Nice job by DCJS. Good to see a patrol rifle qualification section added and the changes to the pistol qualification. The two year renewal is a welcome addition. Good addition as well with the non-impact weapons and less than lethal force.

The security industry in the Commonwealth should be studied and a transformational process can occur similar to the one that happened in the military.All aspects of armed/unarmed pay,benefits training etc. needs to be examined in some way to transform the Commonwealths Security forces into a twenty first century transformed industry.

Mandatory retraining for armed security officers should stay the same at this time due to challenging economic conditions.Officers are considered registrants so the cost of retraining can and will be placed on the officer when companies are trying to save money.That means the officer could miss a day of pay,pay for class time and any range fees if they go to a private range plus they would have to pay for the state registration fee.

However, security schools could offer an active shooter training course similar to what police use to train their officers.This course could be offered as an elective for the officer.

The proposed regulations look great. There needs to definitions for firearms added though because we have now entered into slinged carry abd i am not sure that everyone will have the same understanding. So rather than DCJS dealing with that later, they should address it now to keep down the potential arguments over what is slinged carry. While doing this of course, it is just convenient to add the other firearms defintions. I would also like to see a change to the In service alternative training credits from 12 months to 24 months for PSS because as i have had personal issues with this i would be losing out on counting some very excellent training. All in all, DCJS is on the ball as usual.

James Darrington

I object to the cut and paste method used by DCJS in reference to Locksmiths. While I agree locksmiths should be regulated, our services are entirely different to security, law enforcement and private investigators. The fact that there is not enough personal experience, if any at all, in the DCJS with a locksmith background is rediculous. Hence the cut and paste. While quick decision to regulate locksmiths is commendable, instituting policy without proper consideration is objectionable and reckless. Since when have goverment buerocrats had any clue what the real world is like when regulating an industry. Case in point: inspectors. How much industry experience is required to become an electrical, plumbing, etc. inspector? Answer: little to none. Completion of a basic and short "class" is usually it. To start maybe you should employ at least 1-2 people experienced in this field before you continue. My specific objections are:

1. Exemption of Contractors, etc.  If they perform the same services detailed in the locksmith section why are they exempted. Liscensing and compliance is expensive to a business. exempting entities because they are already regulated by another agency is MORONIC! NEED I SAY MORE?

2. Firearms while on duty. The right of self defense and bearing of arms is protected by the United States Constitution i.e. The Second Admendment. Maybe you've heard of it. Since we are not advertising or implying armed security any regulation banning carrying of firearms concealed or otherwise is UNCOSTITUTIONAL! As a locksmith we encounter situations which could threaten our personal safety. For instace, rekeying a property. How is this dangerous you ask? What if the former tenant, love interest, or forclosed property owner return armed and in an aggitated mentality looking for "justified" retribution? I should be able to defend myself as gauranteed in the Constitution without having to jump through circus hoops of some govermnet agency. Public safety is not an issue here. Personal safety is.

Its nice to know that DCJS done doing a great job. training in mma

Why VA DCJS still don't have ID Cards for the Instructors? All other States do! What about to adto the current ID Card?

I recently read the proposed changes to armed security officers qualification.  I am surprised and upset that the course has changed. The officers are given more hours to train (24 vs 14) and are required to shoot less for qualification (50 rounds vs 60 rounds).  We want more proficiency not less.

The officers are required to wait to be told to holster their firearm. Why? In real situations an officer should scan and re-assess his/her need to shoot again. Officer survival depends on this. If we allow instructors to lead them into holstering their firearm, in a real situation these officers will not think about scanning or re-assessing their situation.

I totally agree with extending time requirements for recertification from 2 hours to 4. The need is there.

T

Robert Frydrych

Roanoke Va.

Locksmith

                           Economic Impact Analysis Nov. 7, 2009 Ref; 6 VAC 20-171

Page 3 of D.C.J.S. response

D.C.J.S. reports that the legislature recently required registration of locksmiths in order to protect the public “from incompetent or unqualified persons” who were in the locksmith trade. To the extent that regulation achieves this goal, the public will benefit from locksmiths being required to register. Locksmiths who choose to become registered will benefit from likely decrease in the number of individuals who practice this trade in direct competition with them. It is not entirely clear that these benefits outweigh the cost, both direct and indirect, that will be accrued by licensed locksmith businesses and registered locksmiths. Direct costs include fees for licensure and/or registration and fees for classes. Indirect costs include the value of time spent attending classes and studying for and taking exams. In particular, the costs of business licensure may prove too onerous for some single proprietor locksmiths. The number of individuals who work as locksmith is very likely to fall on account of licensure requirements.

The use of the word onerous when referring to signally owned businesses was very appropriate, because it points to the fact that this law has become a burden to the majority of the locksmiths in this trade because most are one or two person shops. The burden has not come from the intent of the law but from the D.C.J.S regulations that has not created a completely separate category of regulations for the industry

The reference to locksmiths being incompetent or unqualified tradesmen and the public needs to be protected from them and this regulation will do that is preposterous. The fact is that D.C.J.S. has now made it easy for unqualified persons to obtain a license than it was before the law was past. We now have for the sake of money given classes on how to bump a lock to enter homes and property and they can now advertise that they are locksmiths, this is incompetent and unqualified and licensed by the same state agency sworn to protect the public.

                The law should not be helping big business to get bigger at the cost of reducing small business that can operate at a lower cost to the consumer.           

ype over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

Code of Virginia 9.1-138  Under definitions:                                                                                       “Business advertising material” means display advertisements in telephone directories, letterhead, business cards, local newspaper advertising and contracts.                                                                                                                                                                           I see nothing in the law that protect the public by allowing an individual to have a one or two line ad in the yellow page under locksmith with no physical address nor a D.C.J.S. number, this also allows a none licensed person to perform locksmith services. The lack of clarity shows signs of discrimination towards other businesses and puts them at a disadvantage.                                          _______________________________________________________________                           Code of Virginia; 9.1-138 definition:                                                                                                                      Employed” means to be in an employer/employee relationship where the employee is providing work in exchange for compensation and the employer directly controls the employee’s conduct and pays some taxes on behalf of the employee.( The term “employed” shall not be construed to include independent contractors.)

6 VAC 20-171-230.                                                                                                                                                  5. Not contract or subcontract any private security services in the Commonwealth of Virginia to a person not licensed by the department. Verification of a contractor’s or subcontractor’s license issued by the department shall be maintained for a period of not less than three years.

            6 VAC 20-171-230     appears to be in direct conflict with the definition section above 6 VAC 20 9.1-138                                                                                                      _________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                                                 6 VAC 20-171-230 Code of Conduct                                                                                                                 20. Not provide information obtained by the firm or its employees to any person other than the client who secured the services of the licensee without the client’s prior written consent. Provision of information in response to official requests from law-enforcement agencies, the courts, or the department shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. Provision of information to law-enforcement agencies pertinent to criminal activity or to planned criminal activity shall not constitute a violation of this chapter.

This code and the one previously (5) are not conducive to the locksmith industry or any retail service business because it interferes with the free market place and interstate commerce. This locksmith business requires the need and skills of other tradesman to provide the necessary service to our customers when the time frame is very important to their safety.                                                                                                                                  Item 20 would led me to believe that you have just thrown out the long standing rule of law known as verbal contract which most retail and services business needs to survive. These regulations are a burden to the industry.                          ____________________________________________________________           

I feel that the education/experience requirments for Compliance Agent eligibility need to be broadened or allow more judgement by DCJS when it comes to "related" experience. There are many like myself who wish to attain Compliance Agent that have non Military or non Law Enforcement experience in the areas concerning Compliance Agents. Topics of records retention, record security, audit trails, complaince to codes and regulations that affect indiviuals and entities etc.. The current limitations of the wording of the code make it far too difficult for those that may have "related" or otherwise applicable experience but possibly in a corporate or Government setting that do not directly entail Security, law Enforcement etc.. I think consideration also should be given for other DCJS Licensees such as Bail Enforcement Agents. Another potential compromise would be must less restricted requirements for those wishing to be a Compliance Agent just for their own company and would be able to obtain the Compliance Agent that would restrict them to ONLY their own company.

I feel the current requirement concerning rounds fired should be reduced to 50 (1 box). Not only is the current and proposed change to the number of rounds place an additional expense burden on people, I feel each individual should be able to hit accpetable score levels within one box of ammo (assuming the scoring is in line with current goal but based on 50 rounds). Also the increase to 20 rounds for Shotgun is more than double the current requirement and will place a much more physical affect on the individual from that many rounds of recoil in one sitting. Maybe a more reasonable next step would be to go to 10 rounds, thats double the current requirement.

In this digital age, I think it is worth DCJS to research and build into the system the option for some of the In Service training to be done online rather than having to physically sit in a classroom. There are many vendors out there that provide this type of training for areas such as Private Investigations that could fufill this need and give people more options. This is not an edorsement in any way but I am aware of one that I looked into or myself that APPEARS to be solid (Pieducation.com through the folks at Pursuit Magazine).

My sole point is expanding the approved In Service training to allow for online courses.

Renewals prior to a month before expiration do not work online even though the regulations say up to a year can be done. The Watson system says I expire in July but In March I cannot submit the renewal for 35I & 39I.

After reviewing the proposed changes to 6 VAC 20-171, I want to provide the following comments:

6 VAC 20-171-10 Definitions.  Include a definition of "Related Field" as it is used in determining qualifications for business licenses, compliance agent certification, etc.  In the definition, it would be useful for the department to identify several examples of just what a "related field" is.  More examples would be better than few examples.

6 VAC 20-171-20D Adds a $20.00 fee to applications not made on line.  Someone needs to tell registrants that they need to sign up for WATSON on line.  Perhaps it would be nice if DCJS automatically provided new registrants with a WATSON pin when they become registered and get their temporary authorization letter.  Also include the reason that WATSON is a good idea to learn and use.

6 VAC 20-171-30 Fingerprints.  If an applicant has committed a criminal offense they must complete the criminal history form and return it with the fingerprint processing application.  Given that many potential registrants do not have funds they can afford to spend in the hopes that their criminal convictions do not disqualify them, it would be useful for DCJS to establish a process by which applicants may provide information to the department and determine if their criminal conviction will disqualify them before they send the non-refundable fee to the department.  Email would work.

6 VAC 20-171-170 - The title still reflects use of the term "Letter" when that term is lined through below and "Card" is used to replace it.  Consistency suggests that "letter" be dropped and card used instead throughout the text.

Addition of "10E" instruction.  The proposed 2 hours for DCJS regulation indoctrination and education is a good idea, but,  2 hours is too short to adequately cover the material.  I suggest 4 hours. The idea is great to have a one time course covering the regulations, but for schools to teach it in the classroom, I'm not sure that is will be practical.  On-line instruction for this subject provided by DCJS would be more suitable and make it easier on students and schools as far as completion and scheduling.  Have the course on-line, students complete it and print the certification of completion, bring it to the school where they attend their training and it's done.

Three key points for your consideration.

1. By your own statements  in the proposed regulation changes, attrition will or is taking place in our industry, by your hand. However, you then go on to say there is no impact from this. The state and the localities, and not to mention individuals( as if you care) are vastly impacted by this. Loss of revenue generated from sales/use taxes thru payroll taxes and then ultimately the burden of the state paying for no less than unemployment benefits of those effected, vastly start to enhance the current economic problem we are facing now.

2. THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T CARE ABOUT LICENSES ,THEY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES. And they will do what ever they want to. THEY ARE THE CONSUMERS! WANT TO REGULATE THEM?

When the local police departments do not care about or know about "UNLICENSED ENTITIES" performing alarm or locksmith jobs in thier jurisdictions (which is supposed to be a class 1 misd.) how do you expect a property manager or facilities person to care?

3. THIER IS A SIMPLY EASY WAY TO DO THIS.

ANY PERSON(S) WHO IS IN POSSESION OF LOCKSMITH TOOLS OR PERFORMS LOCKSMITH TASKS ( AS DEFINED AS AND IN WHEREVER YOU NEED TO) IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MUST BE REGISTERED WITH THE VA DCJS. FINGERPRINTS AND REGISTRATIONS ARE INDIVIDUAL IN NATURE AND RENEWABLE EVERY TWO YEARS. INDIVIDUALS WILL BE DENIED REGISTRATION IF THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFINITIONS FOUND IN ( AS DEFINED AS AND IN WHEREVER YOU NEED TO ) PENALTY; ANY PERSON(S) FOUND IN THE COMMONWEALTH TO BE IN POSSESION OF LOCKSMITH TOOLS OR PERFORMING LOCKSMITH TASKS WITHOUT A VALID VA DCJS REGISTRATION WILL FACE A CLASS 5 FELONY! 

THIS MY FRIEND WILL HAVE SOME TEETH COLLECT EVERYBODY AND GENERATE REVENUE!

CURRENTLY THE DCJS MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE VA CONSTITION AND THE US CONSTITION! IF WE ARE NOT RECIEVING FULL VALUE, WHICH MEANS ADDITIONAL DCJS PERSONELL TO COVER US (LOCKSMITHS) THE CURRENT LOCKSMITH LAW IS THEN BY RULE DEEMED AN UNFAIR TAX BY BOTH CONSTITIONS.

THOSE WHO CAN DO! THOSE WHO CAN'T TRY AND REGULATE THOSE WHO DO!

1. It appears that the Fundamental Handgun Training course requires a written exam but no live fire.   Live fire is equally if not more important than a written exam.
2. The creation of another Firearms Training Catagory (Fundamental Handgun Training) is creating an dublication of effort.  The Basic Handgun Course as it now stands would suffice to meet the requirements of the registrants that the proposed changes are addressing.

Discussion:  What is the impetus for increasing the Basic Handgun Training from 14 to 24 hours?  I'm not sure of what problems will be solved but am pretty sure that the end result will be that the cost of putting an Armed Security Officer on post is going to increase.  This is going to creat a hardship for the security companies, the security officers, and in the end cost the end user more for private security.   Not great economic times to be doing this.

Recommendation:  Keep the Basic Handgun Course as it now stands.  It meets the requirements of the Armed Security Officer and other registrants (with the exception of the PPS Agent) who will carry a firearm for self protection in the performance of their duties.

I just completed the course of instruction for Armed Officer, Arrest Powers etc. I am prior Military Police and Coast Guard; I found the class to be very applicable to the job field. I understand the need for more weapon handeling and range time, as I sensed more was needed my some members of the class.

 My concern is the raising of costs to be recertified and the hours raised, both will create a financal hardship on citizens attempting to make a living in this industry. I paid, with purchase of ammo and rentail of weapon, finger print cards etc, close to $400 in the initial training. These new proposals will add costs to retain certifications. I am concerned this will be a burden on the employees, already hurting in this economy.

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?   

License for Locksmiths is a start however there are to many exceptions.  One exmple the key cutter at a hardware or department store.  A customer brings in a key for duplication, which is a master key and is marked as such.  The key cutter cuts the key because he does not understand what can happen when he/she cuts the key.  At this point security is comprised.  This is just one example of to many exceptions in the Code.  It should be clearly defined in the Code that anyone with lock tools or key making equipment in possession must be licensed, no exceptions.  Also in the law if a locksmith has a concealed carry permit issued by the commonwealth he is in violation of the Code while in the performance of locksmith duties.  This is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and Commonwealth law.

What I like about the proposed regulation changes is that DCJS has listened to some of the changes that were recommended by the industry and put them in there.  The fee changes do not bother me because they were reduced for the most part, but I also feel that some new fees were added just to raise revenues or cover what was cut (for example: an instructor can now pay up to $170 for certification and $150 for renewal if I read this correctly - $50 for initial or $25 for renewal plus $10 for each category and if they are certified to teach all 12 that is 12 X $10).  The changes to the actual regulations regarding schools do not bother me except for the "being arrested" change that is not covered under the Code, which clearly states "convictions".  That change occurs throughout the regulation changes so it is not just applicable to the schools.

 With respect to the schools and instructors:

1.  I am concerned that by taking two hours from the total hours required and dedicating it to a new course - 10E -instructors will be forced to generalize what they can teach as far as the Code and Regs are concerned.  I feel that this will be a detriment since I know many schools tailor this set of instruction to the registration category being taught.  If anything I feel that 2 hours is not enough to teach the Code, and the Regulations, much less having to add private security orientation and the Code of Ethics.

2.  I am concerned with the new "job-related training that includes a maximum of one hour of instruction dedicated to the review of the regulations".  Is DCJS saying that instructors can only teach one hour or are the Code and Regulations also considered to be a part of the legal authority training?

3.  I am concerned with the new 4 hours of continuing education that DCJS has added.  What are the qualifications that DCJS is requiring for it to be valid?   I am not against  instructors keeping up their education but have concerns as to how DCJS is going to enforce this and how they are going to determine if something qualifies since there is no explanation or specifics just a generalized statement.  As we know, different people within DCJS have different interpretations and it needs to be specific enough that everyone, DCJS and the industry are on the same page with no questions.

4.  I am definitely concerned with the new "professional development" requirements.  Who is teaching this? Who determines what is appropriate for this development?  If a training school teaches all of the registration categories that means the instructor has to take 12 different courses for a total of 24 hours plus the four hours of continuing education which equals 28 hours during the certification period.  Where are they going to be able to get that training? What constitutes satisifactory completion for DCJS?  How is DCJS going to verify these new requirements?

5.  What forms are instructors going to have submit for both of these new requirements?  What fees are going to be associated with these submissions.

 I am concerned that changes always seem to be written with generalization. Some of these changes are not specifically defined which leaves things up to interpretation of the individual.  I, and most of the industry that DCJS is supposed to enforce the regulations for, prefer to know exactly what DCJS means and not have to rely on interpretations.  Interpretations that are not uniform throughout DCJS' personnel.  For example: what does "be in possession of" mean?  "Carry" was more definite and easier to understand, so why change it?  Does"be in possession of" just mean that I have to be registered and not have it with me?  Does it mean that I can have in my car that is parked in the parking lot away from my post?  The regulations should clearly define what that means.  The same can be said of "not have an arrest that the prima facie evidence would indicate the propensity for harming the public".  How many lawyers is DCJS regulating?  Over 85% of the industry that DCJS regulates are security officers and I would be surprised if 1% of them have a clue what that means.  This is the same arguement that I have been waging for years with requesting more specific defintions for things like moral turpitude.  Look up the definition for that in Black's Law Dictionary and see if you can tell me specifically what that means.

 Last but not least, we all know that DCJS has had some vacancies and is currently not able to replace those positions.  I and a lot of the industry are concerned with how DCJS is going to be able to enforce all these new regulations.  Strict enforcement of current regulations sometimes seems lacking and adding more regulations to an already over-taxed Department would appear to be burdensome. 

I am making the following comments for the working registrants in the industry! The industry feels that some of the proposed changes to the regulations are not taking into account, the concerns of the many registrants that are acually working. Examples;

6VAC20-171-20 Fees. The changing fee for Firearms Endorsement from $10.00 yearly to $30.00 yearly is an expense that is not supported by the armed industry. The manual processing fee of $20.00 for processing is also not supported by the industry.

6VAC20-171-110 #3 The completion of 2 hours professional development for each category of instruction puts an additional strain on instructors that also work in the industry. This puts instructors that teach in addition to their responsibilties in their jobs into a stressful situation doing what will be mandated by DCJS and the industry may lose some very good instructors. This seems to be a problem if passed.

6VAC20-171-220 The industry seems to have a real problem with the change in regulations that if someone is arrested they would have to notify DCJS of that arrest. The industry has no problem with after being convicted or pleading guilty or no contest, but other than that this is going way to far! 

6VAC20-171-135 Firearms endorsement being limited to retraining 90 days prior to their endorsement expiration is a concern to a lot of armed registraints and their schedules Each registraint knows when their endorsement expires and the industry seems to feel that anytime within the 12 months prior to expiration they should be allowed to retrain.

6VAC20-171-380 Shotgun qualification and requalification change has the armed registraints disturbed by the increase.  It is not only the mass increase to the rounds to qualify but also the the shotgun registraints have said that they want to keep their shotgun endorsement, but they do not think they will if this increase passes.

I am writing to voice my concern with a portion of the proposed regulation changes put forth by DCJS as found on the Virginia Regulator Town Hall at:

http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/l/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4159

With particular attention paid to the section found at 6VAC20-171-230.A.10 I object to the use of the phrase "Ensure that regulated employees of the business have not been." This change and the use of the term "Ensure" places an undue burden upon the business owner. A simple Google search shows the common definition of the word "Ensure" is to "guarantee" or "make certain of."  It is not possible for a business owner to guarantee that an employee has no criminal record. Today there exists no centralized database, inside or outside of law enforcement, that would "ensure" or guarantee a potential employee has no record of felony convictions. Short of conducting a physical search of every courthouse in the country it is not possible to "ensure" an employee has not been convicted of a felony.

I am deeply concerned that given the litigious nature of society today, the plaintiffs bar will seize upon the proposed language in the regulation to show the private security services business (PSSB) was negligent in failing to "ensure" or guarantee the employee did not have a felonious record. Even if the employee failed to disclose this information to the PSSB and checking every court in the United States is an impossible financial burden for businesses, it is very possible that courts will find against a defendant PSSB simply because of the proposed language in the regulation.

I ask that this phrase be stricken from the regulation and that this portion of 6VAC20-171-230.A.10 remain as it is currently shown in the regulation. The proposed change to the language places an undue burden on the PSSB because it obligates the business to perform an impossible task. Because of their inability to comply with the proposed language, inclusion of this language exposes the PSSB to increased litigation risk and higher insurance premiums.

I have several comments on the proposed Regs. Due to cuts in staffing and funds, DCJS needs to be careful in changes that could put new and continued straing on resources. With the conversion to a new computer system there will be a steep curve learning for the Department as well as those under the regulation.

I do not believe this is the right time to "overhaul" the inservice training program. Completly changing the current reporting system for inservice training and then changing the hours required and the course content is totally ill advised at this time.

As I understand from the Department, Students will be responsible for their own training records and will simply check a box to verify compliance with the inservice training for that registration period. With the current level of enforcement, there will become a "catch me if you can attitude". I compare this to trying to reduce speeding by adding more speed limit signs. Without a police cruser and traffic stops, no one respects the sign. That is not in the best interests of the public.

Please reconsider and look for another way.

I have several comments on the proposed Regs. Due to cuts in staffing and funds, DCJS needs to be careful in changes that could put new and continued straing on resources. With the conversion to a new computer system there will be a steep curve learning for the Department as well as those under the regulation.

I do not believe this is the right time to "overhaul" the inservice training program. Completly changing the current reporting system for inservice training and then changing the hours required and the course content is totally ill advised at this time.

As I understand from the Department, Students will be responsible for their own training records and will simply check a box to verify compliance with the inservice training for that registration period. With the current level of enforcement, there will become a "catch me if you can attitude". I compare this to trying to reduce speeding by adding more speed limit signs. Without a police cruser and traffic stops, no one respects the sign. That is not in the best interests of the public.

Please reconsider and look for another way.

In section 6VAC20-171-110-B-2 & B-3:   What constitutes Instructor Development? How will we document it and how much will it cost? Who will decide if a course or class meets the yet unknown and unwritten criteria? What is the defination of Professional Development? How will the Categories be comprised? Will there be any enforcement and how.

What are the current problems that are causing the Department to request this change. It will cost the Instructors more time away from the classroom and more money for the training. These costs will be directly passed down to the students.

If there is a problem, address the problem, don't put more regulation on those who are doing it correctly.

My first reaction is "you are inocent until proven guilty", so why does the Department need to know?. With less staff and resources, there is no way the Department can do anything with this information. I as a compliance agent am not aware of this information unless someone releases the info to me. Privacy might also be an issue. Again this is not something to do in a time of limited resources.

The wording "Carry" needs to be changed to " Must be in possession of" and should match

6VAC20-171-320-7 " must be in possession of"

This is critical in the Electronic Security industry where the technicians are in crawl spaces and ceilings pulling cables on aregular basis. They regulary leave their wallets and such in their trucks to prevent loosing them. 

Changing to carry would result in lost ID cards and replacements issues.

There are 2 sections that need to match and the proposed do not.

6VAC20-171-230-16 and 6VAC20-171-320-18 should be 2 call varification to match the Law. The wording

in  6VAC20-171-230-16 is the correct wording. This is a False Dispatch prevention tool and must be the 2 call method.

I am writing to voice conern over the use of the word "ensure" in 6VAC20-171-230, particularly that business owners must ensure that their employees do not have criminal records. This seems to me like an impossible burden, and I think that the language should be modified to clarify exactly what this means. 

There have been many discussions about the word ensure under this caption.  I was there when the Secretary of State sent us to DCJS.  The regulation and Code use to fill just a few pages.  Now it is up to 77 pages.  In item 10 (Ensure that regulated employees of the business have not been convicted or found guilty in any jurisdiction of the united states and so on.  The only way compliance agents can track their people when they send them out in the world is through NCIC.  There are states who are still reluctant to participate by sharing information. Those of you in DCJS have access to NCIC.  You should be the people to run a search on these employees when they renew their registration and license/business license. The alternative is for the legislature to provide NCIC  to all compliance agents so we can ENSURE that the people have been doing right.  Now I have been told that is wishful thinking, but think about it for a moment. We as compliance agents are scrutinized more than Lawyers, Doctors, Police Officers, and Beauticians. Yet you asked of us in a gesture that we have to be a mind reader when somebody in podunk gets arrested for being stupid and knowing they will get fired they keep it a secret.  All in all, the regs are fairly good.

As a  Investeror  I disagree on the Fees,  I would like for you  as a State Agency to send more information out about any changes that you plan to change. It isn't   fair an unjust ,  if everone dont  have inform.  We did  to network.so everone can benefits.

I am opposed to increasing the hours required for inservice training.   The DCJS staff is not equipped to handle a massive in-service overhaul at this time.  What are the reasons for increasing the mandated hours?  What problems have occurred based on the current requirements?  I am opposed to imposing a "penalty" fee on persons submitting applications manually...it will create a tremendous hardship for people in the industry who are already struggling in a low waged industry during a recessed/depressed economy.  At the very least, make the penalty a small fee, maybe $5.00 until the older generation catches up with electronic operations.  The proposed reg that would have registrants be on the "honor" system, keeping track of their own renewal, is like taking many steps backwards for the industry that has come so far.  "Arrest Reporting" violates the right to be "innocent until proven guilty".  I am opposed this change in the regs.

I have numerous issues with the proposed changes. The main one is the increase in numerous cost, i.e. Firearms endorsement to $30.00 from $10.00. That is a 200% increase in a fee. 2nd. Training school fees are now going to $50.00 per category!!! These are "hard times" for all. The only way for me to offset these fees is going to be to pass them on to the students, which I don't really think they can afford. Folks, a person can flip burgers at McDonalds and make as mush as some of these S/O with a whole lot less expense. Why would anyone want to stay in this business. Throughout these changes, I see where you want to be notified if a person is arrested, not convicted. What gives. Even the criminals are innocent until proven guilty. WHY DOES DCJS NEED TO KNOW THIS AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION???? If ther person is not guilty, why do you need to know?!?! 3rd: Why do you have deadly force under core subjects? If it escalates to force, would that not be under arrest procedures and firearms training? 4th: Although I do supply my e-mail address, what protection do I have in knowing a DCJS rep who leaves the Department, won't send me unsolicited e-mails (The Compliance Wizard) constantly. Why would this now be  mandatory? I would like to know what has prompted the Department to increase all of the training requirements to justify this. These are going to be  expensive changes for the company's as well as the students. This folks, is not the right time for these changes.

Another major concern is for the instructors increasing their hours of development training. As I asked in a previous comment, what has occurred to warrant this? Many instructors, myself included, do this on a part time basis. Once again this will place an unneeded burden on the instructors. Again, why the changes??

Are your reading what these regulations are going to do to us?

That said, there are many good things in the this draft.

I would like to tactfully point out that the "Manuel Processing Service Fee" is for:

1. Many members of the security industry are of modest means for whom a $20 processing fee would be a hardship.  For instance, a Registration Renewal doubles in cost ($40).

2. Many members of the private security registration classifications do not have aaccess to compters.

3. Many private security practitioners do not have a crdit card.

Times are hard, please reconsider (though I understand what the department is trying to do).  Thanks, John

Like several others whom have made comments, I take exception the words "...being arrested..." being added to this paragraph.

That said, this paragraph has been improved by bringing it into line with the Code, 9.1-139.K.  Thank you for that, I support those improvements.

John

ype over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

Raising the minimum age for a Compliance Agent to 21 years and reducing the supervisory or management experience to three years would increase the maturity of the Agents and still allow sufficient experience.  I hesitate to hire anyone of such young age, simply due to immaturity.  I cannot imagine placing the responsibility of Compliance on such an individual.

In these times all businesspeople are sensitive to increasing costs, but when Electronic Security came under DCJS regulation we understood that fees were designed to fund the staff necessary to provide not only basic records keeping and administration, but more importantly, investigation and compliance.  These duties have markedly declined in recent years, and the instances of outright flaunting of the law have mushroomed.  Without some assurances of dramatically increased investigation and auditing, the industry will object to any fee increases.

An equally important consideration must be given to the lower wage employee whose registration renewal and training costs are significant.  A $20 additional fee to renew in person or by mail will be regressive.  A $5 fee such as levied by DMV and other Agencies would be more reasonable.

The myriad updates and changes the Staff have made in these Regulations reflect serious and diligent consideration and are for the most part proper and understandable.  I applaud their work and appreciate the difficult conditions under which they labor.  

  Thank  you and your staff for all the diligence and obvious hard work evidenced in the development  of the proposed Regulations.  We all very much appreciate your consideration of previous suggestions that were made and incorporated in this proposal.  Thank you too for the restraint that you have made and incorporated in setting the fees.  As always, there are additional recommendations and comments listed below.  Thank you in advance for your consideration, and especially for coming to Northern Virginia for the Reg Review meeting.

  To begin, some general comments that arise from a basic review and discussion with many others affected by the proposed Regs:

    >  the changes to the Regs are overwhelming in many areas - at this time, in this economy, they are often too demanding, in many instances they are overly burdensome;

    >  at a time when state government, including DCJS, has diminishing resources - these Regs require increasing increasing demands of the regulator;

    >  the regulations are not simplified - they are more complex;  and,

    >  there appear to be changes in priorities that will reduce effectiveness of the regulatory program rather than strengthen it.

  Issues which must be considered in this analysis include:

    >  reasons for change - who is being harmed and how does this strengthen the regulatory purpose - to protect the public safety and welfare

    >  the risk of becoming overly-regulated

    >  current economic challenges - both to businesses and individuals - many of our community are low-paid workers - proposed training will have large cost increases and time commitments attached

    >  Department is proposing additional tasks for staff at a time when positions are being lost.