The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
But shucks the law sounds pretty stupid to me if it prevents a CHL holder from watching his buddies back just because because he is packing. I don't care, if a buddy or a family member asks me to tag along because they feel like they might be in danger, I will go along for the ride. Probably the subject of guns or CHL would never be brought up though.stevie_d_64 wrote:This is actually very simple to figure out...The constable's office declined to provide protection for this employee.
The tax collector then asked the city manager of Friendswood to provide a police escort. He also declined.
So a Friendswood city councilman and "and a resident with a concealed handgun permit agreed to escort the county employees for the Friday deposit, ..."
#1 a person carrying under the CHL provisions are not doing so in any capacity, or can act under any authority that a certified law enforcement officer in this state act under...Nuf Said!
#2 The tax office, if they are that concerned about security of cash monies being transported to a bank at the end of the day...Then they need to budget for a certified "armed" escort, or have a Brinks organization come by and pick up those monies and let them do it...
Pretty simple and if Friendswood hasn't thought about that, or the County for that matter, then I believe they will soon solve this issue by one of those ways...
I find it hard to believe that this will go on for very long without the proper solution being applied here...
CHL's are not law enforcement, at all!!!
If you are a Law Enforcement officer who also has a CHL...Well then you guys know the score and the parameters you operate under...
Nuf Said...
We are not talking about enforcing a contract in tort law. We are talking about a statute that requires certain services be licensed. this is not tort law, and consideration is irrelevant.Xander wrote:Not according to the contract law that I learned. Without consideration, (payment) you don't have a valid contract, so regardless of the board's opinion on the matter, I can't see how he falls under the OCC's definition. Yes, I understand their concern in the same way I understand that you wouldn't want an untrained electrician working on your house, but I haven't seen anything in the code that I would understand to make what he's doing illegal.txinvestigator wrote:
No, its not OK. It is clear that being paid is not a requirement to be performing a service requiring registration with the Board. One of the services that require registration is to "engage in the business of or undertakes to provide a private watchman, guard, or street patrol service
on a contractual basis for another person to protect an individual from bodily harm".
Contractual means on-going or one time, and does not require the contract to be written.
The decision by the board I posted makes it clear that a written contract or compensation is irrelevant.
Negative.Xander wrote:The code does mention being an employee or contractor repeatedly however, and since it's illegal under federal labor law to be an uncompensated employee, then compensation is implied.txinvestigator wrote: A person providing an armed escort for the Tax office who is not an employee of the Tax Office is clearly violating the licensing requirement of 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code. The person does not have to receive compensation to require licensing. The code never mentions compensation, consideration or remuneration.
Since he is providing secured transportation of money, he IS acting as an armored car company.§1702.102. SECURITY SERVICES CONTRACTOR LICENSE
REQUIRED; SCOPE OF LICENSE. (a) Unless
the person holds a license as a security services contractor,
a person may not:
(1) act as an alarm systems company, armored car
company, courier company, §1702.102. SECURITY SERVICES CONTRACTOR LICENSE
REQUIRED; SCOPE OF LICENSE. (a) Unless
the person holds a license as a security services contractor,
a person may not:
(1) act as an alarm systems company, armored car
company, courier company, guard company, guard dog
company, locksmith company, or private security consultant
company;, guard dog
company, locksmith company, or private security consultant
company;
§1702.106. ARMORED CAR COMPANY. A person acts
as an armored car company for the purposes of this chapter
if the person provides secured and protected transportation
of valuables, including money, coins, bullion,
securities, bonds, or jewelry.
I don't believe that watching your neighbors house is a licansed activity unless you sit in front of it or inside it for specific periods of time specifically to guard it. Going in a turning on lights, picking up the newspaper and feeding the dogs are certainly not licensed activities.GrillKing wrote:Looking at the code references TXI gave indicates that unarmed is a violation. Strictly interpreting the statute, watching my friends house for them while they are on vacation is also a violation as I am providing a licensed service. Please tell me this isn't so!!! A courtesy parking lot patrol at church or watching a friends house shouldn't be a criminal violation IMHO. BTW, our church hires 2 LEOs for traffic, Nursery security and guarding the counting of the offering.GrillKing wrote:I can't gather from the thread whether unarmed 'security' at the church is considered a licensed service. I don't see how if the intent is while unarmed to merely to look out for the property and people and call LE if needed. Heck, our own PD has a citizens on patrol, and the local PD hasn't yet arrested any of their own sponsered citizens on patrol (in a marked city vehicle even) for performing licensed services w/o a license. Is it the addition of the CHL and carrying that causes the issue?
TXI, am I reading this wrong. Thanks.
PERFECT description.numist wrote:This thing is getting muddied up pretty good here. Let's look at things from a new angle.
Widget Manufacturing employees people to work there in the process of manufacturing widgets. If one of those employees walks out to the parking lot for a smoke and witnesses someone hop the fence, bash a window of a car and crawl in he calls 911. The employee hasn't run to the car, hasn't produced a weapon, just called the cops. Has he performed the services of a security officer?
Now, same company hires a person to specifically watch the parking lot for just such activity. He sees the the same thing and heads toward the lot to confront the bad actor.
Since the first guy was not hired to protect anything or perform any functions that would normally require registration or license I wouldn't believe that he has broken any laws in calling 911. He just happened to witness criminal activity and being the good citizen he is, reports it.
The second scenario is a little more involved sinced the person was hired to perform a specific function that would require registration/license even though no mention of security was made. He and Widget Manufacturing could both be in violation.
How about 'housesitting'? This is very common. My point is there is are activities that are clearly license required activities and there are others that don't require a license. There also appear to me to be activities that require a license but in my oipnion should not: courtesy patrol at church, walking a coworker to their car after work, your local PD sponsered Citizen's on Patrol, housesitting, etc. I'm sure that if these are indeed licensed required activities, it isn't being and shouldn't be enforced.txinvestigator wrote: I don't believe that watching your neighbors house is a licansed activity unless you sit in front of it or inside it for specific periods of time specifically to guard it. Going in a turning on lights, picking up the newspaper and feeding the dogs are certainly not licensed activities.
Ok, I see where we're having a difference of opinion. I didn't read into the original article that he was providing this service at the request or with the approval of the city. First of all, it doesn't seem that it's necessarily even the city's responsibly, but the county's. If he's acting as a de facto employee for one of these entities then yes, I'd agree. I think the situation is complicated enough though, that a prosecutor would have a hard time proving enough elements to make a case here, that it's anything other that some individuals offering to go along for the ride with acquaintances. (the county employee(s))txinvestigator wrote:
Negative.
By your theory, the city that is letting the guy do the work is violating Federal law by not paying the person who is providing the armed escort. The fact that the City is not does not relieve the person from the legal requirement to be licensed under 1702 of the Occupations Code
That, I wholeheartedly agree with. I simply don't agree that this councilman and friend could be convicted of operating an unlicensed security company.GrillKing wrote: As far as the escorting the tax collector, I absolutely agree this is and should be performed only by a licensed person.
I doubt the DA's office will bring charges simply because they did it (the event was uneventful).Xander wrote:I simply don't agree that this councilman and friend could be convicted of operating an unlicensed security company.
There is a large section of the code that gives exemptions.GrillKing wrote:How about 'housesitting'? This is very common. My point is there is are activities that are clearly license required activities and there are others that don't require a license. There also appear to me to be activities that require a license but in my oipnion should not: courtesy patrol at church, walking a coworker to their car after work, your local PD sponsered Citizen's on Patrol, housesitting, etc. I'm sure that if these are indeed licensed required activities, it isn't being and shouldn't be enforced.txinvestigator wrote: I don't believe that watching your neighbors house is a licansed activity unless you sit in front of it or inside it for specific periods of time specifically to guard it. Going in a turning on lights, picking up the newspaper and feeding the dogs are certainly not licensed activities.
As far as the escorting the tax collector, I absolutely agree this is and should be performed only by a licensed person.
If he only did it once, I agree.seamusTX wrote:I doubt the DA's office will bring charges simply because they did it (the event was uneventful).Xander wrote:I simply don't agree that this councilman and friend could be convicted of operating an unlicensed security company.
But in a scenario where a robbery is attempted and someone gets hurt, the lawyers would have a field day.
- Jim
Can you explain how a CHL walking someone to their car to provide security is different from someone walking or driving someone to the bank?txinvestigator wrote:GrillKing wrote:txinvestigator wrote:
Walking a co-worker to her car does not require a license, either. Unless you wear a uniform, have the word security on your clothing and that IS your job function. In that case, you would be "in house" security.
If you can show me any legal definition of a contract that could be applied to the the term "contractual" in the code that you referenced which *doesn't* require some form of consideration, I'd love to see it.txinvestigator wrote:We are not talking about enforcing a contract in tort law. We are talking about a statute that requires certain services be licensed. this is not tort law, and consideration is irrelevant.
There are a lot of differences. The CHLer walking a co-worker to her car is simply an employee of the company providing assistance to another employee of the same company. And he is not doing it as a matter of job duty or function. If he was assigned that task of guarding employees as they walk to their cars as a specific job function then he would be acting in the capacity of an in-house guard.Penn wrote:txinvestigator wrote:GrillKing wrote:Can you explain how a CHL walking someone to their car to provide security is different from someone walking or driving someone to the bank?txinvestigator wrote:
Walking a co-worker to her car does not require a license, either. Unless you wear a uniform, have the word security on your clothing and that IS your job function. In that case, you would be "in house" security.
Show me where it DOES require consideration. This has already been ruled on by the Board.Xander wrote:If you can show me any legal definition of a contract that could be applied to the the term "contractual" in the code that you referenced which *doesn't* require some form of consideration, I'd love to see it.txinvestigator wrote:We are not talking about enforcing a contract in tort law. We are talking about a statute that requires certain services be licensed. this is not tort law, and consideration is irrelevant.
