Travis Co. judges: No guns in court for LEO's!

[surprise_i'm_armed]

http://www.statesman.com/search/content ... tguns.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some Travis County judges are deciding that LEO's in civilian clothes to testify in court,
may not be armed. This is due to a LEO who forgot his weapon in a bathroom stall.

Another bogus reason the judges are giving is that if a LEO is in civvies at court, the
uniformed court officers might shoot the non-uniformed LEO's by mistake.

IMHO this is an outrage. All LEO's should be able to carry their weapons into buildings
known to be populated with criminals. One mistake should not disarm sworn peace officers
who need their weapons to stop escaping defendants, or who may possibly encounter a bad
guy that they put behind bars, who now wants revenge.

[srothstein]

I am waiting for it to get tested. There is nothing in the law that allows this. There is a tradition in their minds that a judge controls his courtroom, but I think it would lose in a real court case. If I am in a judge's court, I am on duty and in my jurisdiction (which is state wide). My agency does not wear uniforms at all. He cannot disarm me if I say no.

One article on this said they tried to ban it from the court house altogether and the Sheriff said no, the LEO can carry anywhere under state law. He said the judge ruled only his courtroom and would honor that.

[CompVest]

When I was in law enforcement, if you were in court to testify you were paid for this time and therefore on duty. If on duty you MUST be armed. Now this may be different in TX, perhaps srothstein will comment?

[flintknapper]

It is ridiculous of course, but try to remember from whence this comes:

Austin: The San Francisco of Texas.

[jbirds1210]

I would just show up in uniform. I agree with Steve.....it is going to be tough for the judge to win this one.

[jbirds1210]

When I was in law enforcement, if you were in court to testify you were paid for this time and therefore on duty. If on duty you MUST be armed. Now this may be different in TX, perhaps srothstein will comment?

I see guys on duty all of the time in Texas that are not armed (at least visibly). The most common ones to see unarmed are crime scene and detectives. While agency policy might madate their officers to be armed at all times on duty, there is no state law.

Jason

[CHL/LEO]

I am waiting for it to get tested. There is nothing in the law that allows this.

The federal courts here in Dallas do not allow LEOs into the courthouse while armed. You must place your weapon in a lock box before proceeding on to the courts. Don't know if they require that of Federal Agents or just state licensed LEOs. Also not sure if other Federal Courthouses in the state require this or if it's just the Dallas one.

[mymojo]

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?

[Keith B]

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?

Because he has a badge. Hey, maybe we need..... Oh, never mind...

[CompVest]

IF the LEO is required to be in court to testify and is being paid to do it he is on duty.

[txfireguy2003]

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.

[ELB]

Just to be devil's (or judge's) advocate...

- The judges will win this one. They are very jealous of their courtroom powers, and they have a huge judicial bureacracy behind them to make sure they keep their "discretion."

- I would be very surprised that there is any state law "requiring," vs "permitting," LEOs to be armed on or off duty, in or out of uniform. (Department policy would mean nothing to a judge.) Jails and prisons leap to mind as places where LEOs, even the ones that work there, are not often permitted to be armed, on or off duty. Even tho these locations are frequented by people who have been put in jail by LEOs, even may hold a grudge about it!

- It will be very hard to convince a judge, and any other judges reviewing his or her decision (see first bullet), that cops who can't remember to keep control of their firearms in the potty should be trusted to keep control of it in the courtroom. But only a few cops make boo-boos like this? Yes but how to tell which ones in advance? Why hasn't the police system weeded them out? the judge will ask...

- Any duty to act as an LEO certainly does not include protecting any one individual...as SCOTUS as ruled a number of times... except for those people who with which the police and the law have a special status or relationship (I forget the exact term). This essentially means people who are detained or in custody -- i.e. prisoners. Not even for people granted restraining orders or protective orders are the police required to do anything.

- Courtrooms already have bailiffs to keep order, and court houses generally have security staff for security...if that is good enough for daily business, then it's hard to rationalize why visiting LEOs MUST be armed... Besides, the judge and DA can be armed, what more could you ask for?

- If anyone has standing to challenge a judge's order barring arms from the courtroom, it would seem to be people who have "the right to bear arms," not people who have a privilege of bearing arms via their position in the government... I am not going to hold my breath on this one tho, when even state college campuses are permitted to ban legally armed citizens

[gregthehand]

If the LEO ignores the Judges orders in his court he can just hold him in contempt.

[wheelgun1958]

One great thing about Texas, if you don't like the judges decisions you can vote him out of office!

[amber]

I am waiting for it to get tested. There is nothing in the law that allows this. There is a tradition in their minds that a judge controls his courtroom, but I think it would lose in a real court case. If I am in a judge's court, I am on duty and in my jurisdiction (which is state wide). My agency does not wear uniforms at all. He cannot disarm me if I say no.

Same law that allows them to stop me from carrying a small pocket knife when I'm summoned for jury duty.