The Preemptive Draw and Preemptive Grip in the Cash-in-Transit Sector

By Edwin Torres. June 23, 2026. I have always been interested in history, including the development of firearms, but an area that does not seem to get as much focus is the development of tactics. There’s a particular set of tactics within the private security industry which I first noticed years ago. Taking a trip down memory lane to 2016, I recall seeing this on my first day working as an unarmed security guard for a small bank branch while on one of my very first security assignments. I witnessed an armored Ford pick truck belonging to one of the major cash-in-transit companies pull up to the front of the bank. I saw the messenger exit the truck, set a handcart on the ground, and draw his firearm out of the holster while he pulled boxes of coin out of the truck and dropped them onto the handcart with his free hand. I then observed him reholster his firearm and roll the handcart into the bank with a relaxed demeanor as if he had done this countless times. Now this may have seemed odd to many people, but I had actually seen this being done before, simply not in person. I had seen old photos of armored truck crews performing similar actions, as well as in Hollywood films. I later became reacquainted with this tactic two years later in 2018, when I began working within the cash-in-transit sector for a different major company. Although it was not used at every stop, nor by every employee, I did observe my co-workers performing similar actions, gripping their firearms or drawing them out completely during certain moments on the job. Now I don’t know if anyone has come up with a specific name for these practices before, but I have decided to refer to it as the preemptive draw and preemptive grip of a firearm in the cash-in-transit sector. It is characterized by an employee in a cash-in-transit role (the term increasingly used globally to refer to what we in the US call the “armored car industry”) routinely drawing or gripping their firearm, without the presence of a specific threat. Now this article is not intended to discuss the legality of this tactic in your jurisdiction, or whether it is tactically sound. Instead, it will analyze the documented history of this tactic, primarily from sources in the US and Canada, which demonstrates that this is not simply the random choice of a few cash-in-transit employees; rather, it is a well established practice going back over 100 years to the earliest days of the use of armored automobiles to transport money and other valuables Beginnings During my research, one of the most valuable books I read was Bulletproof, by James L. Dunbar, founder of Federal Armored Express and son of the famous founder of Dunbar Armored, George Dunbar (now a part of Brinks). Also cowritten by author and journalist Robert Grant Kingwell. Take a guess at how quickly I came across the preemptive grip… page 1. This book brought me to the very beginnings of the industry. I will explore some quotes from the book in later sections. Dunbar claims in his book that Michael E. Sweeney of the Sweeney Detective Bureau, a former St. Paul Police lieutenant turned security company owner, was the first to invent the purpose-built, money-transporting, armored automobile in 1919. In my research, I discovered that the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago had already commissioned the construction of and used a “bandit-proof truck” earlier in 1919, and that David Bellamore had already filed a patent for an “automobile bank vehicle” all the way back in 1910! Still, Sweeney did play a major role in commercializing the armored car as a service. His company was eventually bought by Loomis in 1967. The predecessors of the armored car industry can be traced to the Wells Fargo Express stagecoaches of the old west and the lesser known bank messengers who would travel on foot, sometimes armed, carrying cash deliveries to their customers within cities. The Documented History The main source of my research came from Google’s News Archive. It is a great searchable tool that contains scanned images from thousands of newspapers and magazines from around the world. You may notice that I include only portions of the articles. This is to respect copyright and only include portions of publications for the purposes of commentary. This list is by no means a full list of every reference to the preemptive draw/grip, but I wanted to include at least one reference from each decade going back to the 1920s to the 2000s. Also I would like to add, there are many different terms to refer to cash-in-transit crew members, and I use the term, guard, and messenger interchangeable, as do some of the sources. The first documented mention of the preemptive grip I discovered was published a mere five years after Sweeney debuted his services to the people of St. Paul. Published in Everybody’s Magazine, It is a very extensive article for its time and draws from a conversation with W.R. Huntington of the Adam’s Express Company. The article includes photos and in depth knowledge of the procedures, personnel, weaponry, and vehicles in use at the time. Moving on to the next decade, in an opinion letter to the editor, one Pittsburgh resident decries the sight of the many armed money carriers and bank guards. This is the first negative reference to the practice I could find. The author states in further harsh language that “to have unnecessary display of fire-arms is resented by all law-abiding citizens”. I would certainly challenge that opinion considering how neutrally it is described in many other sources. The scene from this 1948 pictorial article paints a different picture of the preemptive draw. One of “monotonous regularity.” The unknown author rode along with a Brink’s crew photographing their day-to-day operations. In the caption under a different photo of two of the crew members entering the rear of the truck, one with his pistol drawn, it reads “Guns are out and ready when the rolling vault is open”. McCarthy’s Petitions. December 1, 1954. This reference could probably be an article of its own. The preemptive draw pops up in many places, one of the most surprising was on the steps of the US Capitol Building. In 1954, the infamous senator Joseph McCarthy was censured by the Senate. In response, he began a campaign knowns as the “Ten Million Americans Mobilizing for Justice” to collect signatures from citizens to petition against his censure. He had the signatures delivered to the steps of the Capitol via armored car. Journalists and onlookers reported the guards drawing their pistols while unloading the boxes of signatures, which some considered an unnecessary show of force. Senator Fuleright ordered the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the matter. I have provided the report from the Senate below in its entirety since it is public record and not subject to copyright. Note that the report uses the term “special officers” to refer to the armored car crew. For context, all armed security guards in Washington DC hold the title of Special Police Officer. One of the issues this incident highlights was that during this time, the Capitol and Metropolitan police appear to not have clear rules on who and how firearms could be carried into the Capitol building. Despite the alarm that the incident caused, I think it is important to note that the police in this incident did not arrest the armored car crew for the crime of brandishing, and the firearm of the messenger who went inside the building was returned by the Metropolitan Police upon his exit. One ordinary Montreal citizen in his comments to the newspaper suggested the need for armed guards to be ready for quick gun-play at any moment. He dedicated the majority of his writing decrying the absence of the preemptive draw/grip being used in previous robberies. He also suggests banks install bullet-proof glass inside branches. In the 1970s, we begin to see the practice of the preemptive draw/grip becoming recognized by the law, either explicitly allowed, or explicitly prohibited. In my only reference from Australia, the police in the state of Victoria amended the law to allow the practice. It seems to imply that this practice varied legally from state to state. The article explains that this change was hastened after a series of hold ups. The move was welcomed by the general manager of Mayne Nickless (now part of Armaguard). The Debate in Canada The next several sections are actually out of order from the previous reference from Australia, but I ordered them this way because they all have to do with a surprisingly well-documented debate on whether the practice should be allowed in the province of Ontario. It is a debate that goes back and forth for years. Attorney-General of Ontario Arthur Wishart issued a series of regulations restricting police equipment. As the title implies, police were banned from using mace (but not tear gas) and police were required to use fully enclosed flap holsters. These rules would be applied to security guards as seen in the next articles. A year after the police rules were mandated in Ontario, an article showcasing Wells Fargo’s armored division (now part of Loomis), which had only recently entered the Canadian market, shows the results of the attorney-general’s rule. It gives the justification that some guards were acting “like cowboys.” The guards themselves pushed back against the Ontario law nine years later. The Teamsters union argued that they were put in danger because of the rule and noted that in the province of Quebec, the practice was allowed. This demonstrates that different provincial governments viewed the preemptive/grip in different lights. As of 1986, the Ontario government did not budge on its ban of the practice. The article notes that British Columbia did not have a policy against the preemptive draw/grip. Ontario Police’s chief firearms officer argued that the practice “could make hold ups more dangerous.” The article also states that Brink’s Canada had called for the ban to be removed, which shows just how important the practice was for the major armored transport companies. The laws in Canada were later referenced in the book Bulletproof, which I mentioned at the start of this post. The authors explain that the practice of how weapons were carried were influenced by both laws and company philosophies. There are two more instances of the preemptive draw/grip in Canada that I will save for part 2 of this topic. The following sections will return to the US for the final two decades I will cover. The preemptive draw/grip pops again in an unlikely place. In a decision from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Wells Fargo Armored for violating workers’ rights, the document actually includes a section from the personnel handbook of Wells Fargo in which the pre-emptive draw (and pre-emptive grip where the draw was prohibited) is explicitly listed as a routine procedure. In my last news article, we reach the digital age in a reference not from a newspaper, but from a news website. It appears that the preemptive draw was still causing controversy with some up until the late 2000s in sunny Los Angeles. The author compares the Brink’s guard she nearly bumped into outside an Albertsons with the soldiers and contractors of combat zones. Although the messenger in this case should have been more aware of his surroundings and deescalated the encounter, the amount of colorful language on the part of the author leaves me with the impression that things may not have gone down exactly like she described. I do applaud her for doing her own research and reaching out to an LAPD officer and to Brink’s management. The letter she received from the regional vice president was very professional and explained the policies, but did not directly indicate that the messenger did anything wrong by using the preemptive draw. As I draw this article to a close, I want to include one more interesting quote from Bulletproof. This paragraph illustrates the different carry conditions and holsters used by different companies in the “early years.” One peculiar description here is the practice of avoiding the draw altogether by shooting through the “upturned holsters.” I have not found any other reference to this technique and I wonder what holster design could have been used to practice this technique without blowing out the tip of the holster with each shot (even with holsters that had an open bottom) and how the cylinder on a revolver or the slide on an automatic could function inside the holster without malfunctioning. Conclusion Over the 100 years of the cash-in-transit industry, technologies and tactics have developed and evolved to meet the unique risks that come with the mission of transporting valuables across roadways. The private security industry, just as the law enforcement, the military, and armed citizen spheres all have their own approach to gun fighting adapted for their respective mission. What the lesson that the preemptive draw and grip teaches us is the need to balance the needs of security professionals with the perceptions of the public and the limitations of the law. I hope you have enjoyed the first official article of Guts, Gates, & Guards. Stay tuned for Part 2 where I explore the why for this practice.