TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote: 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.

It's the basic definition of a contract. It could be from any definition of a legal contract anywhere. Again, if you can find a definition of "contractual" that could be the definition used by the occupations code and *doesn't* require consideration to be legally valid, I welcome you to do so. You can't just claim that it isn't so because it doesn't fit your theory, however. You need to actually back it up please.

txinvestigator wrote:

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.

I think your view was that escorting somone to their car was not a security function because the people involved were co-workers and he was not doing it as a job duty. Was there another reason why it is not? If not, by your definition, the escorter is breaking the law, because he is still performing a security function.

The original citizen didn't have a job duty to escort the tax collector either.

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

I didn't say they needed to be licensed. I said that they didn't in fact need to be licensed. You asked

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?

And I said yes. That's exactly what the Guardian Angles do, and they do not need a license to do it. They provide volunteer security services to communities, and they wear a uniform of sorts as well. They're asked by a community to come in and do systematic patrols to protect the community from crime.

If you wish to explain how this doesn't meet your criteria for a security service that should be licensed and regulated, please do.

It's not a matter of whether I am a fellow employee or not. It's a matter of common sense. One person needs a favor, another person steps up.
Scenario:
If I walk into somebody's office at 6:30 after the sun has gone down to talk to a friend (I don't work there). I have a CHL and am carrying as usual. A female co worker gets off and is worried about going out to her car alone as there have been muggings in the area. I say, "I'll be glad to walk you to your car."
In the minds of some in here, I am an instant criminal posing as a secuirty guard because I am a CHLer.

I guess if I travel with a friend to see a family and he has a lot of cash in the car I am a criminal posing as a security guard if I am packing a gun.

I don't mean any offense to anyone here...but it sounds like some of us are thinking too much like Barney Fife rather than Andy Taylor. The former complicates the simple with a bureaucratic rulebook the latter uses common sense for simple problems. Not every little situation in life needs a licensed somethingorother with the State of Texas' blessing.

Somebody at the tax office didn't feel safe going to the bank alone and without protection. Police couldn't help. Two other somebody's, one with a CHL, said "Let's go get in the car, I'll drive down there with you." The job got done.

Xander wrote:

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

I didn't say they needed to be licensed. I said that they didn't in fact need to be licensed. You asked

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?

See, the Angels are not performing a service that requires licensing. If I want to drive around all night and report suspicious activity to the police, I do not need a license. But if the City asks my free organization to watch city property, then I need to be licensed. Free or not.

If the Angels offer to provide escorts to people who drive money to the bank, they need a license.

And I said yes. That's exactly what the Guardian Angles do, and they do not need a license to do it. They provide volunteer security services to communities,

Exactly, to the community in general. They have no agreement with anyone, verbal or written. In fact, the city of Dallas asked them NOT to be here, remember? and they wear a uniform of sorts as well.

They're asked by a community to come in and do systematic patrols to protect the community from crime.

Not in Dallas.

Doug.38PR wrote:It's not a matter of whether I am a fellow employee or not. It's a matter of common sense. One person needs a favor, another person steps up.
Scenario:
If I walk into somebody's office at 6:30 after the sun has gone down to talk to a friend (I don't work there). I have a CHL and am carrying as usual. A female co worker gets off and is worried about going out to her car alone as there have been muggings in the area. I say, "I'll be glad to walk you to your car."
In the minds of some in here, I am an instant criminal posing as a secuirty guard because I am a CHLer.

I have not seen anyone here who believes that.

I guess if I travel with a friend to see a family and he has a lot of cash in the car I am a criminal posing as a security guard if I am packing a gun.

Nope

I don't mean any offense to anyone here...but it sounds like some of us are thinking too much like Barney Fife rather than Andy Taylor. The former complicates the simple with a bureaucratic rulebook the latter uses common sense for simple problems. Not every little situation in life needs a licensed somethingorother with the State of Texas' blessing.

No one said that.

Somebody at the tax office didn't feel safe going to the bank alone and without protection. Police couldn't help. Two other somebody's, one with a CHL, said "Let's go get in the car, I'll drive down there with you." The job got done.

And in that scenario, a license was required.

txinvestigator wrote:

Xander wrote:And I said yes. That's exactly what the Guardian Angles do, and they do not need a license to do it. They provide volunteer security services to communities,

Exactly, to the community in general. They have no agreement with anyone, verbal or written. In fact, the city of Dallas asked them NOT to be here, remember? and they wear a uniform of sorts as well.

They're asked by a community to come in and do systematic patrols to protect the community from crime.

Not in Dallas.

Yes, in Dallas. There was a Guardian Angles chapter in North Dallas from the mid-eighties through some point in the nineties.

They've been making noises about coming back the last couple of years, and though it's made a lot of the city leaders unhappy (including the police chief) there's never been an insinuation that what they do is illegal and they would be subject to arrest, despite the fact that they're identical in operation to a commercial security company that a neighborhood could hire to patrol...A company that *would* be required to be licensed and whose employees would face criminal penalties if they weren't properly licensed.

EDITED TO ADD: They have been patrolling Dallas recently....There was some hullabaloo about them in 2005. Laura Miller questioned their effectiveness, the police chief claimed they would increase the crime rates, and they patrolled Deep Ellum, Lower Greenville, and Arcadia Park, at least.

It would appear that the line between acting as a security guard and acting as a friendly citizen is a thin one. If I am the tax office employee and I call a friend with a CHL and ask him to protect me while I go to the bank, this friend is in violation of the law. However, If I call the same friend and say "hey, let's go grab some lunch. I need to swing by the bank first though" and make no mention of protection or ask specifically for it, this friend is not in violation of the law. While my intent in both situations may have been the same, in the latter one, my CHL friend was not acting in any offical capacity, he was just going to lunch with me.
Would this be a correct statement?

Dave

It's a shame that our society has gotten so out of balance that we're even needing this conversation.
Logic states that Galveston County needs to take better protective measures against crime for it's employees, especially those that are responsible for getting money to the bank.
The CHLer that volunteered to escort this employee is very kind, and it's a shame that this person is at risk for any charges when his/her intentions appear to be good.

Venus Pax wrote:It's a shame that our society has gotten so out of balance that we're even needing this conversation.
Logic states that Galveston County needs to take better protective measures against crime for it's employees, especially those that are responsible for getting money to the bank.
The CHLer that volunteered to escort this employee is very kind, and it's a shame that this person is at risk for any charges when his/her intentions appear to be good.

totally!

You said

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 said:

Doug.38PR wrote:
It's not a matter of whether I am a fellow employee or not. It's a matter of common sense. One person needs a favor, another person steps up.
Scenario:
If I walk into somebody's office at 6:30 after the sun has gone down to talk to a friend (I don't work there). I have a CHL and am carrying as usual. A female co worker gets off and is worried about going out to her car alone as there have been muggings in the area. I say, "I'll be glad to walk you to your car."
In the minds of some in here, I am an instant criminal posing as a secuirty guard because I am a CHLer.

You replied:

I have not seen anyone here who believes that.

okay, moving on
I said:

I don't mean any offense to anyone here...but it sounds like some of us are thinking too much like Barney Fife rather than Andy Taylor. The former complicates the simple with a bureaucratic rulebook the latter uses common sense for simple problems. Not every little situation in life needs a licensed somethingorother with the State of Texas' blessing.

You said

No one said that.

Well I'm glad to hear that....then why do you insist:

Somebody at the tax office didn't feel safe going to the bank alone and without protection. Police couldn't help. Two other somebody's, one with a CHL, said "Let's go get in the car, I'll drive down there with you." The job got done.

And in that scenario, a license was required.

If a third person (or an employee) offers to or voluntarily agrees to take a ride down the street with people who don't feel safe as a favor, then what is the difference between that and me walking a stranger (non-coworker) to her car? Or me driving with a friend with a lot of money when going to see family?

The whole situation in the article sounds like somebody was doing somebody else a favor just by being present. On of them had a gun and that made them feel safer.

It is one person helping another person out. It is not, a property owner or an employee assigning anybody to act as a security guard. The article said "a local resident." Sounds to me like the councilman ask a friend of his if he would mind driving down the stree to the bank with them as a favor. The friend said he'd be glad to help.

This is a FAR cry from acting as a security guard.


Besides, seems to me that the law allows for a non-security guard to act in protecting another person's body or property.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

and

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

But as said. To me it's a matter of common sense. One person ask's another for a favor. Not somebody hired and assigned to do this for all money transfers as their permenant job

They should get a lockbox and and armored car service and be done with it.

Slightly Off Topic, but an angle I would like to seek clarification on;

TXi,

You made reference that a Private Security Commission required stricter requirements than a CHL. Was this due to the training requirement or the background checks?

I was commissioned back in the early 80's while I was going to school and the background check seemed to me to be pretty light, basically if you could be bonded you passed. The required class however was 40 hours with a written and practical exam. I also held an endorsemnet for a PR-24 baton which was an additional 1 day class.

Unarmed security was a super basic wants and warrants check.

<irrelevency>Also did the PI thing for a few conducting background checks.</irrelevency>

Is that about the same as now?

Secondarily, chasing a hypothetical rabbit here, If I were employed as an unarmed security guard but also happened to be a CHL, AND neither company policy or the guarded property held any prohibitions to CCW's. Could such a guard carry at his post as long as it was not part of his job description...I.E. for his own protection?

Just curious and you are probably the best qualified to answer.

As to the Galveston County issue, from what I have read here and TXi's posts as well as the news articles related; it seems like so many other incidents that it is the operator's mouth that got them this scrutiny here.

Citing common sense, if alderman X had simply said "com'on let's go for a ride together" no harm no foul. But he didn't, he said he was going along for the specific purpose of armed escort. So:

A) He has entered into a regulated occupation

and

B) Has announced to the whole stinkin' world when and how money is transported from the county assessor's office...sheez

Dragonfighter wrote:I also held an endorsemnet for a PR-24 baton which was an additional 1 day class.

Okay, forget armed BGs, terrorists, and weird diseases, security guards carrying PR-24s with only a *day* of training is scary.

That makes about as much sense as reducing firefighter training to "here, blow out this candle and you'll pass."

In all fairness, the requirements for non-commissioned may have been higher, I dunno. Mine was an endorsement on the "pink" card. I am curious as to what will be in the rundown TXi provides, if he is willing. The course was about 3 hours law and the rest practical in application of non-lethal force with the PR-24...not a lot. But to be truthful, most of my colleagues were a bit frightening to boot, not the sharpest knives in the drawer if you catch my meaning.