Florida Concealed Carry banner

Executive Protection question

7K views 30 replies 7 participants last post by  BrianB 
#1 · (Edited)
If I work for a weathly family managing their personal properties, can I provide any kind of Security for the family. I have a current D and G license. Dept of Agriculture ( via email ) says only G license, but can't always trust their answers based on past experiences.

Can't find anyone to give me a definitive answer.
 
#2 ·
#5 ·
You can't freelance- security work linked to any compensation has to be done under the auspices of a Security Agency license (B license). Read page 1: https://licensing.freshfromflorida.com/forms/P-00092_SecurityOfficerHandbook.pdf
What K4AC says is generally true, but is not always true. If you work for the protectee in an employee-employer relationship, not contracted, but an actual employee, like you get a W2 each year, then a Class B agency does not need to be involved and you can provide executive protection services and carry on your Class G license.

This is called "proprietary security" and if it is performed unarmed then no license of any kind is required. But if it will be performed armed then a Class G license is required and in order to get a Class G license one must have either a Class D or a Class C/CC - with the Class D making more sense here (if for no other reason than it's a hell of a lot easier to get).

If it is contract work (you're not an "employee" of theirs) then a Class B agency must be involved.

I can provide all of the logic and statutes to back this up but it's convoluted and it's almost 2 a.m. and I should go back to bed now. Briefly, check out 493.6101(19), 493.6301(4), 493.6102(4).

If you are going to be armed proprietary/in-house security you must have a Class "D" and a Class "G" license, but you are still exempt from the requirement to work for a Class "B" agency. I have previously confirmed this in conversations with a supervisor at the Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Licensing in Tallahassee and the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement (BRE) in Tallahassee.
 
#6 ·
493.6101 Definitions.—
(19) “Security officer” means any individual who, for consideration, advertises as providing or performs bodyguard services or otherwise guards persons or property; attempts to prevent theft or unlawful taking of goods, wares, and merchandise; or attempts to prevent the misappropriation or concealment of goods, wares or merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, choses in action, notes, or other documents, papers, and articles of value or procurement of the return thereof. The term also includes armored car personnel and those personnel engaged in the transportation of prisoners.
493.6102 Inapplicability of this chapter.—This chapter shall not apply to:
(4) Any unarmed individual engaged in security services who is employed exclusively to work on the premises of her or his employer, or in connection with the business of her or his employer, when there exists an employer-employee relationship.
493.6301 Classes of licenses.—
(4) A Class “D” licensee shall own or be an employee of a Class “B” security agency or branch office. This does not include those individuals who are exempt under s. 493.6102(4) but who possess a Class “D” license solely for the purpose of holding a Class “G” license.
Wow- that's messy since 493.6102(4) specifically only exempts "unarmed", yet 493.6301(4) appears to recognize that some unstated set of circumstances exist where a person needs a G and therefore must have a D. I wouldn't want to find myself in the position of being armed proprietary security without a written legal opinion from the FL Attorney General as it appears likely that changes to the statutes over the years caused 493.6102(4) and 493.6301(4) to become unsynced.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Yeah, as I said, it's convoluted. As usual the legislature could have done a much better job of wording the exemption. But it is not a controversial topic - it is well understood by the upper level folks at DACS and they are the ones who enforce these things. I would expect that if you just asked a random person at a regional office you could get a wide range of answers because those folks' expertise is more on the paperwork side.

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to someone whom I was assisting with this very topic - for whatever it is worth:

I discussed this question with a woman named Lisa at the Florida Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement in Tallahassee. I explained the scenario at hand (a church desiring to have in-house armed security personnel, who work for the church directly, and provide services only to the church). I asked, for the purposes of proprietary/in-house, armed security, "how much of Chapter 493 applies?". Her answer was that only the firearms part applies - the rest of Chapter 493 does not apply to in-house security. I clarified that by the "firearms part" she meant the training and qualification required to obtain the "G" license and she concurred. I then further clarified "so they don't need to worry about being in uniform, can dress in normal church attire, can carry concealed, etc." and she replied "yes, none of that pertains to them since they are in-house".​

If one wanted to get a letter on this topic they should seek it from the Florida Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement in Tallahassee. The attorney general will only answer questions posed to them by government agencies and will not respond to individuals.
 
#8 ·
Fascinating academic discussion!

A letter from the Dept. of Ag is better than nothing, but an opinion from the AG (which could be requested by the Dept. of Ag) would hold far greater weight since employees of bureaucracies are known to sometimes give bad information. Of course, all of that would be trumped by the opinion of a judge (or appellate panel)—and all of that is mostly academic unless you get yourself into a situation that rises to the level of .gov attention.

I think I found where the odd language in 493.6301(4) comes from. "493.6306 Proprietary security officers" http://fall.law.fsu.edu/FlStatutes/docs/1990/1990-Chap-493.pdf

As there was once upon a time "Proprietary Security Officers" in Florida Statutes, the "This does not include those individuals who are exempt under s. 493.6102(4) but who possess a Class “D” license solely for the purpose of holding a Class “G” license." language makes sense.

493.6306 was repealed by Bill 96-407. Unfortunately I can't find that bill online due to its age; the beginning of the Bill may spell out exactly what the legislature was attempting to do by repealing 493.6306 (or might not...).

Regardless, I'd like to know the statutory construction that the person at Dept. of Ag was relying on to issue that informal interpretation since 493.6301(4) appears an orphan due to the elimination of 493.6306.

I would also personally avoid being in an armed proprietary security role like the plague!

BTW, for anyone in the armed security field (proprietary or not), you better check your CCW legal protection plan if you are expecting it to cover you in the event of a shooting. Most plans specifically disclaim any coverage for anything security work related.
 
#12 ·
I think that DOACS interpretation is consistent with the acts of the legislature. The prior requirement (under the old law) was that a proprietary security officer who was unarmed would have a "PD" registration and would not need to work under a Class "B" agency or otherwise be captured by the requirements of Chapter 493. Under the old law if a proprietary security officer however was going to be armed, he would obtain a Class "D" license solely to be able to obtain a Class "G" license, and then otherwise be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 493 (except for of course having to meet the requirements for licensure).

At some point the requirement for the PD registration went away, but the exemption for proprietary security remained. The statute still makes it clear that persons who have obtained a "D" solely to get a "G" do not need to work for a Class B agency.

I wouldn't read too much into the fact that there used to be a "PD" registration and now there isn't, and perhaps this D/G thing is an unintended vestige of that. The reason I say that is if you look at the 1990 laws at the link you referenced you will see that then, as now, the exact same thing existed for proprietary investigators (without using the word "proprietary"). Then as now if you are an unarmed investigator that works solely for your employer in an employer-employee relationship (and a bunch of other situations) then the chapter is inapplicable. See 493.6102(3) in both the 1990 and current law.

But also, then, as now, 493.6201(4) reads:

Class “C” or Class “CC” licensees shall own or be an employee of a Class “A” agency, a Class “A” and Class “B” agency, or a branch office. This does not include those who are exempt under s. 493.6102, but who possess a Class “C” license solely for the purpose of holding a Class “G” license.​

Note that this language is the same as the language for proprietary security getting a "D" solely to get a "G" - yet there has never been a "registration" for proprietary investigators. This should make it clear that the mirrored language for security is not an unintended vestige.

Armed proprietary security is not uncommon. As I understand it all of the armed security officers providing security for schools (which is becoming a bigger thing now that the law compels either armed security officers or police officers at every school) are proprietary security. They do not work for a Class "B" agency, they work for the school district directly. They hold a "D" and a "G" so they can work armed.

As I said, the legislature did a bad job of implementing this exception, but the concept of a proprietary security officer or investigator getting the underlying license solely to get the "G" license to be allowed to work armed, but while still not being required to work for a Class "B" agency (in the case of security) or a Class "A" agency (in the case of a detective/investigator), has been around since the 1980 version of the law self-repealed and was replaced in 1990.

DACS would have no need to ask the AG for an interpretation of the law. They are given rule making authority within 493 and they know what the law means because it has been practiced this way for 28 years. If you talk to any security agency manager that has been around awhile the concept and boundaries of proprietary security and investigation are well known.

Your note regarding checking your carry insurance (or legal services plan) is a good one because you are right - most plans exclude any sort of "on duty" shooting. Self Defense Fund has a plan specifically for private security and private investigators that covers you on and off duty (and is the same price as their regular plan). I switched from CCW Safe to SDF specifically because of this.
 
#16 ·
For reasons that I don't care to disclose, I am still interested in the academic theory behind the proprietary armed security officer.

For now I accept the concept, but I am somewhat skeptical of the legal statues of the situation.

I think the statutes are pretty clear that an unarmed propriety officer is legal, but once the officer is armed he/she must be employed by an agency contracted by the business/corporation in question.

Otherwise, my buddy and I could establish an LLC and get D/G licences and employ each other as body guards and carry our guns anywhere we wanted to.
 
#19 ·
Pretty simple matter to call the Florida Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Regulation and Enforcement in Tallahassee and see if they will send you a letter. Last I inquired I spoke to someone named Lisa. Or call and get the address and say you'd like to submit a question in writing and get a written response.

I agree with your hesitancy. I wouldn't want to go "carrying on my G" without knowing for sure that I was legal. Everything I've stated here is merely academic for me as I have no need to rely on it. That said, unless DACS is lying to the public to trap them into violating the law, and unless the legislature has deliberately enacted statutes that have no purpose, it is as I've stated. We know the legislature is crap at drafting statutes sometimes and Chapter 493 is far from their best work.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Disney has no armed security. They are VERY anti-gun. Only the Sheriffs deputies are armed. I have contracted at Disney, I had to fire someone who had a rage issue and threatened to shoot up the place. Sheriff Dept. came and escorted him off the property. Banned from all Disney property for 1 year, because he did not resist or cause trouble with Sheriff, otherwise would have been banned for life.
 
#25 ·
So, I talked to an Investigator for the Dept. of Agriculture today and explained my situation. Without hesitation, he said as long as I am a direct employee of the family, that I could provide armed security for the family legally with only a G license. His only caution was that if there was a shooting, the family ( because they are wealthy ) would surely be in court for a civil suit.
Even if my job description had no security in it and I carried concealed on the job and shot someone, the family would still have some liability because I am an employee.

Also called US Law Shield and they said they even cover Security Guards under their umbrella.
 
#26 · (Edited)
There really isn't any question that it's legal. It may take DACS awhile to answer but I expect that when Doug (K4AC) gets his reply from them and shares the letter it will echo what DACS has told those of us who have inquired so far. But it will be nice to have it in writing for those who plan to actually make use of the option.

It is definitely a good idea to get some sort of legal services plan that covers you in an on-duty shooting. I went with Self Defense Fund (SDF) for my agency. They cover the agency and all of our detectives, on and off duty. If U.S. Law Shield covers you on and off duty and you dig their program then it sounds like a winner.
 
#28 ·
K4AC, it's been awhile since you drafted your letter to DACS asking about proprietary security (back around 6/6). I don't know how long it takes DACS to respond to those sorts of things - they've usually been pretty responsive to any public records requests I've ever sent in, but that's a whole different section up there. Any word yet?
 
#30 ·
According to the Division of Licensing Director, it IS permissible for a D & G to provide armed security for their unlicensed employer.

Before you get excited, however, they have thus far declined to put that opinion in writing. By not committing it to writing, they leave open the possibility of disclaiming that casual opinion should something happen involving a D & G providing armed security for an unlicensed employer and the political winds require an exacting of blood...

IOW, the state isn't going to come after you for providing armed security services to your unlicensed employer—unless it becomes politically expedient.
 
#31 ·
Thanks Doug. Interesting bit of politically expedient cowardice on their part. They know it's legal. They'll tell you it's legal. But they won't put it in writing. I think they are just gun shy about doing anything that gets them on anybody's radar after the whole background check debacle with the CWFLs.

Knowing that a letter from DACS won't happen, if I were in a situation where I was going to perform "proprietary" or "in house" armed security or armed investigation/bodyguard I would request a formal written opinion from a private attorney stating that it is lawful. That may at least provide you a defense of "good faith reliance on advice of counsel". If anybody decides they want to go that route please let me know as I can facilitate that through a good attorney. When I say "facilitate that" I mean explain the convoluted statutes to them to save them some time trying to un-pretzel it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top