TexasCHLforum.com

mymojo wrote:Well, to play devil's advocate here: Why should an off duty LEO have rights that I don't?

Why is an off duty LEO presumed to be more trustworthy to carry in a court room than a CHL holder?

It's not about being more trustworthy. It's about the fact that LEO's put people in jail, day in and day out, and frequently recieve death threats. People go hunting for the cop that put them in jail. I would bet you don't have people actively hunting you, and neither do I. Additionally, LEO's are sworn to uphold the law, and have a duty to act (even outside their jurisdiction for felonies) whether on duty or off. That requires a weapon. The reason we (CHL and LEO) carry is for self defense, but LEO's have another reason, they have to defend others as well, they are duty bound. We often use the saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." as justification for why we feel it neccessary to carry a firearm. Well, that won't hold true in a courtroom, because there is always a court officer on duty to protect you, on the other hand, an unarmed LEO, duty bound to help protect you, but unarmed because of a judge's anti-gun agenda, would be unable to fulfil his duty. JMHO, IANAL, did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, etc., etc etc.