PDA

View Full Version : Need Information on CCW for Executive Protection.


USN CHIEF
12-28-2008, 2:24 PM
I know that there are a few of you guys/gals that work in the Executive Protection (Body Guards) gigs in the state. If you have a CCW in the state of CA because of your job as a body guard, could you please p.m. I have some questions on it.

Mario

capo
12-28-2008, 4:22 PM
Seeing as nobody has chimed in yet, I will with what I've learned thus far.

And what I've learned is quite simple, most agencies see needing a CCW for executive protection work as a worse reason than the random ones they get, and the chances of being granted one for EP is slim to none.

stphnman20
12-28-2008, 4:27 PM
Good luck bro. If your in the LA or SD area and trying to apply for one, dont even try! Move to AV or SB and then apply.. Thats your only chance.. Trust me.. PM me for more questions..

N6ATF
12-28-2008, 10:42 PM
You realize that body guards have to be licensed through BSIS (guard card, exposed firearm permit, yes, exposed firearm permit, and THEN CCW)? Unless you are employed by a hypocritical politician who doesn't follow the law, I suppose.

Theseus
12-29-2008, 12:00 AM
It was my understanding that in CA you can't conceal a firearm as a security guard/bodyguard unless you are LE or retired LE....

I was understanding this was negotiated by the unions so that police could make the extra money being the only ones that can provide such protection.

11Z50
12-29-2008, 3:42 PM
There are 2 ways for a BSIS licensee to do armed protection.

1) A licensed PI who has a BSIS firearms permit and a CCW may perform protection work if the need comes from a case under investigation. This will always be plainclothes. Under the PI license, I may utilize agents with CCW's or retired cops.

2) A Private Patrol Operator (PPO) may conduct uniformed armed protection details with officers who have guard cards and open carry firearms permits. Those with guard cards must work under a licensed PPO. In some cases, if the guard has a ccw, plainclothes protection may be authorized. The PPO is responsible so it's up to him.

Retired cops still must have a guard card, PI license, or PPO to work protection details.

It's hard to get a CCW for protection work anywhere. Sheriffs are hesitant to issue CCW's for employment purposes. Many LE agencies also are leery of retirees packing for work as well.

Since I have both PI and PPO licenses, I sometimes blend the two and do a "protective surveillance". Often, I am contacted as a PI about a situation in which I initiate an investigation. It develops into a need to protect the client, so the case becomes a protection detail as well. I use armed plainclothes PI's for the actual surveillance and close-in work, and armed uniformed security guards for back-up. Sometimes, at the client's request, my security guys wear jeans and polo shirts with a low-profile open carry belt holster. As long as the polo has a badge, logo and "private Security" embroidered on them it's cool. (BSIS has to approve this) Also, I always coordinate with local LE to make sure they are good with everything, They don't have a problem with the way I do it. Neither does BSIS.

So, to answer the OP, if you find a PPO that is willing to work with you, he can get you your guard card. You then apply to BSIS for a firearms permit. (you can do this at the same time) Meanwhile, if you don't already have a CCW, move to a county that issues and get one. Check with the agency about good justification reasons. A CCW is good state-wide, and I sometimes get business in other areas where CCWs are not issued. Some won't issue to security guards, some could care less. If you can't get a CCW you can still do open-carry work.

The industry has changed a lot since 9-11, and there is work in this area. There is a demand for a higher quality armed protective officer than the traditional minimum-wage cut rate mall ninja.

N6ATF
12-29-2008, 5:58 PM
+1 on the PI bit.

It's my understanding from the B&P code and such is that if you are just a guard and do not have a PPO or PI license, the only way you can work for a non-PPO is as a W-2 employee (proprietary to the single company or client you work for), not a 1099-MISC independent contractor. Unless you like massive fines. Some would rather risk the fines to not have to go through the W-2 hassle. Personally I state that distinction to people wanting to hire me directly.

I didn't research it here, but everything said here seems about right, if not typographically perfect:

http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?t=6196

11Z50
12-29-2008, 7:02 PM
+1 on the PI bit.

It's my understanding from the B&P code and such is that if you are just a guard and do not have a PPO or PI license, the only way you can work armed for a non-PPO is as a W-2 employee (proprietary to the single company or client you work for), not a 1099-MISC independent contractor. Unless you like massive fines. Some would rather risk the fines to not have to go through the W-2 hassle. Personally I state that distinction to people wanting to hire me directly.

I didn't research it here, but everything said here seems about right, if not typographically perfect:

http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?t=6196

If you are a guard w/firearms permit you must work for a PPO, either as an independent contractor or employee. The fine is $5000 if I'm not mistaken. BSIS now has 2 sworn LE-type enforcement officers and they have been active. As a PI/PPO I can contract armed guards as needed, or work retired cops under my PI license. Having both licenses gives me a great deal more flexibility and diversity. For some clients, I use a mix of both investigators under my license and guards under the PPO. This allows me to bring people on as IC's for a particular task, pay them on 1099's and when the task is complete, I go back to just me + 1 associate.

As for proprietary security, it's a bit different. Proprietary Security ("in-house" on company payroll) still has to be registered with BSIS, and can be uniformed, but not armed. I run into this when doing ranch security quite often. If Joe Rancher wants to arm himself and other employees while on the property, that's his business, provided they are not uniformed, and representing themselves as security. This is a huge risk on his part, since he takes on all liability. For a rancher, or business to acquire armed security, they must go to a licensed PPO. The PPO is required to maintain appropriate insurance and will at least share in any liability incurred.

vandal
12-29-2008, 8:44 PM
Wasn't this pretty much the grounds of the socal lawsuit that got the sherriff in hot water? Equal opportunity for a security company wanting to do protection and unable to compete with retired/off-duty LEOs? Just going from memory here. Sounded like a good case to me but I'm biased.

MP301
12-29-2008, 9:05 PM
Uh, Im a PPO as well since 1988 and my understanding as explained by BSIS is that you cannot subcontract for security officers and 1099 them. They have to be W2 employees or they consider the security officers acting as PPO's. If thats changed, then please point me in the direction of the B&P code so I can start saving some money!

Also, Proprietary security can be armed as long as the also have a Firearms Qualification card (exposed permit) and there Proprietary Guard card....

yellowfin
12-29-2008, 9:47 PM
Wasn't this pretty much the grounds of the socal lawsuit that got the sherriff in hot water? Equal opportunity for a security company wanting to do protection and unable to compete with retired/off-duty LEOs? That was Hickman v Block and he lost. Not because it wasn't a good case but because the 9th was/is stacked with communists who if God himself was standing in front of them would still rule against the 2nd Amendment.

11Z50
12-29-2008, 10:10 PM
Also, Proprietary security can be armed as long as the also have a Firearms Qualification card (exposed permit) and there Proprietary Guard card....


B&P 7574.1: "A proprietary private security officer , as used in this chapter, is an unarmed individual who is employed exclusively by any one employer........blah blah blah.....

N6ATF
12-30-2008, 1:04 AM
Oh, right. Was going off years of seeing armed bank guards with no security company logo on their unis. And I had them cancel my EFP anyway, so I'm compliant under 7574.1 when I say W-2 only please. I suppose there's always taser and unloaded shotgun (BSIS unregulated) if the client wants more than just a well-dressed guard and/or driver.

11Z50
12-30-2008, 6:10 AM
There is an exemption for bank guards, but nowadays the liability issue causes many banks to do without. I have seen a renewal in banks hiring PPOs, which is interesting. I suspect the bank's lawyer advised for the PPO to take the liability for a shooting, and employee costs, rather than the bank.

A straight PPO-guard relationship is an employer-employee relationship and the guard is a w2 type per B&P code.

I use taser and other less-lethal alternatives regularly. The shotgun is also an overlooked option.

N6ATF
12-31-2008, 12:32 AM
Small bank less than 1,000 feet from where I live kept getting robbed and eventually had shots from multiple perps fired at the locked front door. They got a guard right quick. Though there are still bank robberies reported where the money is given out and no mention of dyepack success or even decent info for a manhunt. Which wouldn't need to happen if someone was positioned with a shotgun where they could flank the robber from behind.

CCWFacts
12-31-2008, 2:16 AM
And what I've learned is quite simple, most agencies see needing a CCW for executive protection work as a worse reason than the random ones they get, and the chances of being granted one for EP is slim to none.

One of the reasons some "big city" depts (LA, SF, etc) are so hostile to CCW is because it decreases the amount that their officers can charge doing EP gigs. If anyone could get a CCW, there's no need to pay the extra money for a sworn officer as a "driver".

I have a feeling that many of the professionals in SF who "need" to carry for their jobs (like PIs, etc) have residences in other counties. No evidence to back that up, but I assume that is what is happening.

11Z50
12-31-2008, 6:39 AM
One of the reasons some "big city" depts (LA, SF, etc) are so hostile to CCW is because it decreases the amount that their officers can charge doing EP gigs. If anyone could get a CCW, there's no need to pay the extra money for a sworn officer as a "driver".

I have a feeling that many of the professionals in SF who "need" to carry for their jobs (like PIs, etc) have residences in other counties. No evidence to back that up, but I assume that is what is happening.

Yes on both. While active LEO's often do security work in the Bay Area and socal, they are still supposed to either have a PI license or work under a PPO. They also are restricted on the number of hours they can work. Some cities, like Fresno, contract off-duty officers directly to citizens for security. This seems a bit crooked to me, but Fresno is an unusual place.;) There is quite a racket going on silently in LE circles and off-duty cops make some serious coin in the big city. That, along with a general LE elitist attitude has a great deal to do with the lack of willingness to issue CCW's in some counties.

I know many PI's that have CCWs from counties outside the big cities that take cases there, since they can. While it is completely legal, I always contact local LE when operating in the big city as a courtesy. They have never had any issues with it.

I often use several of my old cop buddies who are now retired and have agency carry permits. They are also good liaison guys when interacting with LE. Some have PI licenses, and some work under my license. As long as they are plainclothes, no problem. They still have to have a guard card and firearms permit to do security gigs.

I'd guess that less than 20% of PI's that are not retired LE have firearms permits and are legal with BSIS. Some just have a CCW and leave it at that. Overall, I'd say that less than 25% of PI's in CA are armed at all.

When clients hire me for armed protection, they expect me to be legal and insured, so I have to spend the extra time and money to keep straight with BSIS. Some operations don't bother so clients should always ask to see the appropriate licenses and insurance when hiring a PI or PPO. There is a market out there, I just did an armed protection detail yesterday for a continuing client.

Other than protection details, most PI's who are authorized carry on a rather limited basis. Having to be in and out of court and other restricted areas, I often leave my gun secured in my vehicle. I do, however pack when in risky areas. I did a witness locate in Stockton recently in an area where local LE advised me to be carrying.

CCWFacts
12-31-2008, 7:25 AM
There is quite a racket going on silently in LE circles and off-duty cops make some serious coin in the big city.

That's my impression and I have a feeling that pure economic self-interest does a lot to cause the FOP and its members to oppose CCW reform in this state. EP gigs are great. I've never looked at prices but I would guess that armed EP probably costs about $100 / hour. And it's great work. Unlike a lot of other LE work, EP gigs are neither dangerous nor unpleasant. It's just driving around or hanging around with VIPs. It's lucrative, it's easy, it's even a bit glamorous sometimes.

If we had shall-issue in this state, the whole market for that would collapse. Anyone who wanted to (and had a clean record and passed the certifications etc) could get into it, and a lot of executives would at least consider getting their own CCWs and not hiring.

yellowfin
12-31-2008, 8:18 AM
^ You know, that's the perfect card to play with the public for class envy. We could easily present the case to the public: "Rich guys get expensive personal protection at your expense. They get to pay bodyguards $100 an hour, while you get mugged or raped because criminals know you're not armed."

7x57
12-31-2008, 9:02 AM
^ You know, that's the perfect card to play with the public for class envy. We could easily present the case to the public: "Rich guys get expensive personal protection at your expense. They get to pay bodyguards $100 an hour, while you get mugged or raped because criminals know you're not armed."

You're absolutely right, but I am worried about whether the case i persuasive. One of the things that bothered former gun-banner Howard Nemerov is that he found that gun control laws always have exceptions to ensure that if you are rich or well connected enough you still have armed protection. They are inherently discriminatory. Carry for self-defense is most important for people who cannot afford to buy protection.

You can see the pattern by just looking at the exceptions: CA LE doesn't have to follow the magazine cap restrictions, safe handgun roster, etc. Why would they? That might endanger the people who have the money to live in the neighborhoods that get the best protection. And so on...Nebraska does, or used to, have more strict laws than most Western states. The reason seems to be that once upon a time the mining industry was so important to the economy that they had enormous political influence. They were worried about strikes, and so...the law made sure that an individual union worker couldn't protect himself, but the mine owners could hire guards with machine guns. I am no friend of unions, but I find that inexcusable.

This thread just taught me a new case I didn't know about--that because of off-duty work it is economically against the interests of the police to liberalize CC or OC. But I am not surprised, because that is the universal pattern. Nemerov's answer to the subtitle of his book, "why isn't it working," is that it simply isn't true that gun control doesn't work. It does work...for some people. It works for government, for those with money, for those with power, and so on. It just never works for the poor, the powerless, and so on. So you can use his book to find many more cases worldwide to back that up.

The problem is making the case in a way that convinces the sort of people who don't read Calguns. :-) I would like to believe that you are right that this is the perfect avenue to take with fence-sitters, because it is absolutely true. But I don't know if it will actually work. I now try when the context seems appropriate, but I haven't formed an opinion yet on whether it is an effective strategy. Uniforms and licenses seem to really resonate with the public (and that's terrifying for what it means for the future of liberty, but I digress).

Here is a case where it did work: I discussed that little Texas school district that voted to allow CCW for teachers with my wife. She graduated from a small rural school, so she understood that a district with a few hundred students simply couldn't afford to hire even one guard. But then I pointed out that aside from the money, the underlying assumption of school free-fire, excuse me gun-free zones is that old Mr. Smith the math teacher is more likely to go postal than a young man willing to take a job with that kind of risks (nothing at all against security guards, we need them, the point is simply about the kinds of people who take risky jobs-- we need cops too, but the gun owner I was least comfortable with was a retired CA cop). Because she actually had teachers like "old Mr. Smith the math teacher" I had phrased it right to make the point, and she immediately said "that's stupid."

Well, it *is* stupid, but most people believe it. I fear I may have even believed it once, but I'm better now. :-) They really seem to believe that, say, a quiet peaceful old man who devoted his life to teaching children in a peaceful rural town is certainly a ticking time bomb but a young kid who thought being a cop or a guard would be cool (I'm sure every department has a few of them) couldn't possibly be.

One assumption of the founders is that you can trust your fellow citizen more than you can trust the officers of the state, and liberty is impossible if you do not. I think they were right. We have about 1.5 political parties devoted to the proposition that you should fear your neighbor and trust your government. That is the road to the end of the Constitution and liberty as we know it.

7x57

gunrun45
12-31-2008, 7:39 PM
That's my impression and I have a feeling that pure economic self-interest does a lot to cause the FOP and its members to oppose CCW reform in this state. EP gigs are great. I've never looked at prices but I would guess that armed EP probably costs about $100 / hour. And it's great work. Unlike a lot of other LE work, EP gigs are neither dangerous nor unpleasant. It's just driving around or hanging around with VIPs. It's lucrative, it's easy, it's even a bit glamorous sometimes.

If we had shall-issue in this state, the whole market for that would collapse. Anyone who wanted to (and had a clean record and passed the certifications etc) could get into it, and a lot of executives would at least consider getting their own CCWs and not hiring.

Yes, this has only been happening for about the last 40 years or so. Shall issuse won't change this as it has not changed this in several other states like Floriday which are shall issue.

Face it, you are a rich political or social figure. Who would you feel better guarding you; the mall ninja PI/security flunky (yes, we have some very good private security folks, most are mall ninja's and wanna bee's though) or the LEO who has current resources/ info on what is going on. If nothing else, its the immage and perception.

Ask anoyone who has ever worn a badge for more than 5 minutes. Enforcing anything has everything to do with perception of authority and control. It has nothing to do with actual control.

11Z50
12-31-2008, 8:58 PM
Yes, this has only been happening for about the last 40 years or so. Shall issuse won't change this as it has not changed this in several other states like Floriday which are shall issue.

Face it, you are a rich political or social figure. Who would you feel better guarding you; the mall ninja PI/security flunky (yes, we have some very good private security folks, most are mall ninja's and wanna bee's though) or the LEO who has current resources/ info on what is going on. If nothing else, its the immage and perception.

Ask anoyone who has ever worn a badge for more than 5 minutes. Enforcing anything has everything to do with perception of authority and control. It has nothing to do with actual control.

Which is precisely why clients hire me over the fat, lazy, complacent know it all LE types. I know how they roll, and what makes my company different from them is I have standards and require training. Being a cop a hundred years ago means nothing to me. Everybody that works for me is current in training and meets my company standards of performance or they don't work.

Smokeybehr
01-01-2009, 4:30 PM
Some cities, like Fresno, contract off-duty officers directly to citizens for security.

If you want a temporary booze license in Fresno County, or you want to rent one of the city or county owned facilities, you're REQUIRED to hire X number of uniformed guards and X number of uniformed PD officers or you don't get the rental or license.

They just had the Hmong New Year celebration at the fairgrounds, and the bill for the security was about 25% (maybe more) of the budget.

11Z50
01-01-2009, 5:25 PM
I've heard of different variations of this nonsense around the area. One would think that should something happen and the security guards need help, they could simply call the PD and the officers already on duty could respond, like our tax dollars pay them to.

I think it's reasonable to be required to hire security so the cops won't have to be bothered. If you hire security, you shouldn't have to pay off-duty cops as well!

I don't do these sorts of gigs, so I'm not in competition with the PD, but as a citizen, I am a little peeved that the cops can sell their services in addition to being paid tax dollars to do their jobs. I was shocked to learn a few years back that some agencies were charging citizens to answer certain types of calls, and actually billing people for arresting them for DUI!

As a former cop, I think it's just wrong for LE to gouge the citizens any more than they already do.

DANGERCLOSE
01-01-2009, 5:27 PM
11Z50, can i pm you with some security officer / executive protection officer related questions. i am current le and have a friend in the bay area who is a ppo and does executive protection. thanks

11Z50
01-01-2009, 7:26 PM
Go ahead dangerclose, standing by.

N6ATF
01-01-2009, 7:43 PM
As a former cop, I think it's just wrong for LE to gouge the citizens any more than they already do.

Interesting you bring this up. I was thinking, what if there were no taxes? How would the government pay for LE? Would victims pay for police services on a per-crime basis? Would it be shared between the victim, and then the perp(s) alone getting slave labor? Most people would go years without ever having to pay a cent. False 911 calls would actually be 100% prosecuted (billed), and life-sentencees could have all their property seized and auctioned. Guns would be appraised at their fair market value and actually auctioned or issued out so no money would go to waste like it currently does in the "destroy the evil guns, destroy them all!" climate.

JandJArmory
01-01-2009, 7:57 PM
check out www.calccw.net and pm ccwinstructor

11Z50
01-01-2009, 10:21 PM
Interesting you bring this up. I was thinking, what if there were no taxes? How would the government pay for LE? Would victims pay for police services on a per-crime basis? Would it be shared between the victim, and then the perp(s) alone getting slave labor? Most people would go years without ever having to pay a cent. False 911 calls would actually be 100% prosecuted (billed), and life-sentencees could have all their property seized and auctioned. Guns would be appraised at their fair market value and actually auctioned or issued out so no money would go to waste like it currently does in the "destroy the evil guns, destroy them all!" climate.

The way our country, and LE is headed, why not privitize and save the taxpayers some money? Been ripped off? Get a couple estimates from PI's and choose one to investigate your case and prepare it for submission to the DA. Sound crazy? I've actually done it. One city in the area is "too busy" to take burglary reports anymore, and you can file a report online to support your insurance claim.

I was called by a client who was referred to me that had been burglarized. Dismayed when told by the cops they were too busy to investigate his burglary, I went to the scene and dusted for prints, photographed the crimescene, took his statement, checked the area for witnesses and wrote a report. I handed over the physical evidence to the PD and contacted the DA's office.

I made some good coin on this case, the client was happy, and last I heard the PD had assigned a detective to the case.

N6ATF
01-01-2009, 11:09 PM
Sounds good. They catch the guy, your client sues not only for what was taken, but also to recover the cost of the investigation.

CCWFacts
01-02-2009, 6:17 AM
Face it, you are a rich political or social figure. Who would you feel better guarding you; the mall ninja PI/security flunky (yes, we have some very good private security folks, most are mall ninja's and wanna bee's though) or the LEO who has current resources/ info on what is going on. If nothing else, its the immage and perception.

I agree, I'm sure many rich / VIPs think that way and would prefer a LEO no matter what, for those reasons.

However, some here in LA would prefer Israeli bodyguards, who have never had LE experience but have had vast amounts of real-life counter-terrorism experience. Some people would pick Sikhs. Some would pick people with US military experience. There are big pools of people with applicable skills who can't work in that area because they can't carry.