Comments on revised regulations 6VAC 20 171 Regulations relating to Private Security Services.

General comments:

Please understand, I believe the only legitimate purpose of the Government and it's Regulations is to protect the public and insure orderly conduct, and do no harm. Most of our regulations seem to be to limit competition and insure income to specific sectors. Training is a prime example of both issues. To establish a PI Business I had to take weeks of training to become a Registered PI, then training to be a Compliance Agent (this was useful because it covered VA Regulations), had to establish a Virginia  LLC, and Register it with DCJS, (this is OK as it allows control and legitimacy to the company but the cost is extraordinarily high $50 a year with the State, and $800 for 2 years with DCJS) and then to enhance my credentials, I took the training to become a Certified Instructor, in both PI and Firearms. Each of these categories require recurring training which is largely of poor quality and useless to practitioners. The recurring fees and training cost us money and time. Additional proposed training requirements are even more excessive in my opinion.

Upon entering the industry it quickly became apparent that the "old timers" had determined the easiest way to make money was to provide training - and to use the DCJS as a vehicle to require more and more training. For my one-man business I have to keep a spreadsheet just to comply! Now proposed Regulations now require Firearms instructors to qualify and score 85% in Semi auto and revolver handguns, shotgun, and rifle? How many football coaches can kick, run, and block with the best players, and we are not coaches, but trainers? There is little or no relationship between teaching and doing. (I have taught internationally at University of Maryland and other adult continuing education organizations for many years and know what instruction/imparting knowledge is all about). This requirement is all about providing income to training organizations - and they cost - $75 or more for each firearms retraining course, and about 20 to 30 dollars for ammo for each (a total of $400?).  For what purpose? I am also an NRA Firearms Instructor and we do not have such a requirement! I heard we were reducing the ammo required to one box (50) but in reviewing the revised reg, it seems to actually require more.

The proposal to provide one card for both Registration and Firearms Carry, on the surface this seems to make sense, BUT - not counting different end dates for each – but DCJS has started to put a red border on the card, and a large print “ARMED” stamped visibly flagging you as carrying a firearm. First, having a card to carry does not mean you can or are carrying. Your employer must also proved a letter of authorization. And you must be on duty. The rest of the time I carry with my Concealed Carry Permit which is a prerequisite, but independent of DCJS.  Why is it not a good idea? First take Expert Witness Testimony - it is likely you will have to show your PI/Security Registration Card to establish credibility. This red border, and obvious Red Armed Notice immediately takes the testimony and your credibility on a torturous path and may be unrelated to your testimony. How about just being in a car/van watching someone in a neighborhood while unarmed. The local police are called, and you produce your card - all red flagged - now you are unnecessarily explaining not being armed, possibly searched and your cover blown. Or interviewing a little old lady and showing her your card – “OH you have a gun!” in a terrified voice – good lead in to the interview. This reminds me of, and may be related to, my recent Army Active Duty in Iraq. We were all armed, but most of us had to unload upon entering a post/facility. However, some Active Duty and Civilians had a red border on their card which meant they were "HOT" all the time. Possibly this idea originated with one of them who came back?

How about the requirement to keep records as long as you are in business? Even the IRS does not require this.

If you do not consider anything else I have said, please provide an automatic exception for our military members, - just as their driver's license is good for as long as they are stationed out of Virginia and for a grace period when they return, so should be all of their DCJS credentials without requiring any entry level retraining. I saw too many Soldiers and Marines eat bullets/IEDs for us to have their ability to make a living when they return taken away because of bureaucratic regulations.  Let’s face it, about 90% of Private Security (DCJS) is simply a make work empire building organization, that does nothing to protect the public, or does so at an astronomical cost.

How about putting your license number on certain "advertising?" Good business? Sure, but cause for punitive action by DCJS? In reality I think not! We are largely a self-regulated industry - when a new firm shows up in the yellow pages or on the internet, all others in the area will check the DCJS directory to see if they are legitimate, and report them if they are not!

Most of the issues I noted above are either to benefit segments of the industry at the cost of the rest of us, or "gotchas" - things you can put the ruler to our knuckles for not doing, but which have no other purpose, or just because "we can," but all do limit competition. 

DCJS refuses to publish infractions. So I must believe there are none. This logically and rationally tells me to question the purpose for DCJS, the hoops I must jump through, or the fees I must pay.

I understand Bouncers are now covered, but I couldn’t find any reference to them in the draft.

Now for specific references: (reference the draft distributed by section and page number.
 

6VAC20-171-110, P. 19/80 – Para B 1&2– requires in-service training in the last 1`2 months of each 2 year period – this is consistent throughout the reg. for all categories.  I hold national credentials in specific disciplines, and they either require qualifying training in a 2 year period, or per year. 
 

Para D 6, requires Firearms Instructors to qualify at 85% - except for those instructors working full time and having company facilities and ammo and paid time provided, I suspect most others will have to drop their instructor certification.
 

Para D 6 a, b, and c require qualification with all weapons.
 

As noted above, trainers do not have to be able to perform – besides the above sports example,  almost all other instructors, teachers, and coaches are not required and do not perfrom at top levels in their field – because there is no relationship between knowing how to do something and being able to teach it with being able to perform.

6VAC20-171-135, P. 25/80 – Para E – Requiring Range requalification in the last 120 days of an endorsement period is especially onerouis and unrelated to checking a person’s ability to shoot properly. THIS REQUIREMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
 

6VAC20-171-200, P. 28/80, Para D – last phrase “or other just cause” is too vague and can easily be selectively use to deny licenses.

6VAC20-171-290, P. 43/80, Para B10/11 – Scores of 92% and 85% are not reasonable, and exceed both most police and military standards. We are not Swat Team Snipers!  I am sure they will eliminate most registrants, and have no justification except that the Board Members who inserted them are marksmen. 
 

6VAC20-171-3400 P. 76/80 – this whole section is confusing – it took me several readings to figure out you are referring us back to entry level training for the course of fire. I complained about the amount of ammo required – why not one box of 50 rounds? I was told it had been reduced, but I cannot see that it has.  In my general into statement about costs was too low, add one additional box of ammo for each class weapon at about $25 each, or an additional $100.   Since we are up to 80m pages now, an additional page or two, completely stating tyeh requirement for in-service range qualification here would not be unreasonable, and would eliminate any confusion – the previous text is not devoid of repetition.