HolyOrangeJuice
Regular Member
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:
-
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.
-
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.
A letter I wrote...with your help
- Thread starter HolyOrangeJuice
- Start date
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!
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!
32HR MAG
Regular Member
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.
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.
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/statutes/statutes/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.
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/statutes/statutes/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.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
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
I know for a fact they they now have a security guard on duty in the bank.... Unarmed....
Outdoorsman1
HolyOrangeJuice
Regular Member
None
Last edited:
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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.
Keep that desire to make changes in your world, for when you give that up is when you truly have lost.
HolyOrangeJuice
Regular Member
None
Last edited:
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.
You cannot take the time to find out the name of the responsible manager? Not too impressive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Being smart-alecky to the boss ain't a good move.
Unless your job involved listening to 911 tapes (obviously audio) doing so comes across as a really creepy pastime.
Again - check to see if you have been admitted to the WI Bar.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You cannot take the time to find out the name of the responsible manager? Not too impressive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Being smart-alecky to the boss ain't a good move.
Unless your job involved listening to 911 tapes (obviously audio) doing so comes across as a really creepy pastime.
Again - check to see if you have been admitted to the WI Bar.
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?
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.
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.
HolyOrangeJuice
Regular Member
None
Last edited:
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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.
HolyOrangeJuice
Regular Member
None
Last edited:
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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
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
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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?
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
He'll say, "You should'a seen the one that got away!"
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
:lol:
And how many times do we hear, "I never thought this would happen"?