# Some Texas judges banning off duty officers guns in courthouse



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2009)

*Some Texas judges banning off duty officers guns in courthouse*



> At least five Travis County criminal judges plan to prohibit law enforcement officers who are not in uniform from bringing guns into their courtrooms in the downtown Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center.
> Their decisions come seven months after an Austin police officer in street clothes left his gun in a public bathroom on the buildings seventh floor while waiting to testify in a felony trial. The gun was safely recovered, but the incident rattled some judges, who began discussing courthouse security with Travis County sheriffs department officials.
> Although members of the public are prohibited from bringing any weapons into the justice center, sheriffs deputies who secure the building carry guns. Law enforcement officers from other agencies  who come to the building to testify, to have warrants signed by judges and for other reasons  have long been allowed to carry their weapons into Travis County courthouses, as they are in many other Texas courthouses, including those in Hays, Williamson, Dallas and Harris counties.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

Doh! That probably cost someone some time off.

But the "scared judges" are jerking the knee a bit IMO.


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

Yeah, accidents happen, but this seems like it'd be more likely to make things less safe in the long run. Punish the dope who left his gun laying around, but don't reduce the number of available armed LEOs you have on hand.


----------



## harold (May 13, 2009)

An unfortunate incident. I have been in law enforcement for 30 years and I can honestly say I have never had that happen to me.
Several years ago one judege here decided that no officer, uniformed or not, would be allowed to wear a weapon in her court room. Officers refeused to appear in her court room and that silly ruling quickly went by the wayside.
That being said, I have to agree with the other posters that to even consider having officers come to court without weapons is ridiculous.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, accidents happen, but this seems like it'd be more likely to make things less safe in the long run. Punish the dope who left his gun laying around, but don't reduce the number of available armed LEOs you have on hand.


 
This is an answer to a problem that makes sense. As such it has very little chance of being implemented.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2009)

Help me see things in a better perspective here.

This is about -Off Duty- cops.  If you're off duty, why would you have your duty weapon on you?


----------



## tellner (May 13, 2009)

I don't see the problem. When they're not actually on the job let the cops live the same as the proles. If they want to carry off-duty let them get off their butts and lobby for universal concealed carry. The FOP has always come out in favor of gun restrictions for anyone who doesn't carry tin.

And the little goody they got a few years ago? Retired cops get nationwide CCW? Screw that. If their job is so dangerous that they need to carry on their time off we can work with that subject to the first paragraph. But once they've handed in the badge they get to suffer along with the rest of us. Again, if they want nationwide concealed carry let them lobby for it for all citizens, not just as a perk for people who use to have a somewhat dangerous job. They aren't the damned samurai with the Privilege of the Two Swords.


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This is about -Off Duty- cops.  If you're off duty, why would you have your duty weapon on you?



It's not uncommon for off-duty LEOs to be _required_ to carry a firearm (barring circumstances that would make it unsafe to do so, of course--e.g., maybe not while swimming or playing Santa Claus at the mall). Extra security around town.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> It's not uncommon for off-duty LEOs to be _required_ to carry a firearm (barring circumstances that would make it unsafe to do so, of course--e.g., maybe not while swimming or playing Santa Claus at the mall). Extra security around town.


That was the part I was wondering.  Also, what are off duty cops doing in court?  or, is this a "off the normal duty, still on the clock" thing?


----------



## still learning (May 13, 2009)

Hello,
Man is not perfect...therefore we will have imperfect laws....imperfect Judges....a never ending story here...

The Texas Judges.....UM?   how many of them release the guilty ones...lor let the punishment NOT fit the crime correctly...?

Should we ban them too?

Aloha,


----------



## grydth (May 13, 2009)

Normally, I'm delighted to have armed LEOs who are off duty in the building... if there's a serious violent threat to my workers, that person will be 'on duty' pdq and can help defend them.

That changes, however, if the LEO is a party to a legal action being heard that day. Imagine a nasty divorce or high stakes lawsuit - what judge would ever want *any participant *in the room armed with a high power handgun? Leave the weapons at home, folks, and let's have the rule of law settle things.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

"Off-duty" only means you are not getting paid. In my state I have my police powers (and a moral duty to act when necessary) 24/7/365. There is absolutely nothing in my state law that says that I have to be "on-duty" or wearing a uniform to effect an arrest. We make "off-duty" arrests every once and a while, either while doing "second front" jobs or when something happens while we are about town. Just because Im off the clock doesn't mean Im no longer a cop. 


So the "live like the proles" guys can kiss it.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

grydth said:


> Normally, I'm delighted to have armed LEOs who are off duty in the building... if there's a serious violent threat to my workers, that person will be 'on duty' pdq and can help defend them.
> 
> That changes, however, if the LEO is a party to a legal action being heard that day. Imagine a nasty divorce or high stakes lawsuit - what judge would ever want *any participant *in the room armed with a high power handgun? Leave the weapons at home, folks, and let's have the rule of law settle things.



Being there as defendant is different from being there as an officer. What is the difference of being in uniform vs. plain clothes? What about detectives?

I always wear a uniform to court anyway and if Im in uniform I have to wear a weapon.


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

I can see the issue if you're there as a defendant/plaintiff.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I can see the issue if you're there as a defendant/plaintiff.



Absolutely. If you were formally charged I would hope that the department had already taken your badge and gun while you were suspended pending prosecution.


----------



## punisher73 (May 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Help me see things in a better perspective here.
> 
> This is about -Off Duty- cops. If you're off duty, why would you have your duty weapon on you?


 

It's a very fine line.  When you take the oath you have a "duty to act" as a police officer (I won't get into a debate about how that is interpreted--"best witness" vs. "actively involved") much like a nurse is required by law to aid medical help when not at work.

Also, most officers live in the town/city where they work and run into alot of people that might not want to talk to them about getting on the Christmas card mailing list.  So many officers carry off-duty and don't buy a second gun to carry so they carry the same gun as when on-duty.  For example, many cops carry the Glock Model 23, it is a good on or off duty weapon so they use it for both.


----------



## punisher73 (May 14, 2009)

tellner said:


> I don't see the problem. When they're not actually on the job let the cops live the same as the proles. If they want to carry off-duty let them get off their butts and lobby for universal concealed carry. The FOP has always come out in favor of gun restrictions for anyone who doesn't carry tin.
> 
> And the little goody they got a few years ago? Retired cops get nationwide CCW? Screw that. If their job is so dangerous that they need to carry on their time off we can work with that subject to the first paragraph. But once they've handed in the badge they get to suffer along with the rest of us. Again, if they want nationwide concealed carry let them lobby for it for all citizens, not just as a perk for people who use to have a somewhat dangerous job. They aren't the damned samurai with the Privilege of the Two Swords.


 
I think that is a gross misinterpretation of what the federal law says and it's intent.

1) ALL cops both active and retired have to maintain documented proof that they meet state firearm qualifications to show that they can shoot well.

2) The intent wasn't because OUR job is so dangerous, it was to be able to help EVERYONE out if the need arises.  Again, there is really no such thing as "off duty" when you are an active LEO, there are just times you don't get paid.  This law was enacted to help possible terrorist situations where someone shows up to a restaurant and opens fire on it's patrons, or someone showing up to a church and shooting it's members.  Retired LEO's were included due to their training and experience to be able to offer aid.

A ******** doesn't care whether you are retired or not, and even retired or out of state you'd be surprised how many people ask if you're a cop when you've been doing it long enough (even when NOT wearing the "shoot me first" photographer's vest or other clothing items that tell it)


----------



## punisher73 (May 14, 2009)

Our courthouse and judges have prohibited off-duty officers from carrying in it.  If you have your badge on and are dressed for court you are still allowed, but they found that some officers were showing up for divorces etc. or other things they were involved with that had nothing to do with their job.

I agree with this.  If you are getting divorced and things are heated, it's just bad to be carrying.  One officer was carrying off duty to their child's court hearings, who was a victim of sexual assault.  They never acted inappropriately in any manner, nor did it become an issue, but it did make people think "what if".  So that's when they decided that if you are in the courthouse for personal business of any kind you don't carry.


----------



## Carol (May 14, 2009)

Wow.  Granted I'm not a LEO but when I went to my city's courthouse for a small claims hearing, I couldn't carry a cell phone in to the court house, let alone a weapon.


----------



## arnisador (May 14, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> The intent wasn't because OUR job is so dangerous, it was to be able to help EVERYONE out if the need arises.



A reserve or retired corps? I'm cool with that, as long as there's an occasional check on them (e.g., maybe not the 98 year old retired cop in the nursing home).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Wow.  Granted I'm not a LEO but when I went to my city's courthouse for a small claims hearing, I couldn't carry a cell phone in to the court house, let alone a weapon.


Thats a whole different matter.  Cameras are allowed in all courts, yet many ignore that permission. Of course, some judges fear cameras more than they fear guns, lol.


----------



## punisher73 (May 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Thats a whole different matter. Cameras are allowed in all courts, yet many ignore that permission. Of course, some judges fear cameras more than they fear guns, lol.


 

That is not true in all courthouses either.  Our county prohibits all recording devices (cameras, camcorders, cellphones, tape recorders)unless you are a journalist and provide credentials.

We had an issue with gang members taking pictures of jury members with camera phones and cameras and then harrassing them as they left the courthouse.  We also had an issue with them recording testimony and then playing it for other witnesses so they could change theirs to match.

Cell phones were just an issue because people would not take notice of the "turn them off" signs and would answer them in the middle of court hearings and proceedings.  Also, gang members would use their cell phones to call their buddies outside the courthouse and describe what the jury members looked like, what they were wearing etc. so they could take their picture and try to harrass them and tell them as they were about to come out.

Cameras ARE allowed for weddings and adoptions, we get a list each day for when those occur. Also, the office where they are held is right in view of the Deputy working the front door so they know when/where the party is done.  The pictures are only allowed in the room during the ceremony though and no where else in the courthouse.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2009)

I don't know how they work it for weddings or other events; generally, cameras, cell phones, and any recording devices are prohibited in the courthouses I frequent.  So are guns, except for LEOs.  (Whether cops can carry into the courtroom is more complex...)


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2009)

I find it interesting how many depts. have courts who don't allow LEO's to carry into court. I'm in the uniform division so I always wear my complete uniform to court and that includes my gun belt.

I do agree with limits on LE in court for personal reasons. That's a different story.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2009)

harold said:


> An unfortunate incident. I have been in law enforcement for 30 years and I can honestly say I have never had that happen to me.
> Several years ago one judege here decided that no officer, uniformed or not, would be allowed to wear a weapon in her court room. Officers refeused to appear in her court room and that silly ruling quickly went by the wayside.
> That being said, I have to agree with the other posters that to even consider having officers come to court without weapons is ridiculous.



Any clown who is THAT big of a hopolophobe shouldn't be on the bench anyway.....too mentally unstable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Thats a whole different matter.  Cameras are allowed in all courts, yet many ignore that permission. Of course, some judges fear cameras more than they fear guns, lol.



Yeah, isn't it funny how judges and lawyers believe video cameras are the greatest thing ever invented......so long as they are pointed at cops doing their job......but try pointing one at a judge or attorney doing their job! :hammer:

It would seem to me that OPENNESS of government is GREAT to attorneys......except.....except......the JUDICIAL system needs secrecy!


----------

