J.C. St. John— DCJS ASO, PPS, PI, Instructor (ASO, PPS, Firearms), NRA LE Firearms Instructor, freelance writer, paralegal, M.A. Security Management. Contact: jcstjohn@yahoo.com.

 

First, these comments are mostly about the proposed changes only. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more to be said about other issues that have been raised and changes that could be made. There is. But you have to draw the line somewhere. So, these comments focus only on the specific changes introduced in this set of proposed regulations.

 

Second, there are a lot of changes that could be made. But I think it’s important to point out that the existing regulations didn’t pop up out of thin air. Many before us surely worked hard to give us a good regulatory system that protects the interests of the public at large while not overly burdening and stifling the private security services industry. Changes should be compelling and fit in with the overall plan in use.

 

And third, change isn’t good merely for the sake of change. Thousands of labor hours have been spent by businesses (and individuals) all over the Commonwealth to conform to the PSS regulations as they stand. Before anyone is required to retool their compliance and curriculum, there should be a compelling reason to make the changes that have been proposed. And the changes should be improvements if they’re to be made at all.

 

I speak to specifics below:

 

“Classroom training” does not adequately define the setting—especially where it applies to the changes to 6VAC20-171-300(D)(12) (“no live ammunition permitted in the classroom”). Under this proposed definition, training conducted on a firing range would be classroom training. I would suggest: “Classroom” and “classroom training” mean the location and type of any instruction provided in person to students through the organized plan of a private security services training school in any training environment in which no live ammunition is present and no live-fire exercises will be conducted.   

“Combat loading” has been deleted, but the activity is still addressed in the training and qualification material for the shotgun. Either this means that the term is easily understood without a definition (which begs the question about why it is defined—imprecisely—in the current regulations) or that the requirement is no longer relevant. Is it now a matter of interpretation for training schools?

 I would suggest:

6VAC20-171-100(C) (on regulatory compliance). (Also 6VAC20-171-111.) I strongly object to these sections. Regulatory compliance is the job of Compliance Agents and the Training Directors. Instructors teach classes on specific categories—none of which are currently regulatory compliance. It’s up to the Training Director to ensure that regulatory compliance has been met in regards to training. While it’s true that some aspects of PSS regulations are part of the courses all instructors teach, the regulatory compliance subject matter should be included in the General Instructor Development course already required by DCJS of instructors (and included in subsequent in-service training). If the GID course lacks appropriate instruction on regulatory compliance, then that course curriculum should be modified to account for the supposed need. Adding a regulatory compliance course for instructors is simply an example of regulatory over-reach when the instructor is already required to take a DCJS course to become an instructor.

 

6VAC20-171-180(F) and (H) (on reinstatement). My understanding is that the jurisdiction of DCJS is over the conduct of regulated private security services activities—whether or not a person submits to the department’s regulation through application, licensure, registration, certification, or otherwise. Any person attempting to conduct regulated private security services falls under the department’s jurisdiction simply because they have attempted to or have actually engaged in the regulated activity. (DCJS would have no jurisdiction if the activities were not those regulated.) Yet, this section states “Therefore, the applicant shall remain under the disciplinary authority of the department during this entire period and may be held accountable for his activities during this period.” This language gives potential rise to an interpretation that the department somehow doesn’t have such authority already. Avoid such an interpretation. Delete that portion of the regulation. Keep (H) and add to the end of it “…or otherwise as allowed by law and this chapter.”

6VAC20-171-220 (A)(15) (on reporting discharge of firearm).   Changing “the” to “an” isn’t enough to fix this provision. I would also suggest the following rewording: “… submit a report of any incident in which any person working for the licensee has discharged a firearm while on duty. This section does not apply to the discharge of a firearm for live-fire training exercises or firearms qualifications conducted at a bona fide firing range except where injury to a person results.”

 

 

6VAC20-171-300(D)(12) (on live ammunition in the classroom). See also the definition of “classroom” and “classroom training” above. This proposed provision is too vague. I would suggest: “Live ammunition, pyrotechnics, and explosives are not to be utilized or otherwise present in any training environment except on a firing range approved by the department.” 

 

6VAC20-171-350 (on entry-level training). 

At 6VAC20-171-350 (D)(3)(…) “The seven signs of terrorism” appears to be out of order in the outline as it is numbered “(1).” I would also object to this phraseology and the specific inclusion of this particular threat to the exclusion of other threat types (many far more probable). All private security registrants are faced with more probable threats of equal or greater consequence (resulting in loss of property or death). Any “x number of signs of anything” is a purely arbitrary construct that should not be included in a general outline from a regulatory body. This subject appears again at (D)(1)(a)((4)), (D)(5)(a)((5)), (D)(6)(a)(out of order in the outline), (D)(7)(a)((3)), (D)(11)(1)((5)). All should be replaced. I would suggest “Typical threats faced by the private security services registrant” instead of focusing on so called “terrorism”—a concept that is usually defined by particular government agencies to suit their particular mission. Terrorism certainly should be covered—but so should other threat types as well.

 

6VAC20-171-360 (on in-service training). At (B)(2), at (B)(3), and at (B)(6) “not including range retraining” should be “not including firearms retraining.” The regulations (particularly at 6VAC20-171-400 on “firearms retraining”) generally do not refer to “range retraining.”

 

For 6VAC20-171-375(1)(f): Subsection “f” is under “handgun classroom training” and specifies “classroom/range.” This should be rephrased to avoid confusion and specify that classroom “simunition” or simulation training is acceptable (if it is) or that live-fire judgmental shooting exercises may be conducted on a firing range. The designation “classroom/range” should not be used when the subject is “shooting,” and it should not be under a broader heading of “classroom training.”

 

I speak to the issue of firearms training generally because there are too many line-item references to specify. The changes I suggest here would have to be applied in several sections.

 

The proposed changes to firearms training do not make for a better schema than currently exists—though the ideas behind the changes do seem to be well-intentioned. These proposed changes shouldn’t be allowed to go forward because there are better ways to improve on the existing regulations.

 

Some of the problems are as follows:

Previously, the armed PPS registrant who also maintained an armed security officer registration could use advanced handgun for the firearms endorsement for both. That no longer appears to be the case. The “security officer handgun” would now be a longer course than the “advanced handgun” and I find no mention that completing the advanced course would supersede the need to complete the security officer handgun course. (That applies both for initial training and retraining.) Additionally, the armed PPS registrant (with “entry-level” and advanced handgun completed) wanting to add the Patrol Rifle firearms endorsement would apparently be required to successfully complete the Security Officer Handgun course first. Apparently, “advanced” isn’t actually so advanced.

 

Some form of basic handgun training should be required of all armed registrants. That works. And having some handgun training be prerequisite for shotgun training makes sense as well. The armed security officer and the PPS are required to have more than basic handgun training. So far, so good. However, naming that basic training “entry-level” is inaccurate—a misnomer—since the vast majority of registrants (all but ASOs and PPSs) are never required to exceed that level of training. (The same goes for shotgun and patrol rifle—where there is no required training at a subsequent level.)

 

And after that, I’m confused. An intermediate level of training (“security officer handgun”) has been added, yet even where the exact same topics are covered as in the “entry-level” handgun, security officer handgun doesn’t work as a pre-requisite for advanced handgun? And as has previously been the case, does the advanced handgun fulfill the firearms endorsement requirement for the armed security officer?  Because it should. The nomenclature should be consistent and logical, and so should any progression and pre-requisites. 

 

I would suggest the following—and I’d be willing to work up the language for this at some future date: The nomenclature for the levels of handgun training should be “basic,” “intermediate,” and “advanced.”  (This works with the currently proposed definition for “entry-level,” doesn’t depart from the existing regulatory schema, and it also makes sense.) Armed security officers would be required to have successfully completed at least intermediate handgun training. Armed PPSs would be required to have successfully completed advanced handgun training. All other registrants would require only the basic handgun training—if they sought to have the armed (firearms) endorsement. The prerequisite for advanced handgun training (regardless of registrant category) would be intermediate handgun training. The prerequisite for the shotgun would be at least basic handgun training. The prerequisite for the patrol rifle would be at least intermediate handgun training. The nomenclature of “entry-level” would be eliminated for firearms training (not other registrant categories) and continue to be “basic” and (now) “intermediate.”

 

Some additional topics might need to be added to the advanced handgun retraining course to make it “superior” to the intermediate course retraining.  

 

I also note here that the outline for the 16-hour “entry-level handgun” and the outline for the 24-hour “security officer handgun” appear to differ only marginally. The “security officer handgun” adds a topic on liability (“negligent discharge prevention”) and “judgmental shooting.” Does this mean that the additional 8 hours would be used just for those two topics? This seems unlikely. The expected curriculum and hours should be revised so that the overall time required is commensurate with the subject matter offered. If the topics covered in the “entry-level” course can be covered in 16 hours, then additional material should be required beyond what is now included for the “security officer handgun” course to account for the additional 8 hours of training.

 

On the so called “range qualifications”:  Requiring “familiarization” firing as part of the “range qualification” is inconsistent with most firearms training methodology. Qualification shoots are not training exercises, they are assessments.  As such, “familiarization” firing should not be part of the “range qualification” section of the regulations. Training schools should be required to provide live-fire exercises as part of a firearms course, but (aside from it not belonging as part of the qualification course of fire) “22” rounds (as required in the “entry-level handgun training”) probably isn’t adequate for that purpose.  However, unless it becomes a problem, training schools should have the flexibility to teach the firing range portion (exact exercises, numbers of live rounds used, etc.) as they see fit.

 

Each firearm course regulatory section should include a portion that (like “Handgun classroom training” that begins the outline) delineates “Firing Range training” even if briefly. A separate section on “Range qualification” should specify the course of fire to qualify. (As such, each firearm regulation would have three main sections: A. Classroom Training, B. Firing Range Training, and C. Range Qualification.)

 

Summary on Firearms issues:

There are just too many issues with the proposed firearms changes to allow them to go through. They’d need fixing before the ink was dry. Better to rework them and try again.