SB 707 - School Grounds - Appendix A Exceptions

[wheezy]

I've seen similar posts, but nothing since SB 707 was passed last year.

Scenario: Church meets in a multipurpose room of a middle school on Sunday mornings.

I've been approached and asked to look into creating a security staff and at least one armed guard. I know that with written permission from the school board this can be granted; that will be a final course of action if the exceptions will not apply for us.

Several members have CCW, no LEOs at this time that I'm aware of.

Looking at Appendix A of SB 707 one of the exceptions is: When the person carrying a firearm is a security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm.

Seems like a huge gray area and a good way to get into trouble if you aren't careful.

Big question would be: Is or does a church appointed security guard with a ccw meet that requirement?

If not, can you explain or help us out here?

(and sorry, feel like I've been on here asking a lot of legal stuff lately )

Your time and information are greatly appreciated.

[Lonestargrizzly]

I assume the security officer would need a CA BSIS issued guard card, and a CA BSIS issued exposed firearms permit, as well as a CA CCW in order to be employed/work/volunteer as armed security under the guidelines you've mentioned.

[Librarian]

Security guards may carry with the appropriate license and permits, in uniform, and employed by a "private patrol operator".

See business and professions code, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...1.5.&article=4.

[CSACANNONEER]

I assume the security officer would need a CA BSIS issued guard card, and a CA BSIS issued exposed firearms permit, as well as a CA CCW in order to be employed/work/volunteer as armed security under the guidelines you've mentioned.

Do in house security guards need a guard card now? I know they didn't +20 years ago.

[Lonestargrizzly]

Do in house security guards need a guard card now? I know they didn't +20 years ago.

I don't think there's a distinction.

[Lonestargrizzly]

I believe that due to SB707 the officer would indeed have to have all of his certs.

[baggss]

Do in house security guards need a guard card now? I know they didn't +20 years ago.

One would assume that if, IAW PC 626.9(b), the "guard" in question had written permission from the appropriate authority it would not be an issue.

(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).

However, I would question if a CCW holder could be legally considered a "Guard" without the appropriate credentials. I'd ask the appropriate IA about that part.

[P5Ret]

Do in house security guards need a guard card now? I know they didn't +20 years ago.

Yes, the state started cracking down about 6 years ago. Concert venue's, bouncer's at bar's, in house loss prevention, are all supposed to have a PPSO (proprietary private security officer) or full guard card now. They will let someone slide for a year though, but there are no endorsement's for baton, chemical agents, firearms with that card.

[Lonestargrizzly]

One would assume that if, IAW PC 626.9(b), the "guard" in question had written permission from the appropriate authority it would not be an issue.



However, I would question if a CCW holder could be legally considered a "Guard" without the appropriate credentials. I'd ask the appropriate IA about that part.

If they have a guard card, they will notice that it says, "Additional permit required to carry firearm".

My CCW permit states, "Not valid during the course and scope of employment with (security company) or any other security company".

BSIS exposed permit is the key that allows you to use your CCW permit while acting as a guard.

I don't think that having a CCW holder act as security is wrong (if they're willing to assume that liability), but due to SB707 if you're operating on school grounds, you need to be a licensed armed security officer.

So to be a guard you would need
-Guard Card

To be an armed guard you would need
-Guard Card
-BSIS Exposed permit

To be an armed guard w/concealed weapon
-Guard Card
-BSIS Exposed permit
-CCW

[CSACANNONEER]

Yes, the state started cracking down about 6 years ago. Concert venue's, bouncer's at bar's, in house loss prevention, are all supposed to have a PPSO (proprietary private security officer) or full guard card now. They will let someone slide for a year though, but there are no endorsement's for baton, chemical agents, firearms with that card.

Looks like the PPSO has been around for 12 years.

If they have a guard card, they will notice that it says, "Additional permit required to carry firearm".

My CCW permit states, "Not valid during the course and scope of employment with (security company) or any other security company".

BSIS exposed permit is the key that allows you to use your CCW permit while acting as a guard.

I don't think that having a CCW holder act as security is wrong (if they're willing to assume that liability), but due to SB707 if you're operating on school grounds, you need to be a licensed armed security officer.

So to be a guard you would need
-Guard Card

To be an armed guard you would need
-Guard Card
-BSIS Exposed permit

To be an armed guard w/concealed weapon
-Guard Card
-BSIS Exposed permit
-CCW

My CA CCW does not have such a restriction. So, if I read the wording that was posted here, I could have a PPSO and be considered "in house security". With my CA CCW, I am "authorized to carry a loaded weapon" on or off the clock.


Now, instead of playing word games, we should stop looking at SB707 and read the actual text of the law:

PC 626.9(m) This section does not apply to a security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 26000) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.

It appears that anyone who is an unarmed, in house, security guard and is licensed to carry a loaded firearm via a CA CCW per PC 26150, does actually fall under this exception. I am not a lawyer though. I would consult a lawyer who is versed in CA firearms laws for a better opinion prior to doing this.

[baggss]

[QUOTE=CSACANNONEER;20039784]My CA CCW does not have such a restriction. So, if I read the wording that was posted here, I could have a PPSO and be considered "in house security". With my CA CCW, I am "authorized to carry a loaded weapon" on or off the clock.

Nor does mine. However, mine says I can not carry "at work"...

Now, instead of playing word games, we should stop looking at SB707 and read the actual text of the law:

It appears that anyone who is an unarmed, in house, security guard and is licensed to carry a loaded firearm via a CA CCW per PC 26150, does actually fall under this exception. I am not a lawyer though. I would consult a lawyer who is versed in CA firearms laws for a better opinion prior to doing this.

Interesting. I think, if this was me, I'd still ask the IA what they think about this. Just to cover my @$$.

[Dvrjon]

I've seen similar posts, but nothing since SB 707 was passed last year.

Scenario: Church meets in a multipurpose room of a middle school on Sunday mornings.

I've been approached and asked to look into creating a security staff and at least one armed guard. I know that with written permission from the school board this can be granted; that will be a final course of action if the exceptions will not apply for us.

Wait.

So, if you can figure out a concept of exception, then you will go ahead with arming guards without the school district's knowledge? What does your contractual relationship with the school say?

What does your church's legal council (I'm sure you have one) say regarding liability of the church?

The school district seems to be the place to start. They may even have some solutions regarding security that have worked in the past. I'm sure they have lawyers who do not use Calguns as their basis for making significant risk-management decisions.

[Librarian]

Now, instead of playing word games, we should stop looking at SB707 and read the actual text of the law:

Aside: yes, please. The result of a bill that becomes law is changed or new law. Once that happens, the bill text is of historical interest only.

Actual CA law is on line at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml