My Contract vs. Your Right

contract-signing1Article 1. SCOPE OF WORK:

“Client hereby retains BPI to provide [unarmed] [armed] executive protection and security services as set forth on Attachment A.”

That is the very first line of the BPI contract.  If you notice there are two choices in the first sentence that must be defined PRIOR to me submitting the contract to the client.  Let me reiterate – PRIOR to submission to the client. The determination of whether my company provides armed or unarmed services is done on the front end during the client interview, brief and assessment.  This is a vital requirement on the part of any service provider in the industry.

I am doing this blog to distinguish the difference between your contractual obligation and your personal right to conceal carry.  This is not a 2nd Amendment argument about your Constitutional Right to carry in your state, but an honest look at a trend of many who feel that they have a right to carry concealed REGARDLESS of the client’s wishes or more importantly working armed when the executive protection service provider is remiss in qualifying whether the contract is to be armed or not.

There are some details or engagements that should be armed as well as those that do not necessarily need to be armed. Like it or not, we have a client base that is split somewhere down the middle. Some want guns around them regardless of the Risk & Threat Vulnerability and others that abhor the thought of weapons altogether.  But the question remains:

  • Do you feel that your Constitutional right to carry supersedes a contract that states – UNARMED, and
  • Are you a service provider that does not articulate in your contract whether the engagement is armed or unarmed services?

As a service provider I will never assume that all clients know we are armed nor do I assume that they want us armed.  Based on the initial briefing and assessment, that conversation is had.  There are cases where the client’s point of contact will ask if we can be armed and others where they have specifically stated that the client wants us to be unarmed.  Either way I have a conversation regarding both.  For me, there is a hidden reason why that was asked and I need to know before I place Specialists in that space.  To be clear and transparent, there have been engagements when I told the client that based on the overall assessment we needed to armed.  I don’t want anyone to think that I am against guns because I am not.  But a hammer is not needed for every job.

There have been times where the client wants us to be armed for legitimate reasons, however the jurisdictional laws prohibit weapons [Whiskey Delta Charlie]. AGAIN, I am not trying to restrict anyone’s 2nd Amendment right, but want to spark a conversation on Contractual obligation vs. Right to Carry AND make sure that the service providers are covering themselves correctly under their contract.

1 comment

  1. Josh

    Eric, have you heard about a recent California district appeals court’s decision that concealed carry is not protected by 2nd Am., as was notated in the last issue of Security Management by ASIS,? If I understood the summary correctly, I believe it was two individuals who attempted to justify their “just cause” requirement for their concealed carry by stating “self-defense” and “2nd Am” and they were ultimately denied. Do you think this decision has the power to negate the debate altogether?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *