Does Pennsylvanias act 235 that requires a security guard to pay anywhere from $300 up to $1300 for the ability to carry a firearm while on duty align with the bruin decision? I question that. Is it gun control? I think so. I totally get the company restriction of that ability but as it stands right now you could spend up to a year in prison and have right to keep and bear arms taken away legally if your a security guard on duty and get caught with a firearm without this certification. If companies want to require training and certification that’s fine. They have every right to do that and fire someone for not complying. Not jail time! I don’t think the state has that right though. Any thoughts?
3 Likes
How much does Act 235 cost in Pennsylvania?
Fee breakdown
| Fee | ​Cost |
|---|---|
| Application Fee - paid on the TACS website | $50.00 |
| Fingerprint Fee - paid to MorphoTrust | $22.60 |
| Subtotal | $72.60 |
| Certification Fee - paid on the TACS website | $30.00 |
2 Likes
There’s also a psychological evaluation that varies in cost and firearms training that also varies. Look, I’m all for the companies requiring this but I don’t think the state should be involved. Especially when you’re talking about a possible year of your life in prison and the revoked God given right to defend yourself. Believe me. When it’s all said and done your likely spending about $700
2 Likes
One of my first jobs was as unarmed security at a shopping mall. State licensing regulations apply to security, hairdressers, nurses, etc.
An argument can be made it’s a 2A issue.
3 Likes
A nurse practitioner can do the psych evaluation. Not sure what you are looking for. It seem you don’t want the state involved. My only suggestion would be to get people together to protest it.
3 Likes
I’m asking if it aligns with the Bruin decision in everyone’s opinion? Is it gun control? I think so. I think you should be able to be terminated but not jailed.
1 Like
If you cut someone’s hair without a license and charge them you don’t go to jail. If you check someone’s pulse without a certification and charge them you don’t go to jail. I’m being a little silly to make the point that those examples aren’t really relevant to this conversation. A guy has a God given right to keep and bear arms to protect himself. That shouldn’t go away when a guy is being paid to work security. A company can demand it. A property can demand it. I don’t think the state can according to the Bruin decision.
1 Like
If what you believe was true then anyone could be a police officer. 2A is a personal right the security officer is a job.
2 Likes
Citizens can make arrests. Police are civilians. States and municipalities can certainly make their own requirements for their own employment. They shouldn’t be allowed to take my God given right to keep and bear arms just because I’m getting paid for a service. They should leave that to the individual companies to regulate. Termination not jail time. A security guard has the same exact responsibilities and rights as a normal citizen. They can’t detain like a police officer can. They can’t arrest like a police officer can. Why should they be made to be in more danger than a normal citizen who can carry. At the same time putting themselves in even more danger due to the nature of the job. It makes little sense. I do think it’s clearly a form of gun control and has no basis in history or tradition. I’ll have to look up when the last offense of this sort occurred. I’d bet there hasn’t been one since the Bruin decision.
2 Likes
My guess is it has something to do with insurance. They might be responsible for your actions while you are working for them.
Absolutely! That’s what would drive companies to require training for armed security and termination for any violations. It shouldn’t be illegal though. For the state to say you’ll go to jail if you have a firearm and you’ll lose your right to keep and bear arms for having a firearm you’d otherwise be allowed to have is gun control. I think it’s illegal because of the Bruin decision. I’ve already gotten my ccw through the state.
1 Like
I actually couldn’t find any direct violations of this act. Guards have been arrested for ndc’s and unjustified uses of force but I can’t find a single case where a guard was arrested for just possession of a firearm. There was one who had his 235 certification but not his ccw. I think it was expired or something.
1 Like
IMO, I think it should be written into law that the companies have to pay for it if its required. Called the price of doing business. Now if it was a choice for a promotion, or better pay it should be on you.
No way I’m paying hundreds just to work at a place.
Does it violate bruin? I could understand that point but you don’t have to be a security guard so I guess i see both sides
2 Likes
IMO, it doesn’t violate Bruen. Just like law enforcement officers, private armed security guards are held to a higher standard when compared to a citizen who is not involved with security or law enforcement.
In other words, if you get paid to carry a gun, PA wants you vetted and trained. Not much different from a CDL requirement or a barbers license. Act 235 does not prevent that citizen from obtaining and carrying a weapon, but it might restrict them from getting paid for carrying a weapon.
As for cost, again not all that different from a CDL, barbders license, or a nursing certificate. My wife and I worked it IT for decades. We both had to maintain industry certifications in order to get work, often paying thousands of dollars out of our own pockets. It is just the cost of doing business.
2 Likes
The difference is keeping and bearing arms is written in the constitution as a God given right. As it stands, I have qualified myself for a ccw through a background check and small fee and could still face jail time for carrying my firearm. Cutting hair and driving a big rig or taking someone’s blood pressure could never keep that person alive. That’s why those abilities aren’t comparable to carrying a firearm and why things like being able to sell a house aren’t written into the constitution. You can survive without the ability to defend someone in court. And being able to build a building could never stop an armed assailant from un-Aliving you. I get terminations for breaking company policy in this case. I don’t get being arrested for an otherwise legal act. I still haven’t found a single violation of act 235. It’s all improper use of force and unlawful carrying due to a lack of a ccw. Turns out being 235 certified does not allow you to carry concealed off duty. You still need a ccw.
I think we all should apply to be armed security at LULULEMON. P.S. sorry!
1 Like
I do not know anything about all these fees and responsibilities. Although its been years, I worked at a private development in Pennsylvania and they had to petition the Court Of Common Pleas to get me police powers under act 235. I still have the court order somewhere, signed by a Judge. It states on the court order that act 235 is the night watchman act of like 1895. The petition states (I believe almost word for word) _My_ _Name__ being petitioned for shall have ALL the Rights Powers and privilege’s of Constables and Police Officers dully elected or appointed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the property being petitioned for. And Poof I was an armed private police officer in that development. That development had a huge lake with an island in it and the property covered many, many miles of upscale homes. We would occasionally leave the property / development to back up the local township if we saw them lit up because their back up could be miles away. I never had to pay a dime to get the court order. The development had their attorney prepare the petition paid any court cost’s.
Act 235 and Act 120 are both Pennsylvania training certifications, but they serve different purposes. Act 235, also known as the Lethal Weapons Training Act, certifies individuals employed in security or investigative fields to carry and use lethal weapons in their work.Act 120, on the other hand, is the certification required for individuals to become municipal police officers in Pennsylvania
I’ve seen that several security companies will certify their employees during the initial training period and cover all of the fees. As far as having the ability to make arrests or detainment, every citizen has those rights. Act 235 allows someone to carry a deadly weapon while being paid for security. My issue is that I already have a concealed carry permit but now because I’m getting paid it’s all the sudden illegal for me to have that firearm. I don’t think that’s legal for the state to remove my God given right in this scenario. Is it gun control? I thinks so and if so is it backed by history and tradition?
1 Like
It is legal by the mere fact that it’s not illegal for them to take your rights away. You have the choice of letting them or not letting them by taking the job or not. I know not much help.
But any kind of gun control should show a history and tradition. the Bruen decision established a new legal test for evaluating gun control laws, requiring them to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This means that modern gun laws must be analogous to those in place around the time of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments’ ratification (1791 and 1868, respectively). It’s literally a gun law. I’ll say it again that I’m all for these companies requiring a certification to be able to guard armed. And immediate termination for any violation. But I also think it’s illegal for the state to require extra certification on top of the ccw.
1 Like