TexasCHLforum.com

Lucky 45: as an LEO - here is the previous post that I was responding to:

CHL/LEO wrote:

our own Bedford Police Officers are not allowed to carry weapons; they must secure them at the door even if we are responding to a disturbance.

This sounds pretty absurd to me. I've booked many a person into Parkland's Psych ward over the years and yes, we do have to secure our weapons in lock boxes prior to entering with our prisoner. But, if there was a disturbance at that location and we responded, I can assure you that I would not be securing my weapon in those boxes. They have plenty of orderlies at that location to deal with out of control patients. If they are overwhelmed or incapacitated then I'm not going in there without any tools to deal with the situation.

I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

Hospital policy. The same as when we go to city or county jail - it's their policy that dictates the weapons on premises procedures.

our own Bedford Police Officers are not allowed to carry weapons; they must secure them
at the door even if we are responding to a disturbance.

This sounds pretty absurd to me. I've booked many a person in to Parkland's Psych ward over the years and yes, we do have to secure our weapons in lock boxes prior to entering with our prisoner. But, if there was a disturbance at that location and we responded, I can assure you that I would not be securing my weapon in those boxes. They have plenty of orderlies at that location to deal with out of control patients. If they are overwhelmed or incapacitated then I'm not going in there without any tools to deal with the situation.

I was dismayed to find that the Presbyterian church is anti-gun...

Add the Methodist Church to the list. I was born and raised in this church and when I first read the 2000 Resolution that the General Board sent out I went straight to our minister to get his opinion. He said that the General Board of the UMC sets the policy without any input from the local churches - they have the "we know best" attitude.

Anyway, here's some details: The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), was originally formed in 1975 as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH) "for the purposes of banning the importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership and possession of handguns." In 1989, after expanding its efforts to include restrictions on all firearms, the group adopted its new name, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The United Methodist Church was the principle founder of CSGV.

To read UMC Resolutions that deal specifically with gun control just click here.

Pay particular attention to article #6: "call upon all governments of the world in which there is a United Methodist presence to establish national bans on ownership by the general public of handguns, assault weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits, and weapons that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal-detection devices;"

In my humble opinion, the governing body of churches shouldn't be involved in dictating edicts regarding gun control.

Back to this particular "victims" situation. If everything turns out as it appears to be so far, and she was not given proper notice regarding 30.06, then I hope she wins a very large settlement against the hospital and the city that employed the police officers. That department has an obligation to train its employees so that they are both knowledgeable and able to correctly enforce the law.

I'm also glad to hear that the TRSA is getting involved in this and helping her out. Perhaps the NRA can do the same as they have greater legal resources and funds available. What a great recruiting tool for both organizations - we need to encourage all non-members to join because of what they do help protect our rights.