting for the police to arrive.
    Unless your job involved listening to 911 tapes (obviously audio) doing so comes across as a really creepy pastime.

    I only ask that we be allowed the right to carry a firearm while following the Wisconsin law to the letter. [removed] would not be liable for anything that may or may not happen while their security is carrying according to the law as it stands.
    Again - check to see if you have been admitted to the WI Bar.

    The average criminal that would rob us, possibly at gunpoint, would be too scared to attempt the robbery if they saw a law-abiding citizen with a firearm holstered on their side. This is one of the benefits of open carry over concealed carry and why I would like [removed] security personnel to have the choice between the two. College students have interviewed people who were arrested for robbery and one of them said it took him an entire week work up the courage to rob a store again because the last time he looked for a place to rob he saw a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a firearm. The others that were interviewed said they wouldn’t even attempt to rob a place if they knew someone was carrying or could see someone carrying a firearm. A criminal is a coward. They hide behind masks and big guns but once you level the playing field and stand your ground they run away scared.
    Ok. This is a joke, right? How the heck do you know the mind of the “average criminal.” Previous job, hobby, family member? Your braggadocio at the end reveals a lot. You could have been permitted to OC (possibly CC) prior to Act 35 so why even raise it?

    Once again, I am asking you to allow [removed] security personnel the right to openly or conceal carry a firearm for the protection of themselves, others, and their property. [removed] would not be held liable if security personnel are given the okay to carry firearms openly or concealed. We were hired and entrusted with security of all [removed] buildings and money deposits. We can be entrusted to carry a firearm and use our best judgment while doing so.
    If carrying were a right, you wouldn’t need to ask permission. Let them worry about their money. Using a deadly weapon to protect property? We are not in Texas. I hope you make friends quickly. Don’t drop the soap.

    Thank you for reading this letter and your time.
    Sincerely,

    [removed]
    If you are not jesting or trolling – please get some assistance with this issue. You are going to end up fired at best, jailed at worst.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    None
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:38 PM. Reason: I can't stand people who are disrespectful

  11. #11
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Don't want to turn you off from writing letters HOJ, and I would be happy to hear if your employer would see it your way. So let us know the outcome please.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    None
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:39 PM. Reason: no need for this thread.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Another Thing

    Have you looked at WI Admin. Code Chapter SPS 34 (used to be RL 34)?
    Last edited by apjonas; 01-04-2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: clarification

  14. #14
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    SPS 34.01 SPS 34.01  General conditions relating to carrying a firearm.
    SPS 34.01(1)(1) No owner or employee of an agency may carry on, about or near their person any firearm unless all of the following apply:
    SPS 34.01(1)(a) (a) The circumstances or conditions of the owner's or employee's assignment as a private security person give rise to a substantial need for being armed.
    SPS 34.01(1)(am) (am) The agency requires the owner or employee to carry a firearm when acting as a private security person.
    SPS 34.01(1)(b) (b) The client and the agency agree in writing that the agency will assign armed security personnel to the client.
    SPS 34.01(1)(c) (c) The agency has received a permit from the department pursuant to s. SPS 34.015.
    SPS 34.01(1)(d) (d) The owner or employee is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29, Stats., or any federal law.
    SPS 34.01(1)(e) (e) Subject to ss. 111.321, 111.322 and 111.335, Stats., the owner or employee has not been convicted of a misdemeanor.
    SPS 34.01(1)(f) (f) The owner or employee is in uniform.
    SPS 34.01(1)(fm) (fm) The owner or employee is on duty.
    SPS 34.01(1)(g) (g) The owner or employee complies with all federal or state laws or local ordinances when carrying a firearm.
    SPS 34.01(1)(h) (h) The owner or employee does not hold a temperately private security permit issued under s. 440.26 (5r), Stats.
    SPS 34.01(1)(i) (i) The agency has obtained a comprehensive general liability policy pursuant to s. SPS 31.034.
    SPS 34.01(2) (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an owner or employee of any agency may not carry on, about or near the person any concealed firearm at a time when he or she is on duty.
    SPS 34.01(3) (3) Except as provided in sub. (4), a private detective, while in uniform and on duty as a private security person, may only carry on, about or near his or her person a firearm when all the conditions in sub. (1) are satisfied. This subsection does not prohibit a private detective from having on, about or near his or her person a firearm which the private detective obtained and is holding as evidence in an investigation.
    SPS 34.01(4) (4) A person who is a peace officer, as defined in s. 939.22 (22), Stats., may carry on, about or near his or her person a firearm, concealed or otherwise, when acting as a private detective or private security person, if the peace officer obtains a firearms permit from the department. The department may grant an exception from this requirement to a peace officer who submits to the department a letter from a law enforcement agency, written not more than one month before the date of receipt by the department, stating that the law enforcement agency will accept liability for the peace officer's use of a firearm while on duty for the private detective agency.
    SPS 34.01 History History: Cr. Register, October, 1988, No. 394, eff. 11-1-88; am. (1) (intro.), (a) to (c), cr. (1) (am), (d) to (g), (3) and (4), r. and recr. (2), Register, December, 1994, No. 468, eff. 1-1-95; am. (1) (intro.), cr. (1) (fm), Register, January, 1997, No. 493, eff. 2-1-97; am. (1) (b) and (d) and cr. (1) (h) and (i), Register, November, 1997, No. 503, eff. 12-1-97; am. (4), Register, January, 2001, No. 541, eff. 2-1-01; correction in (1) (c), (i) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats., Register November 2011 No. 671.

    Sometimes is easier to post the regulation for ease of discussion
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  15. #15
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    One question that I do have, is your job such as you would need to fear for your life or a need to defend property with lethal force?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Sometimes the Goal is not Obvious

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post

    Sometimes is easier to post the regulation for ease of discussion
    Give a man a fish.....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    28
    If your employer is anti gun, your next move will probably be to apply for unemployment.

  18. #18
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Give a man a fish.
    He'll say, "You should'a seen the one that got away!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Give a man a fish.....
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    One question that I do have, is your job such as you would need to fear for your life or a need to defend property with lethal force?
    And how many times do we hear, "I never thought this would happen"?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    One question that I do have, is your job such as you would need to fear for your life or a need to defend property with lethal force?
    One could ask the same question about our lives in general. But of course we would sound like WAVE activists.

  22. #22
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    And how many times do we hear, "I never thought this would happen"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    One could ask the same question about our lives in general. But of course we would sound like WAVE activists.

    My assumption is his employer will decline his request, and one reason they may use is there is no reason to be armed. As many know crime happens, and events can escalate quickly. If he is prepared for any objections they may have he might be better "armed" to defend his position. Really wasn't meant to be an actual question.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    None
    Last edited by HolyOrangeJuice; 02-11-2012 at 11:39 PM. Reason: Forum Attitude Day

  24. #24
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Its been some time now, have you received a reply from your employers?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Probably too late to apply to the OP but just for clarificatioin in my own mind.... (?)

    I am looking at this original quote...

    Once again, I am asking you to allow [removed] security personnel the right to openly or conceal carry a firearm for the protection of themselves, others, and their property. [removed] would not be held liable if security personnel are given the okay to carry firearms openly or concealed. We were hired and entrusted with security of all [removed] buildings and money deposits. We can be entrusted to carry a firearm and use our best judgment while doing so.
    I could be wrong but I thinking the right to use deadly force does not include protecting "property".... As in....

    ―A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.‖ Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1).
    ―A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.‖ Wis. Stat. § 939.48(2)(c).
    ―A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person‘s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.‖ Wis. Stat. § 939.48(4).
    Maybe with the new Castle Doctrin Law, property in included after there is someone already in your house but that does not apply to the OP...

    Thoughts...????????

    Outdoorsman1

    ETD... I admire the OP's strength of his convictions and his desire to make them known, but... basically regarding the actuall letter.... I tend to agree with apjonas in his post (#9).....
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 02-10-2012 at 11:10 AM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •