• 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.

Who is the government to regulate the private sector with firearms?

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
It is in the Constitution:

"but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Art 1, sec 24 of the Constitution of the State of Washington

In this state, if you organize an armed body of men (security guards) the state has said that it is not a right, but something that can be regulated...
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Gogo, thanks for the opinion and cite for my security question.

What about private investigators? The primary job of a private investigator is not to provide security, but to conduct surveillance.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
If you don't like the government regulating business then create your own country. Every country and state reserves the right to regulate the conduct of business.

To the point of requiring licensing in order to be armed on the job? That means, if I wanted to perform independent contracting security, or private investigations, myself (without having employees), I could not perform the duties of my job without undergoing a firearms training class, and paying a fee to do so.

I just don't support that idea. It doesn't mean I am going to go as extreme as creating my own country. It's not THAT inconveniencing, but I disagree with it.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
To the point of requiring licensing in order to be armed on the job? That means, if I wanted to perform independent contracting security, or private investigations, myself (without having employees), I could not perform the duties of my job without undergoing a firearms training class, and paying a fee to do so.

I just don't support that idea. It doesn't mean I am going to go as extreme as creating my own country. It's not THAT inconveniencing, but I disagree with it.

This is just one of the many licensing requirements for jobs.

Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Pilots, Taxi Drivers, Police Officers, Pharmacists, Barbers, etc, etc.

When someone wants to sell his/her services to the public the State has decided that it is in the best interests of society to insure that that person is qualified to perform those services without causing harm due to lack of basic skills required to perform that job.

The Constitution protects your right to be armed for purposes of Self Defense but it does not guarantee your right to be armed and sell your protection services to the public without regulation.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
This is just one of the many licensing requirements for jobs.

Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Pilots, Taxi Drivers, Police Officers, Pharmacists, Barbers, etc, etc.

When someone wants to sell his/her services to the public the State has decided that it is in the best interests of society to insure that that person is qualified to perform those services without causing harm due to lack of basic skills required to perform that job.

The Constitution protects your right to be armed for purposes of Self Defense but it does not guarantee your right to be armed and sell your protection services to the public without regulation.

Yet competency in many fields is not a requirement for licensing and this has proven to be a false/fake rationalization for licensing scheme by our state (and others).

I personally am not for the state getting involved in peoples affairs, the people and free market should decide. Yet as a contractor if they are going to force me to be licensed/insured and bonded I do wish they would make it about competency, anyone with a buck can get a license and it really has ruined my field. Many folks are fooled by the "they are license and bonded" gimmick.

I have to compete with people who do not know the trade consistently underbid lowering the standard for other contractors and then when things go wrong, the better contractors insurance/bonding rates go up making it hard for those who do it for a living to pay for their "license and bond and insurance"to continue while the fly by nighters just leave and are ever rarely penalized. Because their bond and insurance pays for it, and often they just fold that business and open a new one, and continue that cycle over and over.

I am with Aaron though I don't think the government has any business regulating firearms in private sector no matter what the job is. I discussed this with my local L&I office a few years ago and they had assumed they can tell me I can't have firearms, and their pre-made safety checklist has it on there. We went through the laws together and the WAC's and they admitted they had no authority over firearms on my job sites. Although if the owner of the property didn't want them that would override it.
 
Last edited:

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
I am with Aaron though I don't think the government has any business regulating firearms in private sector no matter what the job is. I discussed this with my local L&I office a few years ago and they had assumed they can tell me I can't have firearms, and their pre-made safety checklist has it on there. We went through the laws together and the WAC's and they admitted they had no authority over firearms on my job sites. Although if the owner of the property didn't want them that would override it.

So you would be ok then with criminal gang bangers being armed security? Or perhaps people who would draw and shoot at the slightest provocation yet not be able to hit the broad side of a barn?

If I had a requirement for armed security, I would chose an agency whose members are put through a firearms training course and who had clean criminal records. I would not choose just any Joe off the street with a gun.

And I would hope that anyone who actually wanted to sell their services as an armed security officer (which I used to be one) would want to be able to show their prospective clients that not only are they skilled with their side arm, but also cool and level headed and not a criminal.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
So you would be ok then with criminal gang bangers being armed security? They already are....Or perhaps people who would draw and shoot at the slightest provocation yet not be able to hit the broad side of a barn? Who are these "people"?...

If I had a requirement for armed security, I would chose an agency whose members are put through a firearms training course and who had clean criminal records. I would not choose just any Joe off the street with a gun. Good personal choice...

And I would hope that anyone who actually wanted to sell their services as an armed security officer (which I used to be one) would want to be able to show their prospective clients that not only are they skilled with their side arm, but also cool and level headed and not a criminal.

The Washington State Constitution clearly states that an 'armed body of men' can be regulated. Since it is a Constitutional issue we must hold it akin to the 2A and clearly the founders of this state agree with Sirpuma on this issue, although I have pointed out the folly of this argument.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So you would be ok then with criminal gang bangers being armed security? Or perhaps people who would draw and shoot at the slightest provocation yet not be able to hit the broad side of a barn?

If I had a requirement for armed security, I would chose an agency whose members are put through a firearms training course and who had clean criminal records. I would not choose just any Joe off the street with a gun.

And I would hope that anyone who actually wanted to sell their services as an armed security officer (which I used to be one) would want to be able to show their prospective clients that not only are they skilled with their side arm, but also cool and level headed and not a criminal.

Yes. I am ok with that. Drug dealers and criminal gangs have armed security as it is, do you see mass shooting and violence? Nope and usually when it is done it is an enemy combatant. Those are just the facts.

You answer my own thoughts with your own post "If you had a choice....." and I agree most people would make the same choice as you. I have problem with the state taking those choices away.
 
Top