Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:52 AM
onehandle (35,488 posts)
Guards at the Pennsylvania House of Representatives will no longer carry guns
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
HARRISBURG - Not so long ago, in the name of security, top state House leaders championed the need to give the chamber's guards the power to carry guns. Not anymore. House officials have quietly decided to strip the roughly 16 uniformed guards, who also act as the chamber's sergeants-at-arms, of their firearms. They did so after discovering that one had been carrying a gun for years despite a criminal history. That security officer was fired in early May, and three who supervised him resigned shortly afterward, according to House records and interviews. House Speaker Sam Smith (R., Jefferson), the top official in the 203-member chamber, would not talk about the matter. Also declining comment were other senior House officials, including one who said publicity would create the perception of a security risk. But the incident has raised the question of whether the House's security staff had sufficient policies in place for screening and background checks - and whether they should have been armed in the first place. Security guards for the Senate do not carry weapons, and the Capitol complex is already protected by the Capitol Police, an accredited force whose officers receive extensive training in firearms, emergency management, hazardous materials, and riot control. "We are the first line of defense," said Dave DeLellis, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 85, which represents Capitol police officers and which has raised concerns about House guards carrying weapons. "That is part of the core function we provide in the Capitol, and we consider ourselves to be the best at it," DeLellis said. Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/20120909_Guards_at_the_Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_will_no_longer_carry_guns.html?cmpid=124488459
|
12 replies, 2055 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| onehandle | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| TheCowsCameHome | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| hack89 | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| Trunk Monkey | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| Earth_First | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| Trunk Monkey | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| hack89 | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| Trunk Monkey | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| Earth_First | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| alfredo | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| AllyCat | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| alfredo | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| msanthrope | Sep 2012 | #11 |
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:56 AM
TheCowsCameHome (27,709 posts)
1. Send it over to the gungeon for final approval.
|
|
Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #1)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:03 AM
hack89 (21,287 posts)
3. Only trained law enforcement should carry guns in positions such as this.
|
Protecting other people as opposed to self defense requires a higher standard of training.
This is a reasonable action. |
Response to hack89 (Reply #3)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:27 AM
Trunk Monkey (950 posts)
5. Re:Only trained law enforcement should carry guns in positions such as this
|
I am a licensed armed security guard, I undergo a yearly drug screen (more often if I am injured on the job even if the injury is the result of someone attacking me in the performance of my duties)
I undergo a yearly criminal background check as part of my license renewal process I also have to qualify with my sidearm biannually and I may only carry a sidearm with which I have qualified. I take part in monthly refresher training on deadly force, continuum of and the exact limits of my authority as well as conflict avoidance and deescalation. Who are you to tell me I'm not qualified? |
Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #5)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:36 AM
Earth_First (11,602 posts)
7. It doesn't matter to these folks, Trunk Monkey...
|
They just as much assume remove all firearms from everybody therefore the problem simply *disappears*
Owning and operating firearms is a wildly unpopular opinion to have on Democratic Underground... |
Response to Earth_First (Reply #7)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:50 AM
Trunk Monkey (950 posts)
8. I have become quite aware of that
|
Although I was attempting to make a slightly different point.
That being "How can you (the person I was responding to), having no idea of what my level of training, proficiency or experience is, tell me what I am or am not qualified to do in the routine course of my employment ? |
Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #5)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:17 AM
hack89 (21,287 posts)
10. I would call you qualified
|
Rigorous standards and training are the issue here. You seem to have both.
|
Response to hack89 (Reply #10)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:06 PM
Trunk Monkey (950 posts)
12. Re: Rigorous standards and training are the issue here
|
I'd say that a failure of the background check system in place was the issue here and it isn't the fault of the guards.
I'd also guess that a guard employed to work in the Statehouse of Pennsylvania would be at least as well trained as I am and that at least some of them are retired cops or military |
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:56 AM
Earth_First (11,602 posts)
2. So which gun control pol will be the first to criticize this when something happens...?
|
You cannot have it both ways in the gun control debate.
|
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:21 AM
alfredo (46,575 posts)
4. The Rep leader realized the guards are from the class
|
they want to exploit.
|
Response to alfredo (Reply #4)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:32 AM
AllyCat (7,520 posts)
6. That sounds about right. eom
Response to AllyCat (Reply #6)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:06 AM
alfredo (46,575 posts)
9. I hope the ruling class always keeps in mind that those armed body guards they employ
|
are from the class they despise.
|
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 12:21 PM
msanthrope (16,505 posts)

