Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to loosen private security licensing prompts public-safety warnings from national industry group
Summary
Senate Bill 198, which would remove a rule that effectively requires private security guards to be employed by licensed firms and would reduce some licensing gatekeeping, was presented by Senator Trubus as an entrepreneurship measure; the National Association of Security Companies warned removing background checks and training requirements could threaten public safety and community trust.
Senator Trubus introduced Senate Bill 198 to modify Montana’s private-security licensing scheme by striking requirements that function as a gatekeeping restriction — chiefly a departmental rule requiring private security guards to be employed by a licensed private security firm. The sponsor framed the bill as reducing barriers to entry and supporting entrepreneurship.
"What I call gatekeeping restriction ... that's really what bothered me," Senator Trubus said, summarizing the proposal to remove the employment-for-license requirement and streamline access to security-related endorsements.
Steve Amaitay, executive director of the National Association of Security Companies, opposed the bill, warning that eliminating licensing, background checks, and training could produce security officers without required checks or training who interact with the public and respond to emergencies. "This could result in harmful or even tragic outcomes for Montanans," he said.
Kevin Bragg, Bureau Chief for Professional Licensing at the Department of Labor and Industry, testified as an informational witness about current requirements (including a $100 application fee, 16 hours of training, and FBI fingerprint checks for some endorsements). Bragg said the department needs to study interactions with the FBI and how endorsement-only applicants without a base license would be processed; he flagged implementation complexity and potential delays in background checks.
Committee members asked about complaint and adjudication processes if base licensing were removed, whether immediate suspensions would remain possible in cases of serious misconduct, and how employers would seek redress against unlicensed contractors. Bragg said the department would review jurisdictional and procedural questions and follow up with the committee.
Sponsor Trubus and witnesses agreed the proposal may need refinement; no amendments or votes were recorded during the hearing.
