No announcement yet.

does your state require you to have two licenses

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawson
    I can legally carry an exposed weapon here, so I dont need a license to do so. As said before, here in WA, the Armed course is just an enhancer to your unarmed one you dont actually get a second license, but you do need the unarmed course to take the armed one.

    Leave a comment:

  • SEO_09
    In my state you have to be qualified as an unarmed security officer before you can become an armed one. So that is sort of a duel registration. But then there is the whole other level of Special Conservators of the Peace. These are armed or unarmed Private Police.

    Leave a comment:

  • Charger
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    Surprised. I prefer states where the "armed" license is actually a permit to carry an exposed weapon, and not a "guard registration," like the unarmed is.

    I've never seen a state where you have an "Armed Guard" license, usually its a "Guard License," which allows you to work, then a exposed firearms which allows you to carry a gun.
    In the PNW (OR and WA at least) they are separate certifications/courses, with a test at the end of each one.. Someone who is a certified unarmed S/O, for example, CANNOT carry a firearm on duty. On the flip side, you MUST complete the unarmed certifications before they will allow you to do the armed 'upgrade' to the license. So if you have the armed certification, (once you receive the new card), you can file away the unarmed license as you don't need to carry both on you at once. (In fact, OR has gone one step further now, in that when you upgrade they send you a replacement that specifically says "Unarmed/Armed" on it, rendering your unarmed one obsolete.) The one bright side to the process is that the armed cards usually don't take as long for the state to process/send, because the background checks have already been done when you got your unarmed card.

    The armed licenses say nothing on them about exposed weapons, but it's basically implied.

    The question of who can work what site is usually decided by the client/insurance companies... Some clients hire the company for unarmed work, but have no problems with armed guards filling in from time to time. Some clients strictly want unarmed guards. Having the armed card gives you the freedom to work both as your employer/clients see fit.
    Last edited by Charger; 08-01-2007, 09:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • HotelSecurity
    I am unlicensed & unregulated. (I'm In-House). It doesn't mean the public is unprotected, they can still sue me & my employer.

    BTW the new Quebec law that was passed but not yet enacted says I will have to be licensed.

    Leave a comment:

  • ycaso77
    My state has the 40 hour "guard" card for unarmed, and for armed you need an additional pistol license to carry a weapon as a security officer.

    Leave a comment:

  • N. A. Corbier
    Surprised. I prefer states where the "armed" license is actually a permit to carry an exposed weapon, and not a "guard registration," like the unarmed is.

    I've never seen a state where you have an "Armed Guard" license, usually its a "Guard License," which allows you to work, then a exposed firearms which allows you to carry a gun.

    Leave a comment:

  • does your state require you to have two licenses

    I am dually licensed as an armed and unarmed guard, my state requires a license for both type of sites (I.E. armed guard can not worked unarmed posts )

    but there is some legislation to try to change that, whats your opinion

    58-63-102(2) & 58-63-501(3) The Division received an email regarding the intent
    of Utah Code §58-63-102(2) and 58-63-501(3). The
    email questioned if an armed security officer can
    work as an unarmed security officer, without
    holding an unarmed security officer license. Mr.
    Ormond explained that 58-63-501(3) states
    “Unlawful conduct includes practicing or engaging
    in, or attempting to practice or engage in activity for
    which a license is required under this chapter,
    unless the individual:
    a. Holds the appropriate license under this
    Mr. Ormond further explained that it is unlawful for
    an armed officer to work as an unarmed officer
    without holding both licenses.
    Mr. Waters commented that due to the additional
    training that an armed officer undergoes they should
    be entitled to stand either post. Mr. Anderton stated
    that since this profession was initially licensed, it
    has been assumed that an armed officer could stand
    an unarmed post. He then added that in his opinion
    that only half of the currently licensed armed
    officers stand an armed post, he then suggested that
    the Division should allow this practice. Mr. Ormond
    commented that to allow this practice would require
    a Statute change.
    Mr. Waters commented that the issue would depend
    on if the armed officer was working an unarmed
    post with or without a weapon. If the officer has
    access to a weapon, it should be an issue. However,
    if the officer does not have access to a weapon it
    should not be an issue. Ms. McGregor stated that
    the liability to the company could be huge if this
    situation arose. She then stated that she felt a statute
    change should occur, adding a stipulation that
    would allow this only if the officer does not have
    access to a weapon. Ms. McGregor then questioned
    Security Services Licensing Board
    February 8, 2007
    Page 7 of 9
    Mr. Anderton, if this situation has occurred in the
    past. Mr. Anderton stated “No”, but if it did the
    officer would be terminated from his company. Mr.
    Adams agreed stating that even if an unarmed
    officer has a Concealed Carry Permit, the officer
    would be terminated if they had access to their
    weapon while on duty.
    Mr. Rothe commented that to require officers to
    hold two or three licenses was not acceptable, due
    to the amount of money they make, and the cost
    involved. Mr. Merchant, Mr. Waters and Ms.
    McGregor agreed, stating that the Division should
    find a way to reduce the fees instead of adding fees.
    Mr. Waters then suggested licensing this profession
    similar to a Peace Officer:
    1. Unarmed – can only stand an unarmed post;
    2. Armed – can stand either an armed or unarmed
    3. Unarmed Armored Car – can stand an unarmed
    post or as unarmed armored car; and
    4. Armed Armored Car – can stand any post, and
    unarmed or armed armored car.
    Ms. McGregor expressed her approval of this idea,
    adding that strict guidelines would need to be
    Mr. Ormond commented that 58-63-304 seams to
    imply that a Peace Officer does not need to be
    licensed as a security officer, qualifying agent, or as
    a Contract Security Company. Mr. McCoy and Mr.
    Merchant stated that several police agencies allow
    there off duty Peace Officers to work Security.
    However, the police agency does not allow their
    equipment to be utilized while the Peace Officer is
    working as a security officer.
    Mr. Ormond stated that 58-63-301 and 58-63-304
    might also need to be reviewed, and that a section
    concerning concealed weapons permits, might need
    to be added. Mr. Anderton agreed, stating that he
    would look into the suggested changes.
    Mr. Anderton stated that at the 2008 legislative
    session the profession could propose a
    “Housekeeping” bill to clear up this issue and any
    Security Services Licensing Board
    February 8, 2007
    Page 8 of 9
    other discrepancies with the current statute. Mr.
    Ormond agreed, suggesting waiting until the 2008
    legislative session to ensure that all issues are
    addressed. Mr. Waters expressed a concern with the
    changes not being made soon. Due to the cost
    involved if a Security Officer must hold both an
    unarmed and an armed license, this would require
    an additional $99.00 per license. Mr. Ormond
    agreed, and then explained how the fee is allocated
    once received by this Division.
    Mr. Young then reminded the Board that if HB181
    passes the licenses and training will change for
    contact security and armored car. Mr. Ormond
    agreed, stating that there will need to be changes to
    the training requirements.