I got my new Prosecutor CHL yesterday. (Except for the guy in the photo it looks pretty cool).

What do I do wth the old one? Normally one would send it back in, but I saw nothing that fits this "re-issue" matter.

I didn't see any instruction on mine to return, so I cut up into teeny-tiny pieces and disposed of accordingly.

BTW--since we have revived this issue--I was looking over the previous thread yesterday to determine whether or not prosecutors are required to conceal carry now--was there ever a final resolution? I couldn't find a definitive answer in the previous discussion.

Bob:

This is the answer I received from a contact at DPS:

"The department does not require the return of the replaced (old) license at this time. The license can be destroyed by the license holder as they see fit." I think Robert's method works just fine, too.

Robert:

Keep your light under your bushel basket, if you get my drift. The changes in law did not provide a defense for prosecutors to the offense listed in PC Sec. 46.035(a), "failing to conceal." That's a Class A misdemeanor.

Well, TDCAA ought to get on the wagon and get some legislation to allow open carry for Prosecutors, County Attorneys, etc. Why is everybody afraid of that? The only time we good good legislation for those of us in the ditch is when some legislator intervenes makes it happen, such as in Tyler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike bartley:
Well, TDCAA ought to get on the wagon and get some legislation to allow open carry for Prosecutors, County Attorneys, etc.

---

+1

Mike, you seem to misunderstand the role of TDCAA in the legislative process. TDCAA is a member-based service organization that accepts grant money to provide training and support for prosecutors and their staff throughout Texas. Nothing about that mission includes a mandate to represent you in the Legislature or speak on your behalf on any particular issue.

If you have an issue you believe should be heard on behalf of prosecutors, then you need to set aside the time and energy to make it happen, as so many before you have done. For example, you could contact your state representative and senator and ask them to sponsor such a bill. Then, you could suggest drafting language and look for like-minded prosecutors to show up and testify in favor of the bill. But, TDCAA will not be an official sponsor of that or any other legislation, regardless how good it may seem to prosecutors.

Now, it is true that Shannon Edmonds works on legislative matters during the session. And, to do so, he stops accepting pay from any grant-based funds, switching instead to being paid by separately donated money that comes from various independent sources, such as the sale of publications. But, again, Shannon only acts as a resource, talking about the various legal issues associated with legislation. It does not make him any sort of employee of prosecutors for the purpose of passing particular bills. Again, individual prosecutors have a responsibility for doing that work.

I say all of this because I don't want you or other prosecutors to repeat the misleading statement that TDCAA has some duty or obligation to pass bills that are suggested by prosecutors. Quite the opposite. Prosecutors have the duty and obligation to exercise their constitutional right to participate in the democratic process. Posting a provocative statement on the User Forum is a start, but not if you believe it shifts all responsibility to TDCAA.

There is no way one person or organization could speak for the hundreds of elected prosecutors and their staff. We have too many differences in opinions. So, it is up to each prosecutor to coordinate with his fellow, like-minded prosecutors to seek a change in the law.

I will grant you that it is a messy, time-consuming process. Having participated in this stuff for nearly two decades, I can see how the process can seem daunting and frustrating, but that's how it works. I hope to see you in Austin when things kick off in January.

[This message was edited by JB on 10-27-08 at .]

If I may suggest this answer to Mike's question: Concealment equates to safety. Peace officers are trained to defend their weapons from bad guys, but prosecutors are not. The best way for prosecutors to protect their right to carry firearms is to make sure that nobody ever knows they are carrying firearms.

Some prosecutors who were certified peace officers in a former life and who have extensive training in handgun retention disagree with that assertion, Brett.

Further, although I am not the spokesman for prosecutors in favor of open carry, simply realize that actual full concealed carry is often not possible. By that I mean if the weapon is carried, for instance, in a belt holster under a jacket, it might not be totally concealed as the law seems to require.

If a weeapon bulge or "cutout" is visible under a jacket, is the weapon really totally concealed as contemplated by the chl laws? Likewise, if the jacket is not buttoned and if a really astute observer looks under the jacket and sees the mere hint of a holster or a portion of the gun, it would appear that the chl holder is not concealing the gun totally.

If the tip of an ankle holster is visible to the observer when the wearer sits down and the pants leg rises slightly, is the chl holder in violation of the law?

Most of the prosecutors I know who advocate open carry provisions for prosecutors are not looking to be Matt Dillon and walk around town/courthouse/etc with an openly displayed gun (a'la a Texas Ranger or other plainclothes peace officers who often wear their guns in the open) but are looking to make sure they comply with the law if the weapon is momentarily glimpsed by an observer under a jacket or shirt.

Absolute concealment of a weapon is at times difficult, if not impossible, in the Texas heat and with certain clothing. But prosecutors and judges are different from other chl holders as there are often persons out there who would seek to do them harm for performing their public safety jobs. The DA is the highest law enforcement official in the county. If the DA or his/her chl holding assistants (as well as judges) are willing to take a retention course, why not extend to them the option of open carry?

I do not see how "open carry" would make you any more safe? In fact, it would draw a lot more attention to yourself.

If someone has it in their head to do you harm, openly carrying your weapon on your belt, etc., is not going to help you from some guy coming up behind you in a parking lot or wherever and zapping you in the head.

I think it would cause undue alarm and misunderstandings (people might think that you're a police officer or maybe even a bad guy), and it would not help make you any more safer.

At least with a concealed weapon the bad guy is left being unsure as to whether or not you actually have a weapon on your person.

Greg:

Do you think a judge or prosecutor subjects him-/herself to prosecution for "intentionally fail[ing] to conceal the handgun" under the facts you just laid out? Because that's what the crime requires -- an intentional failure.

I have no position on the merits of the issue one way or the other, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the scope of the alleged problem. Thanks.

If open carry is to work, how about requiring a special hat with blinking light that has the international symbol for "I'm armed" on it? I would want that turned off in the courtroom, though.

I'm still not convinced that the 2d Amendment doesn't allow open carry for all in the first place. Right to 'keep and bear arms" means just what it says. Bearing arms is not restricted to "but only if hidden."

[This message was edited by Bob Cole on 11-03-08 at .]

So, in addition to the above-mentioned cap, we should, perhaps, add a posterboard on front and back, saying, "I am hereby exercising my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms."

quote:

---

Originally posted by R_Smith:
I do not see how "open carry" would make you any more safe? In fact, it would draw a lot more attention to yourself.

If someone has it in their head to do you harm, openly carrying your weapon on your belt, etc., is not going to help you from some guy coming up behind you in a parking lot or wherever and zapping you in the head.

I think it would cause undue alarm and misunderstandings (people might think that you're a police officer or maybe even a bad guy), and it would not help make you any more safer.

At least with a concealed weapon the bad guy is left being unsure as to whether or not you actually have a weapon on your person.

---

After you attend a police academy, serve the public a few years on the street as a police officer, and then become a prosecutor and prosecute a few hard core crooks and get a few non-frivolous death threats made upon your life and your families life, then give me a holler. I might listen to what you say then.

Until then, keep up the good work as a pundit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannon Edmonds:
Greg:

Do you think a judge or prosecutor subjects him-/herself to prosecution for "intentionally fail[ing] to conceal the handgun" under the facts you just laid out? Because that's what the crime requires -- an _intentional_ failure.

I have no position on the merits of the issue one way or the other, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the scope of the alleged problem. Thanks.

---

I'll bend your ear over this issue in January at the update, Shannon.

Here is another example. You carry in a belt holster. Before you enter your car at the courthouse, you remove your jacket. Intentionally. Your weapon is displayed for a few moments before you enter your vehicle. De mimimus? Yes. A violation any police agency would prosecute? I doubt it. But technically a violation of the law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
If open carry is to work, how about requiring a special hat with blinking light that has the international symbol for "I'm armed" on it? I would want that turned off in the courtroom, though.

---

JB: I'm not talking about carrying in the courtroom.

In addition to the blinking light, I want my hat to read, "My gun is bigger than yours!"

Hey, I agree that the second amendment should be moved up in the order of priority. However, I just think that prosecutors who choose to carry weapons will be better tolerated if the weapons are hidden from view.

I may not be totally up to speed on the issue, but I assume that permitting prosecutors to carry openly (like peace officers) means that some prosecutors may choose to carry their guns on their hips (like peace officers). This just seems politically and tactically unwise.

I'd rather just keep mine in my pants...

So, is indecent exposure a lesser-included to failure to conceal?

I suppose that the phallic symbolism of handguns is unavoidable...

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Greg, I think your over analyzing what it takes to be "concealed". However there are several good IWB tuckable holsters that allow quick access and tactical concealability when in non-jacket wearing mode. This one works pretty well but is Glock only. http://www.onesourcetactical.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=484

There is no substitute for training though. If your gonna carry be trained.