Virginia Regulatory Town Hall View Comments

Department of Criminal Justice Services

Department of Criminal Justice Services

Regulations Relating to Private Security Services [6 VAC 20 ‑ 171]

Action	Comprehensive Review Private Security Services Regulations
Stage	Proposed
Comment Period	Ended on 6/10/2010

Previous Comment Next Comment Back to List of Comments

3/19/10 8:28 am

Commenter: B.E. McCrory Jr

Response to Draft Regs

This is my response to the proposed regulation changes that I have read and reread several times. I am really confused as to why DCJS has decided that the industry needs more and more requirements and regulations especially since times are hard and from what I can read this is going to reduce the number of businesses, schools and instructors. With all of these new requirements, it is going to take a enormous amount of enforcement – enforcement that DCJS cannot seem to currently provide because they are short-handed – so how does DCJS propose to meet the new needs? How can DCJS meet those added requirements for enforcement when there is a hiring freeze?

The first thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is that there are several areas (example: pg. 33 #8) where DCJS has decided to change having to report convictions to arrests. First and foremost the Code of Virginia pertaining to private security does not allow for arrests to be reported only convictions. I thought the regulations had to match the Code and therefore, this reporting change would require a change in the Code.

The area that seems to have attracted the most attention is regarding schools and instructors. What is broken about the current system? Surely DCJS is not just changing it because it has been a while since there have been changes. What are schools doing wrong that is harming the students or the community currently?

Another part of the proposed regulations changes that it is hard to understand is how DCJS thinks they can start putting a requirement for grading practical exercises. Practical exercises are just that exercises and they are either pass or fail. Why the requirement to add a test to practical exercises that they either passed or failed?

Again, there are several places that DCJS has added unnecessary and perhaps illegal requirements. For example, on page 44 #12 it says that one cannot refuse to cooperate with an investigation being conducted by the department. What about the Fifth Amendment? Has this change been authorized by the Attorney General? On the same page #14 what does this mean? Is it not covered by having to report arrests? Leave it out.

I also want to again voice my opposition to the new requirement that forces training schools to report failures on the range portion of firearm endorsement renewals before the registrant’s current registration expires. If they fail, then the reputable schools will not send in the renewal paperwork or report them as having passed.

On page 45 #7, DCJS wants to change “carry” to “be in possession”. What does be in possession mean? DCJS needs to define that term so that it is not left up to the discretion and possible differences of opinions as to that definition within the Department.

Page 47, 48 and 49 have 10E added in. Two hours is not enough time to discuss the Code and Regulations in general for all of the different categories of registrants. There was not enough time at the symposium to discuss the proposed changes. Each different category needs the Code and Regulations tailored to their category and what DCJS is proposing does not allow for that. I suggest that DCJS should leave the required hours alone and allow the instructors some leeway to teach the Code and Regulations correctly. Also, on page 3 under “job-related training” it states that certifiable job training may include a maximum of one hour of instruction dedicated to the review of regulations. Is that not a part of Legal Authority? If it is not, then how in the world does DCJS expect any instructor to be able to teach the regulations in one hour?

What is the difference between firearms endorsement and firearms training verification? Obviously, if DCJS issues a firearm endorsement then the registrant has passed the training and if a school sent in the paperwork that the student passed, isn’t that verification? Isn’t the endorsement verification?

If there are a few training schools or instructors not following the regulations and requirements, why punish the schools and instructors that do? Enforcement is the answer not more regulations. If a school or an instructor is not competent, then why allow them to continue? Focus on enforcement not more regulations.

There are also several areas where DCJS has added found guilty right after it says convicted. What is the difference? Why have both? It is redundant.

Last but certainly not least, on page 29 #10 DCJS has added “Ensure that regulated employees of the business have not been” convicted or found guilty – how does DCJS propose the business ensure this? Is DCJS trying to require businesses to run criminal background checks on their employees daily? How else can they ensure that? If DCJS is going to hold the business liable who is going to do all of the enforcement when an employee slips by? Isn’t this covered under the requirement for all registrants and certified members of the industry being required to report all convictions within ten (10) days?

CommentID: 13515