The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......
Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?
EEllis wrote:While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......
Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?
mojo84 wrote:EEllis wrote:While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......
Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?
Thanks to the government for keeping us safe. We all need someone to save us from ourselves.
Well put.I'm a little government guy by inclination but I'm glad that there are laws on the books governing my industry. The amount of "mom & pop" security companies that skirt the regulations to begin with makes me concerned for their officer's safety. My company encourages further training beyond the minimum in the way of financial incentives and I make it a requirement for promotions and transfers to better sites.Jason K wrote:
Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?
Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.EEllis wrote:So you don't care that the local apartment complex has a uniformed guard that had a rape conviction? Yes that has happened. I don't look at it like govt saving me from anything. Sure the low income and obviously ignorant residents deserve what they get because they didn't bother to check or believed the companies lies when they did ask. The govt is never any help to anyone at an time no matter what. Heck they might pay that guard who works at the grocery store $10 when if they could hire convicts they could either get a convict cheaper or use that to leverage the guards pay to $8. How dare the state interfere!!!mojo84 wrote:EEllis wrote:While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......
Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?
Thanks to the government for keeping us safe. We all need someone to save us from ourselves.
Hopefully next session we can get that exception expanded to cover all non-profit organizations.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Occupations Code already has an exemption for volunteers with churches, but there's a catch. A CHL cannot be armed when serving as a volunteer. So church volunteers can perform the functions, but cannot be armed.
No it's not "WRONG" because it isn't a yes or no question. There are benefits and negatives to all things and pretending otherwise is just a lie. Companies ignore background checks all the time even now that they are required. If there were no regulation anyone could put of a uniform and call themselves a security company and in your world there is no regulation or law to prevent such. It doesn't make the public safer to do away with regulation it makes the market free, it's not the same thing.mojo84 wrote: Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.
Your answer of government protects us is wrong. All it is is another tax and interference.
EEllis wrote:No it's not "WRONG" because it isn't a yes or no question. There are benefits and negatives to all things and pretending otherwise is just a lie. Companies ignore background checks all the time even now that they are required. If there were no regulation anyone could put of a uniform and call themselves a security company and in your world there is no regulation or law to prevent such. It doesn't make the public safer to do away with regulation it makes the market free, it's not the same thing.mojo84 wrote: Companies do background checks all the time without being required to for licensing. Did the state mandated licensing prevent the rape you alluded to? There are criminal and civil methods of dealing with such instances if there is negligence involved. Hiring a convicted felon as a security guard is negligent.
Your answer of government protects us is wrong. All it is is another tax and interference.
So what are we trying to discuss here. If the regulations are needed or is your statement that we shouldn't have any regulation because it cannot be 100% effective or are you just poking? I'm more than willing to have a conversation I'm just trying to figure out what that conversation is.mojo84 wrote: How did the rapist get hired with the government rules requiring licensing in place? Can you say government licensing prevent bad lawyers, insurance agents, plumbers, electricians?
I didn't delete anything, that I know of anyway, but I'm not sure why it might of been deleted tho the conversation is getting a bit far afield. What would be enlightening about it?mojo84 wrote:Not sure if you did a ninja edit or if a mod deleted your above comment. If a mod did it I apologize. I do think it is enlightening regarding your beliefs.
It will be filed, probably soon, but I can't estimate is chances of hitting the House floor. They are much better than last session!gugisman wrote:Please advise if/when the church security amended bill will make it to the floor. What can be done at this time to lobby for it?