ACT 235 vs LTCF approval

[HBGMarine]

Mods: if this isn't the correct forum location for this topic I apologize, please move it to the correct location.

Over lunch a friend and I were having a discussion about executive protection services and what is needed for one to legally carry a firearm for their job. I let him know that a LTCF does not allow a person to legally carry for their job, that one would need to be ACT 235 certified. Does anyone know if it is the same background check and approval process as a LTCF? I checked out the application and it seems like a lot of the same questions on both forms. I understand that there is a separate psych and physical evaluation but my question is specifically for the background check approval portion of the application process. Thanks in advance for any input!

Link to application - http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...tification.pdf

[customloaded]

Same criteria HBGMarine.

[johnpsu]

From http://www.lethalweapons.state.pa.us

"The Lethal Weapons Training Act (Act 235) provides for the training and certification of watch guards, protective patrolmen, detectives and criminal investigators, carrying and using lethal weapons in their employment."

Essentially, if someone in Pennsylvania carries a firearm, baton, handcuffs, or OC as part of their employment, they should be trained through the Act 235. Otherwise, they are subject to the law as stated in the Act.

Although Act 235 does permit a certifies agent to carry a firearm while working, the Act does not replace a LTCF.

The process is lengthy. Part 1 is: physical, eye exam, psychological exam, fingerprinting. Part 2 is: class on law, security, test on the law, and a firearm qualification. For what it is worth, some Act 235 schools are good, others OK, and some just bad. Half the Act 235 schools on the state's list do not offer classes very often. The best Act 235 school I have been to is Classic Pistol (www.classicpistol.com).

I hope this provides some information and answers your question.

[Swarner793]

As you mentioned, there is the psych and physical requirement. Custom is correct, it is basically the same requirements, just a few more hoops. My Employees are required, as am I , to have this certification. If he can lawfully possess a firearm, he should be good to go.

Tell your friend that anybody that would hire him on his LTCF is not worth working for, they cut corners. Don't laugh, I know plenty that have claimed it covers what they do. "Bodyguards" and "Bounty Hunters" often think a LTCF suffices, it does not.

Be safe (and protect more than just executives ).

Scott

[P7hk9]

Is there any benefit to having Act 235 training if you aren't in a profession that requires it?

[Swarner793]

Is there any benefit to having Act 235 training if you aren't in a profession that requires it?

It does touch on topics that may be of use to an armed Citizen. It hits on Principles of Justification, Limited Authority of Arrest, Constitutional Restriction as well as other information, so, yes I would say it would be useful.

Also, it has basic weapons familiarization and manipulation, very basic. There is probably other training that would address the same subject matter, but this is recognized statewide. The actual shooting portion of the certification is very elementary.

Be safe (and know the basics).

Scott

[HBGMarine]

Thanks for the input! That pretty much answers all the questions.

[truecrimson]

As you mentioned, there is the psych and physical requirement. Custom is correct, it is basically the same requirements, just a few more hoops. My Employees are required, as am I , to have this certification. If he can lawfully possess a firearm, he should be good to go.

Tell your friend that anybody that would hire him on his LTCF is not worth working for, they cut corners. Don't laugh, I know plenty that have claimed it covers what they do. "Bodyguards" and "Bounty Hunters" often think a LTCF suffices, it does not.

Be safe (and protect more than just executives ).

Scott

Just out of curiosity what are the physical requirements like?

[Saber]

Ok I'm self employed. Own a small industrial supply company. I carry when I'm working. One of the main reason I got my LTCF was when I go to the over night deposit box at the bank. I have got a few bad vibs from some of the people hanging around the banks at night. So if I did use a firearm when "working" could a DA go after me because I only have a LTCF?

[DaveM55]

Ok I'm self employed. Own a small industrial supply company. I carry when I'm working. One of the main reason I got my LTCF was when I go to the over night deposit box at the bank. I have got a few bad vibs from some of the people hanging around the banks at night. So if I did use a firearm when "working" could a DA go after me because I only have a LTCF?

IANAL and with that I could only take a wild ass guess. And wild ass guesses aren't something I'd want as a defense in court.

So my advice would be to ask a real lawyer.

So here's my guess plain and simple, no he wouldn't go after you because you're employment does not require you to carry. Of course I'm probably wrong.