• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Private Security Guards Can Open Carry (Loaded) But The Public Can't?

John55

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

Everyone, including LE, needs an exposed firearms permit issued by BSIS to carry LOC when "working as a private security guard."
 

crash5150

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Sacramento, CA
imported post

but not on UC/CSU/JR College property or grounds unless on official business... technically.

edit: Not response to previous post but to the school zone post
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
974
Location
SoCal, , USA
imported post

crash5150 wrote:
LEO can carry Loaded and exposed if they have there badge on the belt next to their weapon, with or without a uniform on, on or off duty
Cite to authority please. I know of no badge requirement (However, it may be agency policy)
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,586
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

crash5150 wrote:
but not on UC/CSU/JR College property or grounds unless on official business... technically.

edit: Not response to previous post but to the school zone post
Citation please. (You get called on this almost every other post... get with the citations already... Or stop spreading bad info.)

I'm pretty sure LE are exempted entirely from 626.9.
 

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
crash5150 wrote:
but not on UC/CSU/JR College property or grounds unless on official business... technically.

edit: Not response to previous post but to the school zone post
Citation please. (You get called on this almost every other post... get with the citations already... Or stop spreading bad info.)

I'm pretty sure LE are exempted entirely from 626.9.
i dont see why they wouldnt be exempted. there are times where a gun would be needed in a school zone.
 

nerdyvirgin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
35
Location
Eastside San Jose, California, USA
imported post

so if i am walking down the street pushing a baby stroller and a cop spots that i have a tattoo that is suspicion enough for him to pull me over? i wear dickies that is suspicious? even though that is what i wear when i do construction work, what kinda bullshit is that cops pull people over cause they are bored and want to harass people. that is plain and simple truth they do it because they can.
 

crash5150

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Sacramento, CA
imported post

I'm trying to find citation.. but all i have is the word of campus police. 626.9 has listed exemptions and I don't see off duty LEO on the exemption list.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,586
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

crash5150 wrote:
I'm trying to find citation.. but all i have is the word of campus police. 626.9 has listed exemptions and I don't see off duty LEO on the exemption list.
Yeah cops/gun shop employees/DAs/etc sometimes just make shit up when asked for their legal advice... don't believe everything you hear.

And the exemption I referred to is 626.9(l) {that's lower-case "L"}:
Code:
[quote](l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer  as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of  Part 2, ... [long list continues][/quote]
Notice it doesn't say they have to be carrying out official duties? That means they're exempted 24 hours a day, 365.25 days per year.
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

I worked for an armored truck company and we were required to get BSIS guard cards and gun cards. We got some very extensive training from an LAPD instructor after we were hired due to the nature of our job. However I am not naive, I know that my company was the exception and not the rule. I've an interesting question that this topic brought to mind that I'd like to pose to some of the more legislatively knowledgable members on this board. Here's my question: 12027 provides an exemption to 12025(prohibition on CCW) as follows:

Code:
[b]12027[/b].  Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
...
(e) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions while actually employed in and about the
shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure,
bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.
To me that means that as long as you are an employee of the company and your duties include "working the truck" you are granted blanket CCW privileges(similar to the way LEOs are granted CCW). Someone mentioned to me that they interpreted the meaning of this section as granting you CCW only when you are on duty. My problem with that is that I would think the proper verb, were that the legislative intent, would have been "engaged", not "employed". I ask because I've been thinking about going back to work there P/T in order to get CCW privileges if indeed my interpretation of 12027(e) is correct.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,586
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

I don't know of any case law, but I very much doubt any trial court would agree with your interpretation. It appears to me that the legislature intended to limit this exception to the time your actually engaged in your employment function.
 

Cameron

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
64
Location
San Ramon, California, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
I don't know of any case law, but I very much doubt any trial court would agree with your interpretation. It appears to me that the legislature intended to limit this exception to the time your actually engaged in your employment function.
I agree. I expect the interpretation of "...while actually employed in and about..." would be: "...while actually in the process of..." rather than just employed by the company.

Again, I don't have any case law to support this either way, but I would guess that's how it would turn out. I always expect the public to rule for LE and against citizens (even if they are security related professionals)..... should be the other way around.:banghead:
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Cameron wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I don't know of any case law, but I very much doubt any trial court would agree with your interpretation. It appears to me that the legislature intended to limit this exception to the time your actually engaged in your employment function.
I agree. I expect the interpretation of "...while actually employed in and about..." would be: "...while actually in the process of..." rather than just employed by the company.

Again, I don't have any case law to support this either way, but I would guess that's how it would turn out. I always expect the public to rule for LE and against citizens (even if they are security related professionals)..... should be the other way around.:banghead:
My guess is there is no case law to date, and frankly who wants to be a guinea pig?
 

Coolbassman

Newbie
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
1
Location
California
open carry Secuity Guard

I would like to know why private security guards, who aren't sworn peace officers, and have as much "authority" (there only job is to observe, report and deter crime) as the average citizen can legally open carry a loaded weapon while law-abiding members of the public can't. in some instances, a member of the public has far more firearms training than a private security guard, but that person can't open carry a loaded weapon.

Why is that? When will this be challenged? Private security guards should not have more rights than the public.

Has this issued been talked about much here?
An armed guard is put in places that could get them or you killed. They are there not to protect the property as you might think. They are there to protect their and your life. Case in point....a bank guard is in a bank with his or her gun and a robbery is taking place. They cannot shoot the robber unless that robber is hurting or trying to kill someone. Now if the robber shows he has a gun and is pointing it at a person or the guard then the guard can shoot. Only to save a life can a guard shoot. So be glad you have armed guards around to save you if you are in that bank and being robbed along with the bank.
If the robber does not show a gun or a knife then the guard has to let him walk out and only report and observe. The fact that you seem to think you are far better than any guard is unfair because you don't know what that guard has done. Most are x-cops, or x- military people. You your argument that you are better than a guard is way off base.
The real answer to your question is:
A security guard is put in places that can get them killed. While you are sleeping in your warm bed an armed guard may be patrolling dangerous areas or some cases carrying money. All guards cannot carry a firearm just because they have an open carry permit. The job they are doing has to warrant a firearm. Weed clinics, banks etc. So if you want to open carry then go put yourself out there to protect others. Why would anyone let you carry a gun? You are not putting yourself out there to protect others. If you want to do that then become a guard :)
 
Top