I saw someone OPEN CARRYING

[mojo84]

Wildbill,
HB 2010, post deleted, was a bill that was already reflected in the law that I posted above.

I'm going to move on now. Debating the law vs opinion is not going anywhere. The law and occupation code specifically states when and where they can carry openly. I acknowledge it is up to the DA whether to pursue charges or not.

[WildBill]

Wildbill,
HB 210, post deleted, was a bill that was already reflected in the law that I posted above.

I noticed that after my post. This is why I deleted it.

[WildBill]

TEXAS PRIVATE SECURITY ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE 83RD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION
March 14, 2014

OCC §1702.169. FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
A commissioned security officer other than a person acting as a personal protection officer may not carry a firearm unless:
(1) the security officer is:
(A) engaged in the performance of duties as a security officer; or
(B) traveling to or from the place of assignment;
(2) the security officer wears a distinctive uniform indicating that the individual is a security officer; and
(3) the firearm is in plain view.
(C) Eating a healthy sit-down lunch consisting of at least one full serving of protein, starch and a vegetable.
OCC §1702.170. NON-APPLICABILITY OF FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
Sections 1702.161, 1702.169, and 1702.206 do not apply to the holder of a temporary security officer commission who:
(1) is in uniform;
(2) possesses only one firearm; and
(3) is performing the individual's duties.

[mojo84]

TEXAS PRIVATE SECURITY ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE 83RD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION
March 14, 2014

OCC §1702.169. FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
A commissioned security officer other than a person acting as a personal protection officer may not carry a firearm unless:
(1) the security officer is:
(A) engaged in the performance of duties as a security officer; or
(B) traveling to or from the place of assignment;
(2) the security officer wears a distinctive uniform indicating that the individual is a security officer; and
(3) the firearm is in plain view.
(C) Eating a healthy sit-down lunch consisting of at least one full serving of protein, starch and a vegetable.
OCC §1702.170. NON-APPLICABILITY OF FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
Sections 1702.161, 1702.169, and 1702.206 do not apply to the holder of a temporary security officer commission who:
(1) is in uniform;
(2) possesses only one firearm; and
(3) is performing the individual's duties.

There you go. Now I am satisfied.


The only reason this interests me is because it seems like there is an inordinate number of people running around towns like Zapata, Laredo and other border towns with guns on the hips under the auspices of being "security" guards.

[texanjoker]

It was obvious they were not at the place where they were assigned to provide security as they all got up and left when they finished eating.

If they are not peace officers they can do that. Texas softened the language several years ago where stopping for lunch or the like is no longer a violation. However, an armed security officer must have his name displayed on his uniform.

No names, company name, badge or patch. Nothing but security on the back. I'm not aware that it's been softened that much. I also don't believe joker has a sound basis for his comment. One has to look at both the penal and occupational codes for the answer.

If it has been changed, I'd be interested in a cite.

If they were not peace officers and the company name and the person's name was not displayed, then they were in violation of the Occupations Code. However, guards are allowed to get lunch while armed. Law changed years ago.

I saw the word "directly" was removed from the "to and from work" part of the law. However, did the law change to allow them to go eat at a restaurant or get food on a break from a store or are you and joker referring to what's commonly practiced officer or departmental discretion/courtesy to not bother with them?

Let me take this approach; what law would prevent a guard from grabbing lunch while off site but armed?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/psb/do ... eClean.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TEXAS PRIVATE SECURITY ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE 83RD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION
September 2013

OCC §1702.169. FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
A commissioned security officer other than a person acting as a personal protection officer may not carry a firearm unless:
(1) the security officer is:
(A) engaged in the performance of duties as a security officer; or
(B) traveling to or from the place of assignment;
(2) the security officer wears a distinctive uniform indicating that the individual is a security officer; and
(3) the firearm is in plain view.
OCC §1702.170. NON-APPLICABILITY OF FIREARM RESTRICTIONS.
Sections 1702.161, 1702.169, and 1702.206 do not apply to the holder of a temporary security officer commission who:
(1) is in uniform;
(2) possesses only one firearm; and
(3) is performing the individual's duties.

From the penal code

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

(4) on the premises of a racetrack;

(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or

(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person received notice that:

(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed under this subsection was prohibited; or

(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within 1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (a)(1)-(4) that the actor possessed a firearm while in the actual discharge of his official duties as a member of the armed forces or national guard or a guard employed by a penal institution, or an officer of the court.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

(2) "Secured area" means an area of an airport terminal building to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property under federal law.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the actor possessed a firearm or club while traveling to or from the actor's place of assignment or in the actual discharge of duties as:

(1) a member of the armed forces or national guard;

(2) a guard employed by a penal institution; or

(3) a security officer commissioned by the Texas Private Security Board if:

(A) the actor is wearing a distinctive uniform; and

(B) the firearm or club is in plain view; or

(4) a security officer who holds a personal protection authorization under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, provided that the officer is either:

(A) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's firearm in plain view; or

(B) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's firearm in a concealed manner.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the actor checked all firearms as baggage in accordance with federal or state law or regulations before entering a secured area.

(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor possessed a handgun and was licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(g) An offense under this section is a third degree felony.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor possessed a firearm or club while traveling to or from the actor's place of assignment or in the actual discharge of duties as a security officer commissioned by the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies, if:

(1) the actor is wearing a distinctive uniform; and

(2) the firearm or club is in plain view.

(i) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(6) that the actor possessed a firearm or club:

(1) while in a vehicle being driven on a public road; or

(2) at the actor's residence or place of employment.

jbarn, The above referenced does not say anything about getting lunch at a restaurant, running to grab drinks or smokes or snacks at a convenience store ect. If I am overlooking it or if there is a change that happened "several years ago" that I am not aware of, please cite your source as I haven't been able to find it.

I asked for you to provide a cite earlier but you didn't so I am just going by what I am actually reading in the Texas Occupations Code for Private Security and the Penal Code. If there is something else, please cite it specifically. Notice the above referenced is from the 83rd Legislature which was in 2013.

I will be happy to accept that I am wrong if you can show me something specific in the law showing it was changed as you stated to say what you, joker and others say. None of which have provided a cite. Therefore, I am taking it as just your opinions or there may be an unwritten understanding cops don't mess with them for unlawfully carrying a firearm.

I am getting tired of reading black and white law sections in here. It seems each thread has to have a posting about the law. You are providing the section yourself. B&W is not how a law is enforced. I don't even bother arguing those anymore because I see how laws are enforced in the real world. B&W doesn't show the spirit of the law, it shows the letter of the law. The law you are posting talks about to and from place of employment. It would be common sense that a security guard can get lunch, and that is to and from their place of employment. For 12 bucks an hour you too can become a armed security guard. To become one you have to have an employer commission you, get hired, and carry your level III or IV guard card when onduty. They may also have been OFF DUTY leo's working security. Some places leo's wear a security uniform, but are still leo's in the eyes of Texas

[mojo84]

I am getting tired of reading black and white law sections in here. It seems each thread has to have a posting about the law. You are providing the section yourself. B&W is not how a law is enforced. I don't even bother arguing those anymore because I see how laws are enforced in the real world. B&W doesn't show the spirit of the law, it shows the letter of the law. The law you are posting talks about to and from place of employment. It would be common sense that a security guard can get lunch, and that is to and from their place of employment. For 12 bucks an hour you too can become a armed security guard. To become one you have to have an employer commission you, get hired, and carry your level III or IV guard card when onduty. They may also have been OFF DUTY leo's working security. Some places leo's wear a security uniform, but are still leo's in the eyes of Texas

Yeah, and the president of the country feels the same way about the law. Some of it is to be enforced some of it isn't. Those that are charged with upholding it are the one's that decide what to enforce and what not to. You could have stated that upfront rather than making an incorrect comment arguing what the law said.

I had a feeling you were talking about opinion and what happens rather than what is supposed to be enforced. Nice.

Now I am done for sure and you all can have the last word.

[FML]

I am getting tired of reading black and white law sections in here. It seems each thread has to have a posting about the law.

Why would anybody quote the actual law when discussing the law? Opinions are much more entertaining and allow a thread to go on for many pages. Facts just lead to thread death.

FML

[jbarn]

1702.169 spells out when and where they can carry specifically. Otherwise, it is illegal to openly carry a handgun unless a commissioned leo.

How about you cite the law change you mentioned or something that backs up your opinion.

So you agree penal code 46.03 has nothing to do with this?

The occupations code clearly makes it lawful while traveling to or from the place of assignment. We good so far?

[EEllis]

Yeah, but it is opinion unless he provides something to back up his statements. This "up to the DA to interpret the law" stuff is too ambiguous. I am contending it is against the law for them to carry when they are open carrying contrary to what the penal code and Texas Occupation Code states. I am not contending whether or not a DA will chose to indict or not.

Isn't it ALWAYS "before, after and during their day"?

Well if you notice how laws are written they are often a bit vague because there is absolutely no way to think up every scenario possible and cover it with any law. In this case the law was changed with the intent to allow security to be able to carry during their work day. Before if they needed to pay for gas, get a soda, use the restroom, they would have to disarm leaving their firearm in their car. Now you may think the law is too vague but the legislature thought it would work and the Agency responsible for regulating security in Texas finds it allows security to go into stores. Now if someone thinks an officer is pushing the limits they can arrest and a DA can try and prove that the officer wasn't working or traveling to or from work. If it's 30 min past their shift then they would be easily cleared. If it were 2 hours then they would have a case. Fortunately no one cares how you interpret the law and honestly your analysis seem strange and without much basis.

[texanjoker]

I am getting tired of reading black and white law sections in here. It seems each thread has to have a posting about the law.

Why would anybody quote the actual law when discussing the law? Opinions are much more entertaining and allow a thread to go on for many pages. Facts just lead to thread death.

FML

Unfortunately I see many incorrect interpretations of the b&w law and how they are actually interpreted. That comes from courts, case law, ect and they are often missed in here just like they were in the CHL course I took. Bad info can get somebody in serious trouble.

[Dragonfighter]

OP,
Your guy carrying in the armory could've been CID as well. Just a thought.

When I was in college I worked as a patrol supervisor for a security company; this would be the early 80's. Laws then were to and from vehicle and at stops that were the company's clients, and of course in the vehicle. I patrolled a lot of property, answered calls when another patrol officer had a quandary and made inspections/checks on our sitting guards.

We had a couple of places we could stop at that we had "courtesy" contracts with. Basically that entailed getting the owner of the business (convenience stores usually) to sign a contract that would have one of our officers make courtesy stops and subsequently drink coffee or buy a snack. There was one place, a hotel restaurant I used to stop at for my "lunch" somewhere around 2 am. We had a standing guard at the hotel so that wasn't a problem. There was a Seven Eleven I frequented that was neither a courtesy client or a paid one. I often saw Dallas PD in there but they never gave me a second glance. By way of contrast, we had another squirrely guy working for us who couldn't yawn without PD jumping his case.

Then there was an IHOP in Richardson that was popular with security patrol guys for the discount. Before I started going there, a brouhaha had occurred when Richardson PD had noted the patrol cars outside and empty holsters inside. They thought it was ripe for theft. The chief made it clear that any security stopping there for lunch, coffee or a rest stop was to keep their weapons on them. The result was the place bristled with guns from about midnight to dawn.

The point to all this was that there was always a seeming discretion . If you didn't look or act like an idiot most LEOs would pay you no mind. I like it now that the law has changed there is less discretion needed and less chance of one LEO with a bee in his bonnet causing strife. The OP's guy could have had any number of legitimate reasons to be armed and OC. And as it has been said, if Top wasn't worried then I wouldn't either.