in this context "technically" has no legal meaning. he either is or is not head of security. he either is or is not authorized by the company and/or by the state to be armed.
it is like saying "basically" he is head of security. it just does not mean anything specific enough to comment on.
I knew a guy once was "basically" the bouncer at a local bar. he was never paid by the bar owner other then with free drinks. You think his status was not at least irregular?
The problem is that as long as nothing bad happens it probably won't matter any.
But what happens if he has to shoot someone? Is the company going to stand behind him if the only thing in writing says he is not supposed to be armed and there is nothing in writing saying he is chief of security?
What happens after a shooting if it turns out there are legal requirements he has not met that are required of security personnel in TX?
i don't know that there is any requirement that a "head of security" be armed. maybe in TX. But up here, the vast majority of companies do not want armed guards any more. They just are not real common.
it is like saying "basically" he is head of security. it just does not mean anything specific enough to comment on.
I knew a guy once was "basically" the bouncer at a local bar. he was never paid by the bar owner other then with free drinks. You think his status was not at least irregular?
The problem is that as long as nothing bad happens it probably won't matter any.
But what happens if he has to shoot someone? Is the company going to stand behind him if the only thing in writing says he is not supposed to be armed and there is nothing in writing saying he is chief of security?
What happens after a shooting if it turns out there are legal requirements he has not met that are required of security personnel in TX?
i don't know that there is any requirement that a "head of security" be armed. maybe in TX. But up here, the vast majority of companies do not want armed guards any more. They just are not real common.
Last edited: