WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1002

Security Guard Employers - Regulation and Certification - Exemption for Video Lottery Operator and Sports Wagering Facility Licensees

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Pam Beidle

SB 1002 excludes video lottery operators and sports wagering licensees from security guard employer status, reducing duplicative licensure while staff stay under gaming licenses.

First Reading Senate Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1002

SB 1002 — Security Guard Employers: Exemption for Video Lottery Operators & Sports Wagering Facility Licensees

Status: First Reading — Senate Rules
Introduced: Feb. 1, 2025 (assigned to Rules)
Sponsor: Senator Beidle (Maryland)
Effective date (as written): July 1, 2025

Main purpose

SB 1002 narrows the statutory definition of “security guard employer” in Maryland’s security-guard law so that certain gaming entities — specifically licensed video lottery operators and licensed sports wagering facility operators — are not treated as “security guard employers” for purposes of the state’s security guard regulation and certification regime. The bill leaves other licensing and employee requirements under gaming law intact.

Key provisions

  • Amends Article — Business Occupations and Professions:
    • Revises definitions in §19‑101(m) to explicitly exclude:
    • A video lottery operator (as defined in State Government §9‑1A‑01), and
    • A sports wagering facility licensee (as defined in State Government §9‑1E‑01), from the term “security guard employer.”
  • Repeals and reenacts related sections (§19‑101(a),(j),(k), §19‑201, §19‑401(c)) to reflect the definitional change.
    • Under current law, security guard employers may be required to have their security personnel certified by the Secretary (Secretary of State Police). The exclusion removes those gaming licensees from the statutory category that triggers that requirement.
  • Retains and references existing gaming‑specific employee licensing provisions:
    • §9‑1A‑14 (video lottery employee licensing) and §9‑1E‑03 (sports wagering licensing) remain operative; gaming employees remain subject to licensing/requirements imposed by the appropriate gaming commission(s).
  • Effective date specified as July 1, 2025.

Who is affected

  • Directly affected: licensed video lottery operator(s) and licensed sports wagering facility operators and the security employees they directly employ.
  • State agencies: Secretary (of State Police) responsible for security guard licensing; gaming regulatory bodies that issue video lottery and sports wagering employee licenses.
  • Indirectly affected: private security firms and other entities still governed by the state security‑guard certification rules.

Practical effect and considerations

  • Regulatory shift: Security personnel employed directly by the excluded gaming licensees would no longer fall under the security‑guard employer provisions in Maryland’s Business Occupations & Professions title; instead, such individuals remain subject to gaming‑specific employee licensing and oversight.
  • Administrative impact: May reduce the certification workload for the Secretary’s office with regard to these employers, and may reduce overlapping or duplicate licensure requirements for gaming employer‑hired security staff.
  • Policy considerations: Supporters may argue this avoids duplicative regulation where gaming licensing already controls employee fitness and conduct. Opponents may raise concerns about uniformity of security training, certification standards, or public‑safety oversight if different rules apply to gaming employers versus other employers who hire security staff.

Statutory references amended

  • Business Occupations & Professions: §19‑101 (definitions), §19‑201 (Secretary responsibilities), §19‑401(c) (certification requirement)
  • State Government: §9‑1A‑14 (video lottery employee licensing), §9‑1E‑03 (sports wagering subtitles)

This summary reflects the bill text as introduced and the sections it proposes to amend; implementation and any secondary rulemaking would depend on subsequent committee action, final enactment, and agency interpretation.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.