Agreed Mog. But I have heard other electeds and assistants voice these concerns. They are not necessarily my own.

Personally, I do not think prosecutors need to be carrying as a non-jacket wearing plain clothes cop might carry in an open situation. However I am aware that some would want to do this, and even with a badge displayed on the belt I think this is a bad idea.

But I support the right of those who wish to do that, as again, they are employees of the chief law enforcement officers of their county/district.

I'd just like prosecutors not to be even theoretically criminally liable for what you, Shannon and Brett might characterize as an inadvertant exposure of a weapon but what some pundits might call intentional.

I do think it is a good idea for any prosecutor who has not had some sort of significant actual law enforcement training and experience to try to attend their local LE academy courses regarding firearms, firearms safety and third party safety, "shoot, don't shoot" and firearms retention training.

CHL training is good but for a prosecutor who intends to carry on a daily basis, I really think a full-time law enforcement level training is called for.

It seems reasonable and prudent for "judicial officers" to get some additional training over and above the run-of-the-mill CHL class. If the AG opines that electeds have authority to regulate when and where their assistants carry firearms on the job, then we may perhaps see some counties require that their prosecutors complete LE firearm training before they can carry firearms in the courthouse. I would never squawk over such a requirement. In fact, taking some academy firearm training might be fun for those of us who have not ever had it before.

An open carry gun would destroy the lines of my outfit. I don't need any extra bulk around my waist. I'd rather carry mine in a cute handbag.

Cute, Dan, but it doesn't match my shoes. How about a nice alligator skin or red patent leather?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Bradley:
http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/14/gun-purse-1.jpg

---

Have you got a link for that, Dan?

I doubt you'll find a stronger supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but there are a few things we need to remind ourselves about on this general subject. Not to sound overly dramatic, but.....

No one has any business carrying a weapon until they are completely mentally prepared to take a human life without hesitation. Life isn't a TV show where you pull out the gun and everybody immediately surrenders.

Likewise, the same thing applies if someone isn't willing to get and stay completely proficient with that weapon - and I'm talking about spending time every week at the range going through thousands of rounds a year. If a person has not been handy with a handgun for most of their lives, this is a major undertaking. If you have to think for a microsecond about disengaging the safety (for instance), then you are not ready. It has to be completely instinctive.

I'm not against anyone getting their CHL, but I think we often forget that it carries with it the most awesome responsibilities that most of us will face in our lifetimes. Very few of us are prepared.

John is right. Continuous training, and I don't mean CHL level training, is necessary for a safe and effective defense. Realistic training is another word you don't hear enough.

I remember when I was in the academy, lo so many years ago. Revolvers were still the gun of the day back then, and our instructor regaled us with the tale of an officer who had been trained repeatedly to dump his empty cylinder in the coffee can at the range between every reload.

When that officer got into a gunfight and was killed, investigators found a pile of neatly stacked empties next to his body. The officer had done what he had been trained to do. He neatly collected the expended shells in his hand and placed them in a neat pile on the ground. He was just doing what he had been taught, and when placed under stress in a firefight, he resorted to what he knew. Instead of emptying the gun quickly without regard to where the empties landed and concentrating on reloading and returning fire, his death was caused by doing what he practiced.

Thunder Ranch is a good place for someone serious about firearms defense training.

Stollenwerk said Texas is one of the nation's most pro-gun states and promised an "awakening" when "Texans realize how restrictive their rights are."

Texas is one of six states � along with New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida and South Carolina � in which handguns can't be worn in plain view. The other 44 states, in the parlance of gun advocates, are known as "open-carry" states.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6139521.html

"No one has any business carrying a weapon until they are completely mentally prepared to take a human life without hesitation. Life isn't a TV show where you pull out the gun and everybody immediately surrenders."

Everyone is different of course but "mental preparation to take a human life" strikes me as is an impossible process. I've had a lot of training, a lot of exposure in at least two venues...and I can't say with any real certainty that mental preparation had anything to do with my decision to lock and load and fire for effect as they say. I'm all for thinking important things out but it is often a luxury we do not have.

Years ago when I was looking down the barrel of an M-14 rifle, I pray that I did not pull that trigger after "careful mental preparation"...if so, then what excuse do I really have?

A city attorney invokes the new law at the airport.


DMN blog post

"His excuse, that he forgot the gun was in the bag."

For some reason it makes me nervous that this city attorney has the right to carry a handgun in bars, schools, courtrooms and secure areas of airports. I wonder if he "forgot" any other guns anywhere else.

[This message was edited by John Greenwood on 12-12-08 at .]

As a humble civil lawyer and servant, I fear to tread back into criminal, an area I left in 1987, but I really wonder about the statement by the gun activists that 44 states have open carry laws. Our gun laws before CHL were pretty extensive with various exceptions. The point being that in Texas you could carry a gun for a variety of reasons prior to CHL (traveling comes to mind). I doubt any of these 44 states has a law that fits on a billboard, car bumper or press release.
For example, I find it hard to believe that Delaware, has more lenient right to carry law than Texas. But maybe they do and you have to perform a one arm handstand for five minutes to get into a class to obtain a license to carry a gun at all. I have been to several states and I have never seen open carry by anyone. I suspect that even states that technically have open carry allow local jurisdictions to override the law.
I know that someone will post about a state that you have seen people carrying on every corner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray:
As a humble civil lawyer and servant, I fear to tread back into criminal, an area I left in 1987, but I really wonder about the statement by the gun activists that 44 states have open carry laws.

---

Your gut feeling is one I share, Ray -- it reminded me of those bogus claims a few years ago about Texas being "weak on sex offenders." Therefore, I took it upon myself to ask an expert in the NRA world. She tells me that the claims being made by the open carry people are false.

Now, this wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to "fudge" their way past inconvenient facts in order to pass new legislation, but IMO, this open carry stuff might adversely impact the CHL laws we have on the books if people who don't know what they're doing start tinkering with it.

Caveat emptor!

Greg, although I agree w/ you that training is a must. I will disagree that it must be equivalent to LEO training. Most LEO training is geared towards deliberately placing oneself into the hostile environment, and making an arrest. Often focused on what to do from the perspective of the body armor wearing officer.

The new CHL doesn't bestow any "increased rights or reponsibilities" it just allows us to carry where we should be able to carry anyway. It in no way empoweres prosecutors or judges to act like police. The sole purpose is to enable us to protect ourselves and families anywhere, anytime. It's a self defense issue which from a training outlook is entirly different then the LEO use of a firearm.

As for open carry for the citizen, I have lived in several places that allow it and rarely saw it abused. I think the person that carries openly and acts like a moron is such a magnet for "official" attention that it has a darwinian effect. Besides based on how many jurisdictions treated "travelling" last time around, I'm confident the disorderly conduct statute would be vigorously applied by those that feel only "they" should be allowed to be armed.

While we are given expanded coverage for our CHL's, the new laws do not expand the manner and means of use, which is what I picture more training as involving. Not that I would object to more training, because any excuse to take a gun to the range is a good excuse.

You might think twice about how it looks to your constituents as well. A former area prosecutor used to carry his gun on his belt in the open, and he looked rather foolish in so doing. I'm not sure under what authority he did it. It's been a few years. The general thinking in the community was that if he wanted to be a cop, he needed to get a different job. And soon enough, he was looking for a different job. I would oppose such legislation, which makes the point about TDCAA's role in such matters.

quote:

---

I do not support open carry for the citizenry, but I do for prosecutors/judges.

---

It is exactly because government officials think in this way the "the citizenry" must fight and claw to protect their Constitutional rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray:
As a humble civil lawyer and servant, I fear to tread back into criminal, an area I left in 1987, but I really wonder about the statement by the gun activists that 44 states have open carry laws. Our gun laws before CHL were pretty extensive with various exceptions. The point being that in Texas you could carry a gun for a variety of reasons prior to CHL (traveling comes to mind). I doubt any of these 44 states has a law that fits on a billboard, car bumper or press release.
For example, I find it hard to believe that Delaware, has more lenient right to carry law than Texas. But maybe they do and you have to perform a one arm handstand for five minutes to get into a class to obtain a license to carry a gun at all. I have been to several states and I have never seen open carry by anyone. I suspect that even states that technically have open carry allow local jurisdictions to override the law.
I know that someone will post about a state that you have seen people carrying on every corner.

---

I have to disagree with your characterization of Texas' pre-CHL laws. I considered them very restrictive, as there was no way to lawfully carry a firearm while going about life's routine activities, such as shopping, in church, or while taking a walk in the evening. Thankfully, now the average citizen can carry an effective self-defense tool at most times in most places.

I don't know the exact number, but it is true that most states do not criminalize open carry, including unlikely places like Indiana and Vermont. Their laws tend to focus on prohibited areas and concealed carry (on the theory that someone who conceals a gun may be up to something). Many state laws are silent on open carry, meaning it is legal. Some allow local jurisdictions to override, some do not, and in some the law is not clear on that point. At any given time there are numerous legal battles going on around the country on the local ordinance issue.

Like so many gun laws, our UCW law has racist roots. It is a holdover from carpetbagger days when we couldn't have free black men walking around armed, could we? Personally, I look forward to working with other like-minded people to continue chipping away at it next session.

I don't chime in often, but I cant help myself:

The enhanced training mentioned by a few here is not designed to make you more proficient in standing flat-footed while you punch holes in a target. Instead, it's designed to foster over-learned behaviors and skills associated with the presence and utilization of a weapon. In a deadly force encounter, there's a good chance you're immediately going to lose about 70 percent of your cognitive processing abilities - you're not going to be able to think about what you're doing. Over-learned behaviors and skills, however, will often withstand the dumbing down associated with hyperarousal.

If you're going to carry, carry all the time, in the same place, and get proficient with drawing and firing from various angles, in various light, at various targets. Shoot laying on your back and laying on your side, because this may very well be the position you find yourself in when it's time to start shooting. Shoot with your strong hand and shoot with your weak hand - you may not have a choice when the whoopie's in the Westinghouse.

Somebody mentioned ankle holsters. God gave you ankles on which to secure BACK-UP weapons - not immediate defense weapons. Carry at the waist or under the arms in front- or cross-draw fashion.

At the risk of sounding like some arrogant jerk, if you're not willing to take it this seriously, you really should reconsider carrying at all.

Stay safe!