Volunteer Security Act 235?

[autodoc2000]

I am new to PAFOA. I recently was asked to assist with the security team at our local church. The team is newly formed and they are just putting certain members in place in case of a problem. I have been cc there for a couple of years now since there was a threat made against a member. I have searched the internet looking for information and that is how I found this web site. If the "team" is volunteer do they need to be Act 235 certified? I know that the reading of the act lists about being employed therefore I assume if you are getting paid then you would need to be certified in the Act 235. I would hate to have a problem arise and find out that I/we are not doing things the way they are supposed to be done. I have seen other post about a number of people here carrying to their assemblies, but nothing about the Act 235.

[mjf]

I am new to PAFOA. I recently was asked to assist with the security team at our local church. The team is newly formed and they are just putting certain members in place in case of a problem. I have been cc there for a couple of years now since there was a threat made against a member. I have searched the internet looking for information and that is how I found this web site. If the "team" is volunteer do they need to be Act 235 certified? I know that the reading of the act lists about being employed therefore I assume if you are getting paid then you would need to be certified in the Act 235. I would hate to have a problem arise and find out that I/we are not doing things the way they are supposed to be done. I have seen other post about a number of people here carrying to their assemblies, but nothing about the Act 235.

Here's the criminal offense associated with act 235:

22 P.S. § 49
§ 49. Penalties:

(a) Any privately employed agent who in the course of his employ carries a lethal weapon, and who fails to comply with subsection (b) of section 4 [FN1] or with subsection (a) of section 8 of this act, [FN2] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than one year or payment of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.

(b) Any privately employed agent who in the course of his employ carries a lethal weapon, and who violates subsection (c) of section 7 of this act [FN3] shall be guilty of a summary offense, and, upon conviction, shall pay a fine not exceeding fifty dollars ($50).

22 P.S. § 43

"Privately employed agents" include any person employed for the purpose of providing watch guard, protective patrol, detective or criminal investigative services either for another for a fee or for his employer. Privately employed agents do not include local, state or federal government employees or those police officers commissioned by the Governor under the act of February 27, 1865 (P.L. 225, No. 228). [FN1] The term shall include a police officer of a municipal authority.

I guess it really boils down to how 'employed' is defined by law--one could argue that employed means the 'put something into service' and that monetary compensation is not always necessary for employment.

For example, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=employed, defines 'employed as', "having your services engaged for; or having a job especially one that pays wages or a salary). Within that definition, you can see that you could still be employed without monetary compensation. Within volunteer culture, there's also the concept of volunteer employment, basically doing a job without monetary compensation. Here's a volunteer employee: http://e-volunteerism.com/team/fryar.php, "He has been employed as a Volunteer Manager since 1991".

If employed means 'giving a special task/putting into service' as security guards, then I believe you could be in violation of the act.

[HiredGoon]

Here's the criminal offense associated with act 235:

I guess it really boils down to how 'employed' is defined by law--one could argue that employed means the 'put something into service' and that monetary compensation is not always necessary for employment.

For example, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=employed, defines 'employed as', "having your services engaged for; or having a job especially one that pays wages or a salary). Within that definition, you can see that you could still be employed without monetary compensation. Within volunteer culture, there's also the concept of volunteer employment, basically doing a job without monetary compensation. Here's a volunteer employee: http://e-volunteerism.com/team/fryar.php, "He has been employed as a Volunteer Manager since 1991".

If employed means 'giving a special task/putting into service' as security guards, then I believe you could be in violation of the act.

I understand what you're saying about the definition of employed, but 22 P.S. § 43 reads:

"Privately employed agents" include any person employed for the purpose of providing watch guard, protective patrol, detective or criminal investigative services either for another for a fee or for his employer" .

So, wouldn't that end the issue then? Since the church members will not be receiving a fee for their security work, they are not employed by the church and therefore no Act 235 certification is necessary?

[mjf]

I understand what you're saying about the definition of employed, but 22 P.S. § 43 reads:

"Privately employed agents" include any person employed for the purpose of providing watch guard, protective patrol, detective or criminal investigative services either for another for a fee or for his employer" .

So, wouldn't that end the issue then? Since the church members will not be receiving a fee for their security work, they are not employed by the church and therefore no Act 235 certification is necessary?

As long as employer means, "someone who pays money", then yes. But, if you can employ volunteers, then whoever employs them is their employer... Basically, if volunteers cannot be employed, then you should be fine. Remember, this says, "for a fee or for his employer". So, is monetary compensation necessary?

[xxflyboixx]

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just an opinion, but:

I agree - I would not look at the church as an "employer" as they aren't employing you, just asking for your donated assistance/services. And they aren't requiring you to carry a firearm, you are just carrying for personal protection, so IMHO I wouldn't think you would need your 235.

[GoldWinger]

Security team at a church? What is this, the middle ages?

Back in my day, when I went to church, security was provided by the nuns. Not long ago, I met a man wearing a polo shirt emblazoned with "ZXY Chrisitan Church Security Director." He had a team of six guys and anytime the church was open, one of his team was there.

[mjf]

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just an opinion, but:

I agree - I would not look at the church as an "employer" as they aren't employing you, just asking for your donated assistance/services. And they aren't requiring you to carry a firearm, you are just carrying for personal protection, so IMHO I wouldn't think you would need your 235.

I don't think the church is their employer either, if they are not paid. I'm just thinking of ways someone could get 'jacked up', and if they are formed under the organization of the church, I could see someone trying to make the argument that they volunteered for the 'security team', so the church employs a security team. Further, requiring a firearm has nothing to do with act 235.

[Swarner793]

Good question. I currently employ 11 Certified Agents. The key is I pay them, so the requirement is clear. I also employ several individuals that are not certified and do not need to be because their duties do not require a firearm.

That said, this is a tricky topic. If your group is just a group that has a higher level of situational awareness and preparation, then you should not need the certification. However, if it is being being put out to the congregation that you are the "go to" guys readily identifiable as "security", then you may want to consider certification.

We can sit here and parse the statutes for a month of Sundays . If something happens and you find out later that you should have had the certification, that would suck as well. However, I do not see the DA's Office prosecuting this. More likely, it would be an admonishment and being advised of the requirement. You could always call the DA's Office and get their view. Or contact Judy Herr ( juherr@state.pa.us ) with the PSP's LWT Program at 717-346-7760 and run it by her.

Be safe (and keep Order of the Temple).

Scott

[HiredGoon]

I currently employ 11 Certified Agents. The key is I pay them, so the requirement is clear. I also employ several individuals that are not certified and do not need to be because their duties do not require a firearm.

So, just to delve into this a little further...let's say that one of your non-235 certified employees wanted to carry a gun for their own protection and they do have a PA LTCF.

Their duties do not require a firearm as you stated and therefore you, as their employer, do not require them to be armed.

Is this a gray area, Act 235-wise, or can they just carry while performing their duties with their LTCF and not worry about it?

Of course you may have a company policy not allowing them to do so.

[mjf]

So, just to delve into this a little further...let's say that one of your non-235 certified employees wanted to carry a gun for their own protection and they do have a PA LTCF.

Their duties do not require a firearm as you stated and therefore you, as their employer, do not require them to be armed.

Is this a gray area, Act 235-wise, or can they just carry while performing their duties with their LTCF and not worry about it?

Of course you may have a company policy not allowing them to do so.

I'd argue if they are acting as security, and being paid, they better have act 235...

"(a) Any privately employed agent who in the course of his employ carries a lethal weapon, and who fails to comply with subsection (b) of section 4 [FN1] or with subsection (a) of section 8 of this act, [FN2] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than one year or payment of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both."

There seems to be no 'if required to carry a lethal weapon by his employer', anywhere within the statutes.