You know, having been a prosecutor ("turncoat" - if any remember that phrase now erased), and a defense attorney, I have had many opportunities to observe the dealings of members of the bar and the defendants. There are some attorneys I would not let shine my shoes, let alone handle a case. I cannot agree that all members of the bar should pack heat. I'm laughing as I write this because I have in mind one defense attorney who would be just as likely to shoot a client he thought was guilty as he would be to give him his usual useless advice and bad representation. Count my vote as against packing heat by people in the courthouse.

I haven't been a prosecutor and defense attorney like some, but I still might agree with limiting weapons inside the courtroom. There are already several armed--and trained--peace officers in every courthouse with the sole job to maintain security of the players and control over their firearm. Before we put more guns inside the bar, we might want to answer a couple of questions:

1. Would the shooter in Tyler have had second thoughts if he knew all the DAs were armed? (If we assume he knew the attorneys were armed, we'd also have to assume he knew the bailiffs, constables, and sheriffs were armed--that didn't seem to deter him.)
2. Picture five or six ADAs crouched behind courthouse windows shooting back. Does this picture seem safer to you?

I would also present to you that allowing attorneys to carry weapons will put those weapons within the grasp of defendants (who won't always be happy with the proceedings, and might get desperate at times). Those in the courtroom charged with keeping security know where their weapon is with respect to potential threats at all times (that's their job, and I know from six and a half years experience as a combat arms Army officer that it's important to have--and easy to lose--track of your weapon). Are prosecutors, who have to interact with witnesses, defendants, defense attorneys, jurors, etc... (and might tend to get distracted in the heat of a trial) always going to be as focused?

While I understand the reasoning of the above argument, it assumes that there are always armed and trained folks nearby when we are dealing with potential irrational defendants. In my small jurisdiction, that is seldom the case. We have deputies present during courtroom hearings(for the most part), but all other dealings with pro se defendants are conducted outside the presence of armed officers. In fact, there is seldom one in the courthouse unless he is bringing over prisoners. That leaves me and my staff and the County Judge and whomever else happens to be on that floor alone with 30-50 defendants at any given time and the Sheriff's office too short staffed to babysit all day while we work thru the plea agreements.
That being said, those with reservations about their ability to handle a firearm etc. are not required to participate. It just seems in the past few years more folks have the attitude that they just don't care and conduct in the courthouse continues to deteriorate while the level of violence increases. While the bill might not have a deterant effect, it might allow me or a co-worker to go home to our family if a drastic situation arose. My $.02

1. 110 year old courthouse;
2. No metal detectors;
3. Main entrance to courtroom opens directly to outside of courthouse;
4. Second entrance comes in behind judge;
5. No holding cells. Inmates sit in gallery;
6. SOMETIMES, one armed constable. A second unarmed jailer on a good day;
7. Civil and criminal dockets held together with up to 100 people in courtroom at one time (with inmates);

Don't assume the security in courthouses in larger jurisdictions is the norm.

Tuck, this is the reason that I think this legislation is unnecessary. Presently, a District or County Attorney can commission himself or herself and any prosecutor on the staff as an investigator/peace officer, allowing them to carry a firearm. The training and other requirements for a peace officer that have to be met to maintain one's good standing are there for a reason. Untrained people should not be carrying a weapon, even if they have a law degree. There is no need for every prosecutor to be packing a pistol in the courtroom. With the present framework, it is left to the good judgment of the elected prosecutor as to who could carry a weapon. It should remain that way.

Ken, I think that sounds great. I don't want or need the firearm without the training.

I am not saying I want every bar card to come with a handgun, but I tend to agree with most of you. What good is it to arm the elected without arming the assistants. As a former Army Infantry and Armor officer I can tell you that I carried a 9mm handgun while my soldiers carried M16s. Why?- common sense- because my job was to lead 1st- fight 2nd. This is especially true in a big county. Now I am not saying that electeds don't come face to face with as many defendants as assistants do- but lets be realistic about case loads. Arming the Captain without arming the soldiers doesn't make sense.

Ken, The biggest problem with most prosecutors acquiring their peace officer�s license is time. The minimum police academy is over 600 class room hours (a third of which is statutory criminal law and procedure). What I would like to see is some way to allow prosecutors to take an abbreviated version of the police academy training. Prosecutors could take the "non law" portions of training and be allowed to challenge the TCLEOSE exam. They could then become fully licensed peace officers with all the CLE and annual firearms qualifications that would require. An elected could commission them as "investigators". I maintain my peace officers license from my pre lawyer days which means I have to do annual CLE and qualify with any weapon I carry every six months.

Your suggestion makes sense to me.

I'm laughing as I write this because I have in mind one defense attorney who would be just as likely to shoot a client he thought was guilty as he would be to give him his usual useless advice and bad representation.

Beck,

Funny you should say this b/c we were discussing this yesterday in a staff meeting and I said the same thing. I also pointed out that I didnt think there was any way he could keep me from taking it away from him if I really wanted to and didnt think a boy in orange in the box would have trouble doing it either.

My branch of the CDA deals with family violence protective orders, angry CPS parents (a term used only in the biological sense), and other equally violent characters. We are a block away and eleven floors above our elected CDA. His right to carry has absolutely no relevance on the personal safety of me and my colleagues. An amendment that does not allow a right to carry to all prosecutors (elected and assistant, CDA, DA and CA) is of no use and is only window dressing.

Abbreviated training? But we'd have SO MUCH to unlearn ...