The "more for me, none for thee" argument was certainly valid when the legislators were asking for more carry rights for themselves, but because prosecutors aren't the ones making the laws, I don't think the argument is particularly applicable here.cbunt1 wrote:True enough. I have thoughts on these facts, and can easily get on another of my soap boxes (Proctor & Gamble LOVE meBladed wrote:A) Prosecutors have had special carry privileges for years (they're already allowed to ignore most of PC Sections 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035). Giving special carry privileges to the people tasked with prosecuting criminals is not the same as giving special carry privileges to legislators.
B) Unless the governor adds "open carry" or "carry by state attorneys" to the session call (neither of which is going to happen), this bill is purely symbolic.)
A) They have. In concept I really don't have an issue with this--prosecutors make dangerous enemies--the kind with time on their hands to think about it and hold grudges. In principle, it certainly speaks of a "More for me, none for thee" mentality, and that "some animals are more equal than others" to quote Orwell. I'm reasonable enough to accept that there's no such INTENT in the concept, at least on the part of any one individual involved. On the other hand, let's don't forget that defense attorneys make the same kinds of enemies--just on the other side of the aisle--face it, a good defense attorney gets an alleged criminal an acquittal, and the victim (or victim's family) is perfectly capable of exacting the same kind of revenge as in the other scenario. Bottom line: why not give all the attorneys the same privilege? From there, why not all the people? See the slippery slope, with the lack of balance?
Although there are scenarios under which a defense attorney might make enemies, it is not part of a defense attorney's job description to go after criminals. ANYBODY can make a dangerous enemy, but the risk is significantly higher when it's your job to prosecute those people who have proven themselves capable of violent crime.
I meant that the filing of the bill is symbolic--it's never going to get a vote.B) I'm not so sure it's purely symbolic in the context -- because prosecutors (and judges, to a similar degree) are indeed exempted from large portions of 46.02 and 46.035, under the same guise as off duty LEO (who have the legal right to open carry, and it's usually dictated by department policy whether they "may" or not") it would follow that a prosecutor carrying openly under the same de facto set of exemptions would probably not be convicted for the open display--besides, who would prosecute a prosecutor? We speak of the "professional courtesy" and "cronyism" there, but the fact is these folks will have to work together again in the future, and it just isn't likely to happen.
It looks like the ultimate goal here is to remove prosecutors from the burden of "prohibited places," just as off-duty LEO are exempted. How about letting them get a CHL like the rest of us, and adding possession of a valid CHL to the exemptions of 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035. Problem solved, goal met, and is a more equal solution for all of us--not perfect, but progress.
The other option would be to treat prosecutors as LEO, and require them to go through the same hoops and training as our LEO do in order to carry their guns off duty. IOW, if the law gives them the "status," it should also saddle them with the responsibility.
Just my two cents worth. And just think, I DIDN'T stand on my soapbox today! LOL
Prosecutors are already required to obtain a CHL; the CHL is simply endorsed, "PROSECUTOR."
Prosecutors don't need and shouldn't have LEO status--that would blur the line that divides the judicial system.