TexasCHLforum.com

Before you condemn the no guns provision, consider the legal theories on it. While you are patrolling during the program, you are an employee of the police department. Yes, you are unpaid, but for liability purposes, you are an employee. There are several ways for an agency to become liable for your actions as an employee, but one of the big ones is a failure to train. if there is a reasonable possibility that you will become involved in a situation, the agency has a duty to train you for it. A failure to provide the training could make them liable for civil rights violations also (all use of force by employees of the government comes under civil rights - Fourth Amendment seizure - questions).

Since they do not want to take the time and money to train you properly, the ebst way to avoid the liability is to ban the potential action. If you are unarmed, you are significantly less likely to become involved in any incident, especially considering the stated instructions to just watch and call.

In a case like this, I would assume the ban would only apply while you were patrolling for them. This would be defined as having checked in with them, using their signs on the car, etc. I do not think (and IANAL) their rules banning carry would apply other than on duty. So, it would not stop you from being armed while walking your dog, for example.

Considering all of that, I appreciate citizens patrolling and helping the police. I understand the banning of the guns, even if I do not agree with it. And, I fully understand anyone not wanting to patrol unarmed also. It makes sense to me.