TexasCHLforum.com

Have openly armed employee's, that is ...

Why not, in Texas or other red states, open a bank and encourage tellers to carry and carry openly? You could even make it part of the character of the bank - call it "2A Bank and Trust" or something. Surely the risk of robbery would go way down. How many customers would it scare away vs how many it would attract?

Just musing out loud ...

terryg wrote:How many customers would it scare away

The majority.

being new to Texas, I haven't visited a bank that had armed security.. do they have them here? there are a few banks in california that have armed security. usually with a revolver of some sort and i've seen a few with glocks.

i think if the tellers had guns they would need to be highly trained and tested on proficiency often. rule #4 - be sure of your target and whats beyond it. there are a lot of innocent bystanders and with all the stress and commotion of a robbery it's easy to miss your target and hit someone beyond it. don't get me wrong, i'm totally for people protecting themselves and those around them -especially if the robbery is botched and they barricade themselves in the bank and take hostages. in which case, i think concealed carry would be the best option. i don't know.. i'm just rambling.

whenever i go visit the Philippines and go a bank.. there are usually 2 in the front with 870's and a pistol on their hip. and sometimes guards roaming around with AR's. they are the FDIC. lol.

I work an Odj at a local CU.

Only the owner or person in control of the property are legally allowed to open carry inside a business according to PC46.02. I'm not sure the tellers would qualify as being "in control" of the bank property. I think employees at a gun store may also be iffy even though I know you frequently see that.

Brian

erick619 wrote:with all the stress and commotion of a robbery it's easy to miss your target and hit someone beyond it

experience?

gigag04 wrote:

erick619 wrote:with all the stress and commotion of a robbery it's easy to miss your target and hit someone beyond it

experience?

nope, i'm fortunate that i've never had to shoot at anyone. i'm just saying.. if a teller is armed just be be armed and doesn't have proper training and isn't proficient it would be easy for him or her to miss the target especially under high stress.

terryg wrote:Have openly armed employee's, that is ...

Why not, in Texas or other red states, open a bank and encourage tellers to carry and carry openly? You could even make it part of the character of the bank - call it "2A Bank and Trust" or something. Surely the risk of robbery would go way down. How many customers would it scare away vs how many it would attract?

Just musing out loud ...

Hummm.. Very logical. Banks have money; crooks want to steal money; protect the money. What's so hard about that?

Unfortunately guns and logic don't mesh. Look no further than the US Army which is un-armed.

Wouldn't having armed employees as envisioned above require them to be licensed security officers?

How is an armed bank teller any different than an ordinary grocery store hiring unlicensed people to stand armed guard instead of hiring licensed security officers?

This probably comes down to a marketing exercise. How many customers would a bank gain by having armed tellers vs. how many customers it would lose because of it.

They would have a hard time getting liability insurance.

Jumping Frog wrote:Wouldn't having armed employees as envisioned above require them to be licensed security officers?

How is an armed bank teller any different than an ordinary grocery store hiring unlicensed people to stand armed guard instead of hiring licensed security officers?

Same as gun stores. It's not legal there either, just nobody gets arrested for it.

A few letters come to mind, FDIC. A bank could care less if they are robbed and have a policy coverage for robbery and theft. Give them the money and let them move on vs training an employee gun safety and the liability insurance it would cost the bank for that armed employee. The math is easy.

Easy fix, combine the two..."First National Bank and Guns".

Jumping Frog wrote:Wouldn't having armed employees as envisioned above require them to be licensed security officers?

How is an armed bank teller any different than an ordinary grocery store hiring unlicensed people to stand armed guard instead of hiring licensed security officers?

THIS