With the tragic events that happened in Tyler, I read with great interest the article in the "Issues in Prosecution" section about the proposed bill that would allow DA's who have a concealed license to carry a handgun in the courthouse. In my opinion, it's about time....additionally, I would like to see CA's added to the list. We are often dealing with the same individuals on misd. crimes that have the potential of revoking parole/probation, or handling folks who have been to the pen on many occassions that just got caught on a misd. charge this time. That does not make them less dangerous. Lastly, many of those folks don't have attorneys representing them so there must be direct communication with the defendant, often alone in the prosecutor's office. I have always thought that was a time bomb waiting to go off. Anyone with me on this one?

I do agree with you that CA's as well as DA's should be allowed to carry a weapon in the courthouse. However, I think that the minimal training that one would receive in a CCH course is not adequate. Because of the possibility of having to engage an armed suspect in the small and crowded confines of a courthouse, I think that we should receive more intensive training then what would be offered in a CCH course.

I know that the firearms training that I received as a police officer went above and beyond the training that one receives in a CCH course. Maybe attending the firearms training that the local police officers receive would be more adequate for our needs. Additionally, annual qualifications should be required as well.

I don't mean to indicate that all of us should become sharpshooters but having some training in a shoot-don't shoot scenario, being able to recognize the back drop and training to clear jams/malfunctions would be beneficial.

If this bill does pass, as I hope it will, I wonder how the county leaders will feel about the additional liability of having armed attorney's working for them.

It is just a shame that something as terrible as what we experienced here in Tyler had to happen before this change was seriously talked about.

I'm okay with this legislation and don't see why CA's shouldn't be included as well. In our county, probation officers are carrying and their weapons are not concealed. Seems to me that many of the same arguments in favor of probation officers being allowed to carry are just as applicable to us.

Do we need to get this info to Shannon(if he hasn't already seen this), or is there a better approach to get this addition included in the bill? It's ironic that in most of the courthouses I have been in in west Texas, there are no metal detectors etc. yet a lot of folks have guns in their trucks right outside the doors to the building.

The bill is still being worked on, and I'm confident CAs will not be left out.

The real question will be whether assistants are included. That will be a bigger stretch, if for no other reason than that there are over 2,000 assistants out there right now. Stay tuned.

Thanks Shannon, I knew you would be on top of it.
If memory serves, a few years ago the concealed act was amended allowed elected DA's and maybe district judges to purchase a license without the required classes upon demonstrated proficiency with the handgun(or something like that)....CA's were omitted from that bill as well. I never understood the rational behind that decision.
Anything you can do to include us would be appreciated. It's a mean world out there and getting meaner all the time!

If I were worried, which I am not, I would probably prefer to get some training in how to use pepper spray, mace or other defensive maneuvers. I think the worse impulse, and the most natural one is the inclination to want to see what is going on and stick ones head up to be sure to not miss our on the action. It is the same thing that goes on when a tornado is spotted; you don�t want to miss out. I am familiar with shotguns and rifles but handguns have always scared me. It just seems that the business end of the gun is way too close to the trigger end. I am a misdemeanor county attorney in a very small county. Perhaps I am naive but I don�t want a gun, thank you very much. Likewise I don�t keep a gun at the office. I have a back door.

To add to Mike's meritorious points, CAs (and, of course, ACAs) usually are the ones who have to deal with the cases that are likely to produce courthouse violence ... family law/domestic violence cases. Nary a metal detector or secured door separates angry family members from my office's family crime unit (handling CPS and D/V protective orders). Where there are assistants (as in our office), permitting only the elected to carry probably isn't very useful. In smaller one-lawyer offices, however, there may be some efficacy. I would agree with the back door solution, but I'm relegated to a third-story window. And carrying a shotgun to work probably would only reinforce the "educated coasts'" view of the Texas justice system.

I have managed to slide under the DPS radar as a "prosecutor with felony jurisdiction" - who do you think handles those juvie felons? They balked a bit the first time, but since then they have waived the fees and classes, just like they do for DAs.

As I age and the eyes get worse, we may have another problem, though.....something about hitting the target???

My office is on the second floor without a back door or a window. I'm not sure its lawful to keep such firearms in the office even if your not carrying it on you.
Scott, don't think the shotgun idea hasn't crossed my mind.
Lisa, interesting approach...!
I can tell you there have been occassions when I have been alone in my office with a def. who has no less than 4 teardrop tattoos under his eye and I have been a little uncomfortable.
I have several friends that teach the classes and it seems fairly remedial to those of us who deal with the issues covered therein. I suppose that is why DA's and Judges are exempted.
I have no problem passing a proficiency exam when it comes to actually using the gun.

It was filed today. It adds the following language to the "conditions of non-applicability" under PC Sec. 46.15:

"...(6) a district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code."

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 03-01-05 at .]

Okay, Shannon, does this mean us "assistants" are not included in the exception? My D.A. is not even in the same office suite with me, is rarely in the courtroom with me when I'm in trial, and probably won't be inclined to start "packin'" even if he becomes allowed to by law.

That was my point as well.

Only elected prosecutors are covered? What about those of us who actually work the cases?

If the "ship hits the sand" at the courthouse, and the elected DA is off at the Lion's Club giving a speech, what good is that?

Actually, divorce attys. are more likely to face a life-threatening situation than prosecutors (so I read somewhere). Defense attys. actually have to spend quality time with dangerous crooks. Why shouldn't they be armed as well?

In fact, I think anyone who is a member of the Texas Bar should automatically be given a license to carry. I also think part of the bar exam should include handgun training, and shoot/don't shoot training. Moreover, I think such courses should be mandatory CLE at least every other year. Might encourage more straight shooting by all members of the bar.

I believe it is possible for a prosecutor to be designated as an investigator under CCP 2.12 and become a peace officer. Training, qualification, and CLE requirements would still apply.

I have a problem with arming the entire Bar, and allowing all attorneys to carry firearms in the courthouse.

Don't know about your jurisdictions, but there are some attorneys around here that are loose cannons anyway; they don't need to be armed and loose! Also - many have quite a bit of trouble controlling their clients (criminal as well as civil). If counsel had a firearm handy, he or she might be hard pressed to keep it out of the wrong hands.

Then again - do we want all judges to have firearms available???? (don't answer that....)

The argument would have to be that since under 41.103(b) of the Govt Code: "An assistant prosecuting attorney may perform all duties imposed by law on the prosecuting attorney", that the terms as used in the amended stature must be construed to include assistants. Assistants have certainly been treated as the equivalents of electeds when the need arose (i.e., when the elected position was vacant). Without question, the reason for the exception applies equally and perhaps even more forcefully to at least some assistants (if one operates off the premise concealed gun-toting enhances courthouse safety rather than unnecessarily endangering others). Whether the exception should be expressly modified to expressly include all prosecuting attorneys is indeed a big question (potentially involving thousands of persons). My guess is many electeds will choose not to carry their guns, and many appointeds will wish that they could (and for good reason) if they are excluded, but that the overall number of CCH permitees among our ranks is and will remain relatively small and the number who would take advantage of the exception even much smaller. I do not think the employer would ever be responsible for the CCH permitee's conduct unless the employer chose to establish policies concerning its employees in this regard. Due to the lax security in the courthouses where I appear, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction.

It is my understanding that the bill, as introduced, does not -- and is not intended to -- include assistant prosecutors.

(Martin, since this privilege is not a "duty", I don't think your approach is valid.)

Terry's point on arming the entire bar is well taken, and is exactly why assistants and other are NOT included in the bill at this time. Lawyers, caseworkers, court reporters, etc. -- basically, anyone who does any work in a courtroom -- have asked to be included in the defenses under 46.15(a)(1) (which, by the way, apply to many places other than courtrooms). I am of the opinion that such efforts may kill the bill. So, before you kill Matt Bingham's bill, I encourage you to contact him in the DA's office in Tyler and discuss it with him personally.

And for those who intend to make logical arguments for your inclusion ... what makes you think logic has anything to do with legislation?

That's what I was afraid of, Shannon. This bill's useless. I love my elected to death and think he's a wonderful guy to work for but I think he would be the first to agree that everyone in our courthouse would be safer if he were NOT the one packing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Sparks:
I believe it is possible for a prosecutor to be designated as an investigator under CCP 2.12 and become a peace officer. Training, qualification, and CLE requirements would still apply.

---

Ken, you're right. I know of a number of prosecutors that maintain their peace officer's license and are commissioned as investigators including myself. Maybe allowing some form of abbriviated peace officer trianing and licensing for prosecutors would help.