TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

Penn 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?

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.

However, the subject of this thread was a third person providing security in the form of an armed secort to deliver money to the bank for. IF the county asked two employees to go, and one happened to have a CHL then no license is needed, unless the third person was assigned to do this for all money transfers and that was their specific job.

You're not showing a clear difference. The county/city isn't assigning the individuals to provide security for the employees making the bank run as a job duty The individuals aren't providing organized security services as some form of unlicensed security business, either commercial or civic. They're simply offering one individual to another, to ride along on the trip, for safety in numbers as it were. One of them happens to have a CHL. Big whoop.

txinvestigator wrote:

Penn wrote:

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.

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?

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.

If this were in an office building where mutliple companies were located, and the property owner assigned a person to escort people to their cars daily, then that would require licensing.

However, the subject of this thread was a third person providing security in the form of an armed secort to deliver money to the bank for. IF the county asked two employees to go, and one happened to have a CHL then no license is needed, unless the third person was assigned to do this for all money transfers and that was their specific job.


It is not that difficult of a concept.

I think it must be a difficult concept to require all this discussion.

Let me get your reasoning straight. From the beginning your position has been that the citizen was commiting a crime becasue he was an unlicensed person performing a licensed task. Now you're stating that walking somone to the car performing a SECURITY function (I don't know how else this could be described) is not illegal because they're co-workers?

Are you stating that If Joe Blow CHL worked with the tax collector and he escorted said tax collector for one single instance and not as an assigned duty - this would be okay? I just don't see how being a co-worker affects the law.

txinvestigator wrote: Show me where it DOES require consideration.

Here:

CONSIDERATION

For an offer and acceptance to form a contract there must be consideration or the contract must be signed under seal. Consideration is defined as 'some right, benefit or profit accruing to the promissor or some forebearance, detriment, loss or otherwise responsibility suffered by the promissee' . What this means is that the party trying to enforce the contract must have 'paid' something in exchange for the promise of the other party. Consideration must be of real value, but it does not have to be money. For example, a mutual exchange of promises is consideration per se.

txinvestigator wrote: This has already been ruled on by the Board.

Which means, quite frankly, nothing. Seeing as the board doesn't make the law, enforce the law, or adjudicate the cases of those accused of breaking the law, its "opinion" is pretty worthless when it comes to deciding what actually is or isn't legal.

Xander wrote: Which means, quite frankly, nothing. Seeing as the board doesn't make the law, enforce the law, or adjudicate the cases of those accused of breaking the law, its "opinion" is pretty worthless when it comes to deciding what actually is or isn't legal.

Sounds kind of like what I said two pages back: "My understanding of the law is that the only "opinions" that count are the opinions of the attorney general and those established through case law."

I brought up compensation because that is the general meaning of the word "business," done for commercial (for profit) purposes. If you are in business, you need a license and you must state what your business is. If you state on the business license application that you are in the private security business, then you automatically fall under the provisions of the Private Security Bureau as you have already gone on record as being in that business. You may not engage in what appears to be a business that is regulated for the welfare of the public safety by the Private Security Bureau even if it is not for profit--hence no uniforms, insignia, badges, etc. The exception cited by the board made application to a church because that is what it was asked about. That the response referred to a church does not limit the exception only to churches. If the interpretation TXI placed upon this is to be literally observed, then the exception noted in the DPS opinion (IMO) doesn't make any sense.

Point of information: Is there a source citation for the Private Security Bureau's opinion, or was this a private in-house communication? BTW, not looking for heat by participating in this thread--just light.

txinvestigator wrote: By your argument, if I wanted to start a guard company with all volunteers and provide guard services free of charge, then I would be exempt from licensing requirements and could hire people with no traiing, carry no insurance, etc?

You certainly could, and you wouldn't be the first. Case in point, the Guardian Angels have had a presence in Texas since the 80s. This is a volunteer organization set up for the *sole* purpose of providing security patrols to communities, and they've never been prosecuted for operating an unlicensed security service.

txinvestigator wrote: By your argument, if I wanted to start a guard company with all volunteers and provide guard services free of charge, then I would be exempt from licensing requirements and could hire people with no traiing, carry no insurance, etc?

Yup, we could give them Berets and give them a nice name like errr , How about Guardian Angels?

Liberty wrote:Yup, we could give them Berets and give them a nice name like errr , How about Guardian Angels?

FWIW, the Guardian Angels don't carry weapons, and some of them arguably are borderline anti-RKBA.

- Jim

Here's a little interesting reading on subject;
http://www.assisttexas.org/art162.shtml

You know, we have all gotten so tied up in the licensing issue that we seem to have missed a bigger question. Is it the right thing to do?

For this, I will refer to my favorite author of all time, Robert Heinlein. In "Time Enough for Love" he had a message that we might need to consider:

Beware of strong drink. It can make you shoot at a tax collector.... and miss.

Just thought we might want a different view for a minute

srothstein wrote: Beware of strong drink. It can make you shoot at a tax collector.... and miss.

LOL! Classic.

txinvestigator wrote: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.

I only have this one tidbit to offer: that's not a theory, that's fact. Federal labor law holds that when an employer "suffers or permits" an employee to perform assigned or implied tasks to the employer's benefit, that is compensable time and must be paid.

It's also worth noting that unpaid volunteers are "employees" as far as Worker's Compensation is concerned.

As a union official, I do my best to never think about Title 5 outside of working hours. I will now retreat to the role of spectator.

Personally, I don't see the big deal here.

This, to me, seems to be a far cry from someone promoting themselves as a security guard without a license.

What is a "security guard"?

The way some are looking at this, a unlicensed security guard violating the law is any man co-worker who offers to escort women employees to their cars in late hours after getting off work(CHL or not). Or as some are seeing it, any CHLer with a gun that offers to do this is an unlicensed security guard.

Looks to me a simple job needed doing, police and sheriff's office wouldn't step up to the plate (for whatever reason), a friend of a friend who had a CHL offered to take somebody to the deposit as a favor. Friendly help and a little common sense.



So, let me ask this to those of you who see legal problems with this (and I'm not being facetious here) what do you think of a CHLer (or anybody) making a citizens arrest? Or a person on a neighborhood watch being a pistol packin CHLer? Or just a neighbor with a CHL (or just a gun) who agrees to watch over his neighbor's house while he is out of town?


Looks to me that at the most y'all are making a mountain out of an molehill if not seeing a problem that just doesn't exist.

Xander wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Show me where it DOES require consideration.

Here:

CONSIDERATION

For an offer and acceptance to form a contract there must be consideration or the contract must be signed under seal. Consideration is defined as 'some right, benefit or profit accruing to the promissor or some forebearance, detriment, loss or otherwise responsibility suffered by the promissee' . What this means is that the party trying to enforce the contract must have 'paid' something in exchange for the promise of the other party. Consideration must be of real value, but it does not have to be money. For example, a mutual exchange of promises is consideration per se.

txinvestigator wrote: This has already been ruled on by the Board.

Which means, quite frankly, nothing. Seeing as the board doesn't make the law, enforce the law, or adjudicate the cases of those accused of breaking the law, its "opinion" is pretty worthless when it comes to deciding what actually is or isn't legal.

I have no idea from where you pulled that definition, but it is not from the Occupations code and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

Xander wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: By your argument, if I wanted to start a guard company with all volunteers and provide guard services free of charge, then I would be exempt from licensing requirements and could hire people with no traiing, carry no insurance, etc?

You certainly could, and you wouldn't be the first. Case in point, the Guardian Angels have had a presence in Texas since the 80s. This is a volunteer organization set up for the *sole* purpose of providing security patrols to communities, and they've never been prosecuted for operating an unlicensed security service.

Tell me what specific service the angels perform that require a license?

Doug.38PR wrote:Personally, I don't see the big deal here.

This, to me, seems to be a far cry from someone promoting themselves as a security guard without a license.

What is a "security guard"?

The way some are looking at this, a unlicensed security guard violating the law is any man co-worker who offers to escort women employees to their cars in late hours after getting off work(CHL or not). Or as some are seeing it, any CHLer with a gun that offers to do this is an unlicensed security guard.

Looks to me a simple job needed doing, police and sheriff's office wouldn't step up to the plate (for whatever reason), a friend of a friend who had a CHL offered to take somebody to the deposit as a favor. Friendly help and a little common sense.



So, let me ask this to those of you who see legal problems with this (and I'm not being facetious here) what do you think of a CHLer (or anybody) making a citizens arrest? Or a person on a neighborhood watch being a pistol packin CHLer? Or just a neighbor with a CHL (or just a gun) who agrees to watch over his neighbor's house while he is out of town?


Looks to me that at the most y'all are making a mountain out of an molehill if not seeing a problem that just doesn't exist.

I have answered those questions multiple times in this thread. Re-read it.

If you guys cannot read simple English and know the difference in a licensed activity and one that is not I suggest you stay out of the business so as to avoid potential criminal and administrative actions from the Board.