Armed Guard Licenses in TN.

[Micahweeks]

I just recently took a new job in management at a security company. In familiarizing myself with the ins and outs of the laws governing our business, I came across one very strange regulation that has me baffled.

Here it is...

To carry a gun or even "appear to be armed" a TN security guard must posses an active armed guard license issued by the state of TN.

So, you wonder what's so strange, right? Well, here's the strange part...

If a Memphis Police Officer decides to moonlight as a security guard, he may not carry a weapon without an armed guard license. To get the armed guard license, he must pay for a handgun education course and basic marksmanship exam and send a copy of his fingerprints and criminal background check to the state of TN. Until that license comes in the mail (about 90 days), this bonafied Law Enforcemnt Officer and Police Academy graduate may not even APPEAR to have a gun while working as a security guard.

Now, maybe it's just me, but if a cop can carry his gun everywhere else in this stinkin' state, why can't he keep it while working security? Why must he re-submit all of this information to the state which is already on file?! Surely one of you guys knows what purpose this serves other than to prevent a police officer with a meaningful and deep understanding of the law from acting as an armed security guard.

[hoytinak]

Texas is the same way. I work armed security and a couple of my co-workers are law enforcement (local sheriff's deputies) and they had to go through the same classes and everything else I did to get their "guard card".

[Don P]

Talk about something that makes no sense at all. Leave it to the politicians to make a mess of the simplest of things. If the coarse is anything like FLA's the LE deffinately has bunches more in training with firearms tahn the armed guard coarse gets. Here its 24 hours class room and 8 hours range time with qualifing.

[srt 10 jimbo]

Have to have a "G" License, Issued by the State of Florida down here, Also have to obtain a "D" License before you can get your "G" License.:)

[Micahweeks]

Let's put this in perspective.

Memphis Police Academy. Weeks upon weeks of training. Great instructors. Daily marksmanship practice. Minimum score of a 90 on the final test to qualify. Only shots withing the ring at center mass score.

Armed Security guards. 6 hours of classroom videos on how quick you'll go to jail for the rest of your life if you defend yourself, coaching on the best things to say to at least have a hope and prayer of getting a decent plea bargain, and how it is almost never ok to shoot. Then one hour of how to field strip and lube your gun. Then one hour on the range. Score a 70 on a 50 shot test with 12 shots at 9 ft (YES!!! That's feet, not yards!!!), 26 at 21 feet, and 12 more at 9 feet. You must hit 35 times not in the ring, but just anywhere on the general outline of the man. You knicked his shoulder? Score!

Now, what does a Memphis Police officer have to do to carry their gun if they're working part-time security? They have to do the 6 hours of class, 1 hour of cleaning/lubing, and 1 hour of shooting with both eyes closed. Then they get to get fingerprinted AGAIN, have a background check done AGAIN, and (here's the best part) they can only use the weapon they took the armed guard test with as their security weapon. Never mind that they're trained on the Sig P226 at MPD Academy with higher standards than the state armed guard test. Nope. If he shot a Hi-Point .380 (which, by the way, I actally found to not be that bad of gun) at the test, he's stuck with it forevermore.

What makes the whole thing even better is this. I, having been a former LEO, am elligible to carry my gun anywhere in the state. No permit required. Just my card and ID. But, because I manage at a security company, I can NEVER carry my gun even to the parking lot of my place of business. However, a CCW permit holder can waltz right into my office or any of my posts with a micro-Uzi under their shoulder. So, I, the former LEO, am at the mercy of anyone who wants to find me at work. Why? Because I chose to manage a security company. The state mandated former officers be allowed to carry off-duty to protect themselves from retaliation from criminals and other reasons, but if you leave and start working security, you better just throw that old slug-thrower in the attic.

These are the things I am questioning. Does anyone else feel like this is moronic and a waste of taxpayer money (cost of the second background check, just to name one)and judicial effort? If the Federal Government passes a law that states that former LEOs can carry their sidearms anywhere, does that supercede the law on the books in TN?

[Wagonman]

Why can't you just use your duty weapon for security?

[Don P]

Its just the idiots that are elected and that make the laws we must live by. Down here in sunny FLA when the CCW laws were written before they were changed, you could not have a weapon within 1000 feet of a school PERIOD! If you were driving or walking by the school with your CCW and were within the 1000 ft you were in violation of the law. Seems when they originaly wrote the laws they seemed to not give this any thought. Only when they were made aware of this Huge mistake did they amend the law. Utter and the purest of stupidity with regards to the law in TN. Only a no common sense law make could come up with this.
As far as the federal law goes probably not going to do you any good because of the state laws regarding your profession and work duties. Makes no sense at all and I couldn't agree more with your view points. Doesn't make any sense here in FLA to have to get our D license so we can get the G.

[SigP6Carry]

I believe that the thought process that makes the distinction between the two is this: private security force officers are armed for VERY different reasons than LEOs and are licensed and trained by different entities. If a former LEO were to use his old duty weapon or a current LEO use his current duty weapon while under the employ of another entity, there's all kinds of legal issues.

By creating two separate training entities, it's a sort of CYA scenario, where no outside party can be held liable for what happens. So, say Jim Frank is an MPD officer who needs the extra cash, so he works at the chemical plant as a security guard, if Jim is not re-certified for this specific duty and is found shot dead by a thief, then the company that employed him can be possibly liable for failing to train him, and there by, the police academy could then come under fire for "improperly training him to handle the situation." But by creating two completely separate entities requiring different licensing and training these liabilities are avoided.

I'm not saying that it's right, or that it makes sense, but that's the thought process. It's annoying, it's frustrating and it's absurd... but it keeps people from getting sued.

[Dragon55]

Thomme

That sounds right... unfortunately.

Lawyers run this country... sadly. It's part of the reason for our slide down.

Case in point engineering degrees to law degrees ratio in the U. S. is about 1:10
in Japan it's 10:1.

Seems we're more interested in redistributing what little money we have instead of adding to the pile.

[blume357]

An LEO is working for a government (local, state, or fed.) when they are armed and none of those want to be part of the legal process if that same person has legal issues while working for a private security agency.

Keep in mind that as an LEO their job is to protect who they are working for... same as private security... but two very different bosses....

[tony pasley]

The answer is just simply one word MONEY. They have to pay the state more money.

[utbob2004]

According to Tennessee Code Annotated, 62-35-103 Exemptions from the chapter provisions.-- (a) the provisions do not apply to: (7) A full-time sworn peace officer receiving compensation for services as a guard, patrol or watchperson under a contact with a private business which is properly licensed by the state. T.C.A. 62-35-101 deals directly with everything pursuant to security guards.

0780-5-2-03 Sworn Peace Officers.
(1) the provisions of the Act do not apply to a full-time sworn peace officer who receives compensation in an employer/employee relationship for security guard and patrol services under a contract with a private business other than a contract security company.

[investigations]

Increase in criminal activity prompts us to manage our security needs with more diligence. The security services are thus becoming an indispensable part of our lives. In fast growing economy we need security services for personnel protection, business protection and Nations protection too.

A large amount of responsibility rests on the shoulders of security services to provide safeguard to our property, lives assets. For business managers security is of great concern to deter criminal activity and many other hosts of problems.

If you are interested to know more about Security Guard Services Houston (http://www.ntwinvestigations.com), please search our site for more in-depth information and resources.

[BlueTrain]

If you ask me, which nobody ever does, there should either be no policemen or no private security people. Not both. Private security people in the past have been basically hired guns for rich business owners who wanted to keep the workers in line or bust unions. Private security people may not like to see it that way, of course.

[csmsss]

If you ask me, which nobody ever does, there should either be no policemen or no private security people. Not both. Private security people in the past have been basically hired guns for rich business owners who wanted to keep the workers in line or bust unions. Private security people may not like to see it that way, of course. Political polemics aside, I agree with the basic point. The thing is, it IS possible for police officers to act as security guards - when the agency wanting to employ them actually contracts through the police department, pays the police department, and the police officers performing the security work do so uniformed as police officers, not security guards. This happens all the time at athletic events, and eliminates any actual or perceived conflicts of interest on the officers' part.

[BlueTrain]

It isn't really all that uncommon around here for policemen to moonlight as security, usually at indoor events like rock concerts. In theory, it isn't a bad idea, compared with employing someone who isn't a policeman in real life, so to speak. But there is another issue I see with the police, which has nothing to do with private security guards.

At least where I live, there are numerous police agencies, all apparently charged with some particular aspect of law enforcement. No doubt it causes few problems because everyone understands their own boundaries but it just doesn't seem necessary for there to be as many as there are. However, I am thinking region-wide and that's not fair to government that doesn't go beyond its own borders. And then there's the Federal government, which in D.C., hosts about a half-dozen agencies.

The sort of private security guards I was bad mouthing in my previous post were more common in the 19th century and tended to operate under the term "detectives," but they were in truth usually hired guns. Governments were generally weaker then, so big corporations sometimes threw their weight around. Sounds like it's either going to be the corporations telling the government what to do or the government telling the corporations what to do, doesn't it? Either way, ordinary people get the short end of the deal. These days, however, I suppose you would count the nice folks who operate armored trucks as private security and I can't imagine their being any alternative to their services, and I doubt if many policemen moonlight doing that kind of work.

[Briggssi]

Criminals are used to conceal their history making it imperative for us to deal carefully while dealing with new people. While employing people, it is necessary that we conduct a background check extensively. Background checks help setting up a pre-nuptial agreement too. Mainly background checks include credit history, criminal records, employment history, previous marriages and much more. Many untold problems and heartaches can be avoided by pre-discovering the reason for previous dismissals, civil judgments, questionable associations and other potentially harmful information.

If you are interested to know more about Video Systems Ontario CA (http://www.briggssi.com), please search our site for more in-depth information and resources.

[bcreasy]

In the State of Tennessee if the Sworn Police Officer want to work parttime as a Security Person and has his Department's Approval He CAN. This Officer does NOT have to have a Armed Guard License as stated in the post.

[Frank Ettin]

There's no need to try to resurrect this long dead thread. If someone has new information, he can start a new thread. And if he has new information that contradicts the information in this thread, it would be a good thing to include a citation or link to the new information.