TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...most New Yorkers prolly didn't even NOTICE...

They often missed holstered guns, but not unholstered ones.

They gave the armored car guys wide berth - which was quite likely the primary objective of the practice.

speedsix wrote:...remember the old bumper sticker "We don't give a ..." well you remember...Duncanville, Texas ain't New York...and we're not used to such shenanigans...here it's read as cowardly or John Wayne syndrome...a great way for a ND...if I catch one carrying his gun out of the holster here...you'll think it's an air raid alert, I'll be screaming so loud...

I didn't say it was a good idea, but the fact is that's the way it was routinely done, and the world didn't come to an end because of it, even in hoplophobic New York.

srothstein wrote:Excaliber,

I think he was comparing armed security guards on posts and armed security guards in armored cars. These two do have the same license and training requirements but do seem to get different levels of respect from the public.

Thanks, Steve - I didn't read it that way at first.

I agree that there is a difference in the way the two groups of armed security officers are viewed, and I would agree that there isn't a reasonable basis for the difference.

For a bit of perspective, when I worked in New York it was fairly standard for armored car guards to have their handguns out and at their sides during pickups and drops. Those folks were at enough of a disadvantage with very small numbers, fixed schedules, fixed pickup and drop points, and lots of money in the truck. They were huge targets and essentially sitting ducks.

The drawn gun gave them more of an appearance of readiness than a tactical advantage, but it probably gave some would be bandits second thoughts. It didn't draw a lot of attention because that's just the way it was done.

k6gixx wrote:I've worked Armored cars as well and I can say this. You definitely get a different reaction from both people and for the most part LEO's. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's the same job, requires the same training and licences, but they seem to have two different connotations.

The training and licenses are far from the same.

In Texas, you can go from nothing through Level II Security Officer (unarmed), Level III (armed in uniform), and Level IV (armed and in plainclothes Personal Protection Officer) in 1 week while firing 50 rounds. Field training is a few days if it is done at all.

The requirements for a basic peace officer license are found here.. They are much more stringent than what it takes to become a private security officer.

The full time police academy is 18 weeks.. Part time is about 6 months.

Average post academy field training is about 17 weeks.

Although Level III and Level IV private security officers are armed and police are as well, the differences between the qualifications and training required for private security and police service are immense.

papajohn1964 wrote:I'm thinking that if I think that I need to stop somewhere, gas, smokes, food etc... I will not leave home or work wearing the uniform shirt and instead be CC'ing. That is if I ever get my PLASTIC! I aint gonna be the guinney pig.

That's certainly the safest course of action for now until the legislators and LE agencies get this all sorted out so citizens can understand it.

papajohn1964 wrote:I took my Level 4 Class in March. We were told that the new law allowed reasonable stops to and from work. You can stop for that cup of coffee and donut if you want. My instrutor explained that the law was changed because of a lot of MWAG calls and a lot of accidental discharges when guards were dis-arming to go into the store. If you are in uniform your CHL is null and void, if you are not on duty or enroute to or from work then your Commisioned Guard card is null and void. If you have to make a stop that is not in the direct rout of to or from your job you have to remove the uniform shirt put on another shirt and then CC during your stop. This is how it was explained to me.

That's a pretty good explanation of how I understand it's supposed to work. I have personally spoken with officers from different agencies in the DFW area, and I can tell you for sure that the agency interpretations and practices regarding this issue are radically different in different municipalities. In some places, you'll be fine just like your instructor said. In others, you are guaranteed to take the ride.

If you decide to go with his concept, make those "reasonable stops" while visibly armed and in uniform, and have an encounter with an LEO from an agency that interprets the ambiguity in the law differently than the way your instructor looked at it, you will become the test case I spoke of below. After an arrest your PSB license will of course be suspended or revoked, and you will lose your ability to earn a living in that profession and will incur substantial legal bills while the situation is addressed in the courts, which will be in no hurry just because you're in a pickle.

If that happens, please let us know how it works out so we can learn from it without repeating the experience.

The law was clarified on going to and from work, but whether open carry in uniform is OK on stops like getting gas, coffee, using a convenience store restroom, etc. was not specifically addressed and is therefore open to interpretation by law enforcement agencies and local district attorneys.

It appears to me the intent of the law was to allow open uniformed carry during travel and reasonable stops on the way to and from work, and from one client site to another. However, since the law change didn't speak to this directly, the reality is that different agencies are free to interpret it differently and local determinations backed up by the local DA currently vary from place to place and can ruin your whole day if you run afoul of local practice in a locale with a strict read of the law.

Yes, I know it's not supposed to be like this, and the law is supposed to be clear and evenly enforced throughout the state, but that's simply not the case in this area at this time. A bit more refinement needs to be done with the wording during the next legislative session.

Until then, unless one is certain of what the local practice is, it would make sense to take the most conservative approach to avoid becoming a test case and watch what happens with others who may take a more adventurous approach.

I am not a lawyer, and this opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.