3 US Senators Introduce Bill to Let Prosecutors, Federal Judges Carry Concealed Guns

3 things every concealed carrier should have carry

Dan Z for TTAG

LEOSA, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, was enacted in 2004 and gives two classes of people — qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired LEOs — the right to carry firearms in every state in the country. Now, probably as a result of an attack on a federal judge that killed her son and wounded her husband, a bill has been introduced in the US Senate by three Republicans that would expand that privilege to Federal judges and prosecutors.

Here’s a press release from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton:

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), along with Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) and Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia), introduced the Protect Our Prosecutors and Judges Act, a bill that expands the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act—which allows current and retired LEOs to carry concealed firearms—to include current and retired state, local, and federal prosecutors, as well as federal judges. Bill text may be found here.

“Judges and prosecutors have been the target of growing threats and violence simply for doing their jobs. They should be able to protect their own lives and their families. Our bill will allow federal judges and prosecutors to defend themselves in a similar way to other law enforcement officers,” said Cotton.

“Prosecutors and judges make difficult decisions daily that have the potential to put them in harm’s way,” said Loeffler. “In a day and age when personal information is so easily accessible online, these public servants should be able to protect themselves and their families at all times. I’m proud to support this commonsense legislation that extends the right to self-protection for those working for justice every day.”

“Right now, law enforcement officials are facing increased threats to their safety just for doing their jobs,” said Blackburn. “Cities across the country have seen a spike in crime in the wake of weeks-long protests, making the thin blue line appear even thinner than usual. I am pleased to join my colleagues in this crucial effort to ensure members of law enforcement are able to protect themselves in case of emergency.”

comments

  1. avatar Bobski says:

    Yes, yes. Of course federal judges and prosecutors are more equal than others. They may be less likely to die violently than cab drivers or convenience store clerks, but who gives a shit about that?

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      If they make that claim I’d really like to see the data.

    2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Bobski, almost every judge I ever appeard before had a concealed handgun under their robes. That’s county, circuit and federal court. Once I had to testify in a circuit court outside my jurisdiction. I was working plain clothes at the time. The prosecution suggested I testify sans uniform. He said the judge “likes guns.” I appeared wearing a dress shirt, tie, slacks, and dress loafers. Also, a Colt Series 80, stainless, fully engraved with ivory grips. All carried in a Mitch Rosen shark skin rig. Belt, holster, bikini handcuff case and two single mag pouches. The judge and I had a brief, but entertaining, conversation while the jury deliberated. Guilty. At least in Floriida: judges can carry concealed. Before you “elitist” paranoids start raising hell. I never met a judge in any court that had bailiffs follow them around after the courthouse closed for the day. Judges make enemies every day. After that, they’re on their own. Want the job? At least one person every day wants you dead
      On either side.

      1. avatar Virgil Caldwell says:

        Me too
        in my home state judges and prosecutors (solicitors here) are mentioned as having the right to carry.
        Many federal prosecutors are assaulted and some have been assinated.
        Makes sense.
        they have no more right to carry than you are I but they do have a more apparent need by law

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. The right to bear arms is inherent and not dependent upon any particular needs test.

        That judges willingly take a job that leads to a greater need to carry a firearm does not make them more worthy of availing themselves of the right to bear arms. Each of us, by mere virtue of our existence, shares the same inherent worthiness to avail ourselves of that right.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          Thumbs up! 100% ^ This right here. ^. Why not national constitutional carry? Are we not all equal?

        2. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

          I agree 100%. We have a constitution in this country, and we have a second amendment. In my opinion, the Constitution and the second Amendment, is my ownership license, and my concealed carry permit.
          We need to demand that are 2nd Amendment rights be treated just the same as our first amendment rights, our third amendment rights, and all the rest of our constitutional rights.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          National Constitutional Carry. ??? Isn’t that what the right to keep and bear means? You can write down in a hundred more places but you can’t make it any simpler.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Many federal prosecutors are assaulted and some have been assinated.”

          Good Lord, I bet that hurt!

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …assinated.

          I don’t even want to know…

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Who is going to stop you? If I were a public school teacher, there would be a loaded gun in my desk every day, unless I just carried it. Who is going to stop you? I’ve been proven wrong once, a friend took me along on a trip to DC, getting ready to enter a Fed building the line was long and not moving, I inquired as to why and was told it was the metal detector, told my bud I’d see him when they came out, since I was, as always, carrying. It does require you to have enough sense to not go through a metal detector unless it’s operated by a schoolteacher. I’ve seen that, too, and wondered if that teacher understood exactly how a school shooter would get past that detector.

        1. avatar Missouri_Mule MSED says:

          LarryinTX On your body bro, on your body!!!!
          Obviously you don’t understand the problem at schools.
          In your desk is too late.
          Study the reports. Get MORE training.

    3. avatar Red says:

      Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn’t allow any more Second Amendment rights to some over others. I would also note that there is nothing in the Constitution that says after you have served your time, somehow you no longer have Second Amendment rights. This is all Divide-And-Conquer. Disarm the Little People because we are despised in politician’s eyes.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        True! However, let’s acknowledge that such a law would at least be Constitutional! A law which allows a person to do something which is Constitutionally protected is stupid and unnecessary, but is certainly Constitutional, right?

  2. avatar Jill says:

    Cool, what about the rest of us peons?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Our lives are not as important and only special people like judges could defend themselves with guns. We lack that certain some thing.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The rest of us have the Constitution.

  3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    and dishwashers.

  4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Hell no. National Constitutional Carry or nothing. Or second amendment righty are not party favors !

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      ^^THIS^^

      Our modern American version of ‘Animal Farm’ is getting to be a nuisance.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      More open carry now than ever. People are being advised to comply with criminals and give up their belongings, meanwhile, open carriers are laughing their asses off at the narrative that concealing is safer. In the same less than 1% chance that you exist as a violent crime statistic, there exists the same 1% chance that the deterrent of openly carrying could have prevented it. Doesn’t really matter though, because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty fucken clear. And the only reason you feel safer concealing is because of the infringements that currently exist and the amount of people who get scared simply by the sight of a gun. Maybe if open carry never stopped, people would understand more? Can you really argue that point? I open carry 90% of the time, and no one bats an eyelash anywhere I go. I get thanked even. Maybe it’s time to start forcing our rights down their throats the same way they force their ability to take them from us.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Eff them, the criminals and politicians, er same difference.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “Maybe it’s time to start forcing our rights down their throats the same way they force their ability to take them from us.”

        While I admire your zeal, remember that forcing anything upon anyone is the opposite of liberty. We are to hold fast and defend our rights for ourselves and those who stand with us. We cannot – and should not – ever attempt to force others into making the same decisions we do. As you imply above, that is what the Left does.

        Note how the Founders deliberately chose the term “throw off” instead of “overthrow” in the DOI. We are to tell others to back off from where we stand, not aggressively move to overpower them, which would make us the enslavers.

        I do envy your ability to open carry. Governor Jerry Brown – may the fleas of a thousand camels find his tent – removed that from us almost a decade ago, after 160+ years of statehood and the ability to do so. Traveling over the border into NV for periodic training is a treat for me, as they honor open carry.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          The fact that it is a right needs to be forced down their throats or up their a$$es whatever works.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Enforcement was the wrong word it appears. Simply ignoring the infringements would be a better choice. Carrying openly is not enforcing anything on anyone.

        3. avatar All Hail! says:

          Read and contemplate the awesome words of the unequaled ‘I Haz A Question’. We are truly blessed to be able to reap the benefits of his unmatched wisdom.

          All Hail.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          In hillbilly-land, it’s pronounced ‘Aw, hell!’

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Pretty sure hillbillies borderline racist derogatory statement… Could be wrong…

      3. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

        If you can’t argue with a statement and make sense, it don’t make sense to Argue.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          So you agree. lol.

      4. avatar Bitter says:

        The problem Is in my state (NM) which is an open carry state Is that if I open carry into an establishment that sells alcohol I’m committing a felony.
        There is hardly a place to shop for groceries or anything else here that doesn’t sell alcohol.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          It’s not selling though, it’s open container, like at a bar. And 99% of places won’t give a shit unless you are sitting at the bar. Here at some places in MT, they still don’t give a fuck.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, but I bet you personally know most of the other people in Montana.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          lol no.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      We need to think both about principles and tactics. And our analysis of each won’t necessarily lead to the same conclusion.

      The principles involved are obvious to all of us; I need not elaborate.

      Now, for tactics. Congress opened this can of political worms with the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity act of `92. For the protection of rich men’s money and property, armored car drivers have national reciprocity. (Why we don’t make an issue of this special privilege is beyond me.) There is a rebutable presumption that drivers are trained by their employers.

      LEOSA`04 was another reciprocity that affected active duty police interstate and retired police. Again, a rebutable presumption that they are trained.

      Now proposed is a special privilege for Federal judges and prosecutors. Why not state judges and prosecutors? Far more violent felons are prosecuted and sentenced by state officials. Moreover, a state judge/prosecutor might travel or move to another state and be pursued in a jurisdiction where the state of trial can’t provide a special privilege to the vulnerable judge/prosecutor in another state.

      Where is the rebuttable presumption that judges or prosecutors are trained?

      I’ll go further. What about interstate truck drivers who are not employed by “armored car industry” companies? They are vulnerable and carry valuable cargo. What is an 18-wheeler full of TVs worth? Where would the rebutable presumption that truck drivers are trained?

      As the list of classes of citizens with “special privileges” expands, the argument of equality-under-the-law carries increasing weight. Moreover, as the rebutable presumption of training weakens with each successive class granted the “special privileges”, that excuse grows thiner and thiner.

      As the number of classes expands the number of pretexts for obtaining the special privilege widens. If you can get an appointment as a Justice of the Peace in some Aleutian Island you might qualify as a member of the class of state judges. A CDL (commercial driver’s license) might be the sine qua non of an interstate trucker.

      We have a Right-to-Carry in about 40 states and NO-Right-to-Carry in about 10. Our problem is NOT in the 40 states; it’s in the 10. Somehow we need to persuade the electorate in these 10 states that the fight against popular carry is futile.

      We need to think about inching our way toward a goal where anyone from any of the 40 states MIGHT be able to legally carry in any of the 10 N0-Right states. Just a few Federal judges and prosecutors won’t get us there. Add in the state officials and interstate truck drivers and we might be well on our way to our goal.

      When ANYONE can get the special privilege for the cost+effort of getting a justice-of-the-peace appointment or a CDL, we will probably make our case: The effort of banning carry failed; anywhere you go there’s apt to be an ordinary citizen carrying a gun. Thereupon, resistance to a legislative change will be weakened.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “Congress opened this can of political worms with the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity act of `92. For the protection of rich men’s money and property, armored car drivers have national reciprocity.”

        Who issues those permits? County sheriffs? My sheriff (Grady “Because they ran out of bullets” Judd) might be cool with cutting those just to piss leftists off…

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          yeah Grady is cool, I just wish he could resist a TV camera.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Wow. I’ve been following gun rights for decades, and this is the first time I’ve heard of it. It has been amended a few times times. Still, it does seem to be a way to get a “super CCW” if you travel frequently and are willing to jump through the hoops. Unfortunately, if it becomes widespread, they’ll shut it down like bodyguards for rich people getting reserve officer status to carry under LEOSA.

  5. avatar Chris E Howard says:

    Every “Legal” American should be able to carry , without laws giving them Permission ?!

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Is that a question? Yes is the answer.

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Anyone let these idiots know that they already can carry?
    Just jump thru those same hoops that the common folks do. And the wait times, don’t forget those.
    Oh, and empty shelves.
    Oh, don’t forget that mandated training. (We are the good guys who teach those classes. We get to give them a mandated 4-8-24 hours worth of lectures on the 2A and crooked judges)

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Well, they can conceal, but they still have to abide by the same laws, which means they can’t conceal inside a courthouse. Right? So now, they are getting special treatment. In there lies the hypocrisy. Rules for thee, and not for me.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        In theory yes. In practice no. They don’t have to walk through the metal detectors. Some don’t anyway. To be fair, they aren’t the ones that make the carry rules. Judges that own guns carry. I know one (my dad). His bailiff was made aware somehow, and asked if he was carrying. The bailiff said, don’t pull out your gun if something happens, just duck behind the bench and let me handle it.

        I had to testify as a witness in a case last year. I noticed the bailiff had three spare mags.

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Guess I spoke with limited knowledge. In Oregon, a judge can allow or not allow carry in the courthouse. Most don’t.

        I’m guessing other states are likely different.

        1. avatar Bitter says:

          Same in New Mexico though I can’t imagine a judge in Albuquerque allowing it.

  7. avatar Bob says:

    oh? Why can’t THEY rely on the Law enforcement officers that everyone else does? Is there some sort of problem with them and their services? or is it something else, eh? are they inadequate to provide the necessary on time protection that millions of citizens deserve? Why should Judges and prosecutors be allowed to take lives when anyone else can’t? Wonder how this is gonna play out in from of the supreme court? When do Judges and prosecutors have any range time or experiance with weapons to be allowed to carry( Compared to career law enforcement)?

  8. avatar enuf says:

    Sure, pass that law. Then the day after we’ll be needing a big Civil Rights lawsuit for discriminating against the common citizen.

    No one should be required to show “need” to carry a firearm. The right to keep and bear arms is not a “needs based” right, it is a natural right requiring no individual proof of need.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      One of the only times I will agree with enuf.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        I also agree wholeheartedly.

    2. avatar Debbie W. says:

      enuf…After all is said and done and at the end of every day you are nothing more than a Jim Crow Gun Control Joe Biden lint licker.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

      1. avatar Man Yuck! says:

        Just imagine having to lay down with this miserable, foul mouthed crone.

        1. avatar name witheld says:

          Serge?

      2. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Yea… in reality, he said something that made sense here and you result to basically doing everything the left is criticized for. This is why nobody likes you here. That, and all your talking points have been the same thing since you showed up.

        “something something jim crow something something gun control is racist something something Trump/Pence something something (insert insult here) something something”. – Debbie

        Go away.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I just assumed she(?) was a troll from the beginning because the comments are usually over the top, and there’s no shortage of trolls around here.

    3. avatar PMinFl says:

      Look at it this way: Population 323 million, gun owners about 100 million, those who actively participate in discussion/ debate about 2nd Amendment/ gun rights …not too many. Ergo we aren’t “common” citizens but informed carriers and should warrant constitutional carry !. We MAY be more qualified to carry everywhere than judges, prosecutors (persecutors) or even some LEO s. Just a thought.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, there are 323 million people in America who have permitted me to carry every day, every place, for the past 15 years. How nice! Not a single objection!

  9. avatar Tim says:

    Judges are just like you and me.

    Only *better*. 🙂

    1. avatar Karl says:

      Not better, just more equal.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    So the judges who have spent their legal lifetimes screwing We The People out of our 2A rights now want special 2A rights because some people say that judges are snakes in black robes? Which, when you think about it, is really insulting to snakes.

    I didn’t think that the system could get any more skewed, but I was wrong.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Thumbs way up Ralph! Tired of the “guns for me and none for thee” BS. I don’t give a dang about judges-Dim or Republitard.

  11. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    How about this as a “compromise”. Run a background check on everyone who gets a state issued drivers license or ID card. If they pass that background check put a little green image of a gun in a circle on their DL/ID. If they fail put a little red image of a gun in a circle with a line through it. If you pass you can carry anywhere in the US openly or concealed and your DL/ID serve’s as your license/permit. If you fail you cannot carry or own guns.

    Your DL/ID would also serve as your background check when you go to buy a gun at a gun store eliminating any wait and any need to fill out intrusive forms or buy only from FFLs within your home state. All records of sale would be eliminated because only non prohibited people would be able to buy a gun. If you are engaging in a private transaction you can show your DL/ID to the seller to assure them are not a prohibited person.

    If something that makes a person prohibited the authorities will confiscate their DL/ID and they will have to go get a new one which will reflect their new status.

    Add this to the real ID act to make it more or less mandatory for states to comply with.

    I know this is unconstitutional and not actually restoring our lost freedom, but it would beat the hell out of what we have now. It would be a truly universal background check because everyone would be checked whether they ever have any intention of buying a gun or not. We would get national reciprocity, elimination of intrusive forms, elimination of ownership records, and the ability to buy guns in any state.

    And then when this gets enacted I can buy that flying unicorn ranch in Atlantis and raise flying unicorns that fart cotton candy rainbows.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      No. Sounds like an infringement. Hell, having to register your vehicle for travel and simply apply for drivers licenses can technically be seen as an infringement too. It’s just another way for them to tax us and keep tabs on us when it boils down. In there lies a bit of compromise we can come to an understanding on, to keep drivers on the same page and safe, but as far as gun ownership, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED seems pretty clear cut to me.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      No as it is a infringement of the 2 nd. amendment and more, if it pleases the crown, Bravo Sierra,Just NO.

    3. avatar Karl says:

      Pair it with voter ID and we’ll call it a “compromise.”

    4. avatar hawkeye says:

      I’m all for simpler processes and more freedom, but this would add another layer of data (and, therefore, control) to a card that already pushed us closer to a national ID card. That Real ID stuff ought to be repealed, not reinforced.

    5. avatar PMinFl says:

      CP driving is a privilege not a right, you can inflict as many infringements as you can get away with on a privilege. The lefty’s think they can do this to an enumerated right, but they’re wrong.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I can modify that real quick, so that everyone will agree. When you apply for a DL or registration, check the list of escaped felons. If you’re on the list, then arrest/kill and return to prison. Everyone else is allowed to carry up to 7 guns open or concealed, anywhere anytime, for more guns a $2 license is required every year for each additional.

  12. avatar Daniel S. says:

    There shouldn’t be any need for the legislation, ALL people that are not FELONS, have the right. It just needs to be relieved of all the INFRINGEMENTS currently violating the Right, buy various states, counties and municipalities. The Supreme Court needs to STAND UP for the PEOPLE and the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. Stop the Nonsense.

    1. avatar 2nd Amendment 4 Life, Yo! says:

      It don’t say ‘except felons’ in the 2nd Amendment. Guns for all, including felons. Doesn’t exclude kids either. Load up junior to the hilt. That dude next door who’s been to the nut house? 2nd Amendment doesn’t NOT exclude people with mental illness. A chicken in every pot and a gun in every hand is what I say!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If you wish to keep someone from carrying a gun, lock him in prison.

  13. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    What happened to Congress shall make no law{,unless it’s for animals that are more equal than others}.
    Eff No,all citizens are under the 2 nd. amendment as all citizens can carry, the 2 nd. is this nations carry permit,PERIOD.

  14. avatar Shadow says:

    Sorry, but if these liberal judges do not think that us “little people” should be “allowed” to exercise our Second Amendment, then neither should they. Oh, wait…there is that comment from Bosk, and how very true it is: Some animals (and indeed, some of them sure act like it) ARE more equal than others. Or so they think.

  15. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Guns for me, but not for thee.

    The rest of us should be able to carry in all 50 states.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Full auto, suppressed, SBR’s.

      Stamps are infringements.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      We can if the Constitution is indeed “The Law Of The Land.”

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They have the correct bill, except it should apply to EVERYONE, not just judges etc.

  16. avatar Nanashi says:

    ” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”? Who cares about any of that?

  17. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    That;’s already their right in most states. For the ones it’s not, the laws in those states are obviously unconstitutional — they’re denying those judges’ rights to self-defense — and need to be struck down.

    “Officer,” “Judge,” “Representative,” “Senator” and “Governor” have become titles of nobility in this country and need to be slammed down hard.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This ! Hard !

  18. avatar Montana Actual says:

  19. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Not until there’s CCW reciprocity and shall-issue nationwide.

    Until then, judges and prosecutors can wonder if it’s Fed Ex when the doorbell rings. F’ em.

    1. avatar CentralVirginian says:

      Or nationwide carry, no permit required.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We already have that. It’s called 2A.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      wtf? Why would you settle for either of those? Constitutional carry nationwide.

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “Not until there’s CCW reciprocity and shall-issue nationwide.”

      Redundant as that is all covered in the 2 nd. amendment.

  20. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    No. If anything those two groups should be barred the use of weapons and bodyguards. Or they can give up their ironclad immunity.

  21. avatar Alexander says:

    There really needs to be a law prohibiting public officials from having privileges and benefits at public expense that are not available to the general public.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      I like that idea.

  22. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Just another example of using the news to promote legislation so that politicians can say “Looky, looky, I did a goodie!”

    I like both Cotton and Blackburn. Solid conservatives. Apparently, however, they are not immune from pandering.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Or comprehending the Constitution as written.

  23. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    I would point out that this bill does not apply to State Judges who inflict far more harm to common citizens than Federal Judges. Whenever someone is murdered by a career criminal, it is almost always the local Judges who have allowed them to run at large. Unfortunate; many of these Judges enjoy enhanced access to forward under their State and local laws. What we need is a law that declares open season on any judge who releases a criminal on bail, parole or probation that then goes on to commit murder. The sentence can be carried out informally by pissed off family members of the victims family. Alternatively; the sentence could be enforced more formally by a lynching at the courthouse, or better yet, a good old fashioned public stinking so that more citizens can participate.

  24. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    How would this have helped the son or the husband of the judge who’s family was attacked? You can home carry in almost all of the US but most folks aren’t gonna answer the door with a gun in hand. There is very little that can done to protect anyone and their family from a determined person, especially if they are willing to die for their cause. This legislation is pointless, Loeffler is my Senator, and I intend to tell her so.

    Have you written your Congress Critters lately? Called them?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      It’s their version of “We Must Do Something!”

  25. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    No.

    I demand my constitutionally protected right to equal protection under law.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Exactly this.

  26. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Nope! Nope! Nope! No special protections for (notoriously corrupt) Federal judges/prosecutors unless that same bill establishes “National Concealed Carry” for us “regular” citizens, something which would be valid in all 50 states.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      That exists under the 2 nd. amendment if the Constitution is indeed “The Law Of The Land.”

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        Yes it’s the law under the 2nd Amendment but as we have witnessed Democratic Party-controlled state legislators and local politicians have for decades ignored that knowing their judicial appointees will rubber-stamp their unconstitutional restrictions on all forms of “carry” (see N.J. for example).

        The fact remains “the state” has unlimited financial resources, as a matter of practice they effectively make fighting them an impossibility for an otherwise “law-abiding” gun owners exercising their constitutional rights routinely bankrupting an individual who cannot afford endless appeals. It is for that reason that it’s incumbent upon national-level politicians to pass legislation targeting these tyrannical fiefdoms which not only expands but reaffirms our 2nd Amendment “right to carry” but also carries stiff penalties for those that dare to violate our rights.

        If we learned anything in the 1960s where the Black Panthers paraded around California carrying firearms which resulted in Gov. Ronald Reagan along with the legislature enacted draconian restrictions upon all of the populace it’s that “public perception” (ie. fear) is a powerful motivator.

        We must strike now while the iron is hot. With the rampant rise in crime, police “standing down”, along with violent Revolutionary Communist/Democratic Socialist/Anarchist/BLM/La Raza/Moslem Brotherhood-Sisterhood/Radical LGBTQ-ers prowling communities nationwide, erecting roadblocks at random, threatening everyday Americans going about their daily business, and committing arson, mayhem, and murder, it’s the perfect opportunity to get what we want.

        We CANNOT let this chance pass us by for we may not get such an opportunity ever again. It’s become the “Perfect Storm” so grab your board as it’s “surf’s up” and let’s ride this bitchin’ wave to victory.

  27. avatar GS650G says:

    “Excuse me, are you carrying a gun in a gun free zone or city?”
    “Why yes I am”
    “But that’s illegal and not permitted!”
    “I’m a judge ”
    “Well that makes it all right”

  28. avatar Chadwick says:

    How about no! No need for the governing class to carry a gun anywhere I can’t. Or anywhere I can’t without begging for permission from the governing class. Oh wait… See how that goes?

  29. avatar Bill says:

    Judges and prosecutors are not an aristocracy. If we can’t carry everywhere then they shouldn’t be able to carry everywhere. Maybe they should be afraid for their lives; it will keep them from pursuing unjust charges or handing down unjust sentences.

  30. avatar BOBO says:

    how about making it legal for ANY law abiding citizens in all 50 states?

    aka fark them we should have that right…and right now!

  31. avatar J says:

    All judges should follow the rules of the state they live in just like everyone else has to do. Let them see how everybody else has to go through a process to get a conceal carry license no exceptions for any type of judge or anyone else.

  32. avatar Ben Bow says:

    How about doing this for ALL LAWYERS. Every argument they make about judges and prosecuters apply equally well to defense lawyers, family lawyers, civil lawyers, and the like.

    And while we are adding all lawyers, lets add their support staff.

    And while adding support staff, lets add their family members.

    And while adding family members, lets add people that supply them with food, water, clothing, gasoline, electricity, and the like.

    Pretty soon we can cover everyone

  33. avatar John Galt says:

    How about the president issuing an executive order mandating national concealed carry reciprocity. NOW. Today.

    How about the president direct his AG / Barr to prosecute states that restrict 2A (ca, ct, ny, nj to start). NOW. Today.

    How about the president direct fed funds to be witheld From states denying 2A rights to their citizens. NOW. Today.

    How about the president DO IT NOW, BEFORE OCTOBER TO PROVE HIS SUPPORT OF 2A instead of just pissing down our backs and telling us it’s raining

    It’s either a right or a fight. Lets get to it.

  34. avatar Dave says:

    Allowing prosecutors to carry guns in the court room, but not defense attorneys is total BS. Defense attorneys face a bigger threat than any prosecutor.

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      Maybe defense attorneys should reconsider representing career violent criminals. In N.J. a reknowned Newark defense attorney, one famous for his incomparable percentage of acquittals for his murderous gang affiliated clients, was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced (under RICO statutes) to a lengthy prison term for in some instances ordering and in others helping his clients kill witnesses and victims.

      If I recall correctly it was FORTY-SEVEN (47) murdered before they could testify, some the day before trial and one witness was gunned down in the hallway of the courthouse the day he was to take the stand (a female “urbanite” & EEOC/AA hire escorted the shooter around the metal detectors at the employeescentrance). The Feds got a wiretap on the lawyer, something unheard of at the time, his own words and those of one of his former clients (whom took a plea deal) sealed his fate, something not of much comfort to the surviving victims or deceased victim’s family members.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        “Maybe defense attorneys should reconsider representing career violent criminals.”

        So the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, but the Sixth Amendment is conditional? Piss off, crackpot.

        1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

          Dave I mean “Danielle”,

          I’m referring to the defense attorneys that get their jollies over scoring acquittals for their obviously guilty clients, career violent criminals and whom not pervert the juducial system but become defacto members of the gang leader’s posse. Now go change your tampon.

  35. avatar Aaron says:

    I support the rights of judges to carry in all 50 states, but only under national reciprocity for all…

  36. avatar Kma123togetpermit says:

    I agree with this law on the following conditions:

    All CA laws apply
    Handgun must be on the approved CA list
    Only “smart” guns with biometric are allowed
    Gun must be registered and secured in vault at all times
    Only micro stamped ammo is allowed
    Only single action 5 shot revolvers with < .38 caliber are allowed
    Revolver must have 3 safeties
    Must have trigger lock
    Must have loading gate lock
    Only one handgun purchase per month
    Prior military or police experience or approved 4 week course required
    Limit purchase of 20 rounds of ammo per month
    No lasers, red dots, fiber optic sights allowed
    No open carry
    Holster must be flap style with extra hammer strap and retention lanyard, for safety, of course

    Oh, and the owner needs to have a permit and kiss my @$$

  37. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “3 US Senators Introduce Bill to Let Prosecutors, Federal Judges Carry Concealed Guns”

    Uhhh, they need a special “bill”…???
    Doesn’t the Second Amendment apply to them, or…???

    “probably as a result of an attack on a federal judge that killed her son and wounded her husband”

    Wouldn’t have mattered anyway, didn’t take place in, at or near a courtroom/house…in this instance, they have the same Constitutionally protected rights that the rest of us have…

  38. avatar Robert J. Lucas says:

    Constitutional Carry For All Legal United States Citizens, Across All 50 States.
    Anything Else Is Un-Constitutional. What Is Good For Me Is Not For Thee, Continues To Apply Within The Elite Of This Nation.
    The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
    Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
    In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

    ELITISTS
    Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

    AUTHORITARIANS
    Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

    CRIMINALS
    It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

    THE FEARFUL
    Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
    The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

    IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
    Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

    SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
    Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

    THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
    Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
    The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
    The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
    We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      TL;DR

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        no joke. I got to “Constitutional carry nationwide” and that’s all I needed to know.

  39. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Bullcrap.

    Judges and lawyers can apply for a CCW in their states, just as anyone else would have to.

    If they can’t get a CCW, then it’s up to them to campaign for the states to change their laws.

    I’m getting really fed up with this “all animals are equal, except pigs, who are more equal than others” BS.

  40. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Speaking from my profession I agree with most of y’all in that we don’t need to be more special. I live in free America and it works. I started when the attitude was “OMG they’ve got a gun” to today where it’s “I’ve got a gun” “Ok so don’t mess with it right now till I’m done then show me where you got that holster and how do you like the red dot cause I’m thinking bout ….”.
    This law wouldn’t have saved her or her family in any way. Unless I’m in the shower eating cookies or asleep I’m wearing but most folks aren’t like that especially feds up north especially political ones with aspirations. There’s much more concern given to proper attire than weaponry.
    I do understand the frustration of being the more equal pig but I’ve actively campaigned for 2A rights forever and will continue after retirement. LEOSA was actually used against the naysayers for public carry because the touted “highly trained” which is a joke. There was nothing high about the training and the annual handgun quals range from 4 times a year to the wink wink with most being annually and some being as low as 20something outta 30something rounds at 7yds just anywhere on the silhouette.

  41. avatar enuf says:

    The Senators would do better to think about “A well regulated militia … “. That means not just armed but trained.

    The Senators should write a bill that REQUIRES federal judges be trained in the defensive use of arms, and requires them to carry a gun for personal protection at work and in the home and everywhere they go. The bill could even require annual refresher course be attended and passed. Top item on the annual test would be an assessment of the judge’s home and office, examining the risk factors, levels of situational awareness for all occupants. This would not be allowing the carrying of guns by federal judges, it would require it to be a federal judge.

    If a nominee to a federal judgeship doesn’t want to carry a gun and be trained, that would disqualify the nominee.

    The next section of the law would make all the above training available to all citizens. Those citizens could write-off the cost on their taxes.

    Requiring federal judges to have knowledge of firearms and the defensive use of them could be a good thing for us mere peons. And a tax write-off for a combat pistol course just feels like a proper American thing to do.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Which one is it… constitutional carry nationwide ie “shall not be infringed”, or “require extensive knowledge”? C’mon man. Get it together.

  42. avatar MrMax says:

    Just pitching in my two cents in with the rest: This legislation makes no sense because ALL Americans should have the right to conceal carry. Rather than work on a patchwork of laws that give “special privileges” to an elite few – take a gander at the Bill of Rights and start passing legislation to guarantee our right to bear arms will not be infringed. In a logical world, we shouldn’t have to pass any legislation if our high courts actually were protecting our rights. Unfortunately, they’re punting, so there needs to be law from the Federal side drafted and passed to protect this right in unambiguous language.

  43. avatar No says:

    We are getting way ahead of ourselves this is a republican bill and is going to be interesting to watch it play out I for one feel that if you want to carry do so I could care less.
    Going to interesting to see what the demenocrats do!!!!

  44. avatar Hydguy says:

    I was against HR 218. I’m against this.
    Their lives are no more important than mine, or my daughter’s. Or my parents.

  45. avatar Jayk74 says:

    They either need to make it include all citizens or repeal the law granting former cops extra ccw rights. Being an employee (or former)of the government shouldn’t grant you extra rights not afforded to normal citizens.

  46. avatar possum says:

    News flash, most judges already carry gunms in the court rooms.

  47. avatar Will Drider says:

    NO NEW “CUTOUTS”! LE ot it based on their years/decades of TRAINING and qualifications with Firearms and Use Of Force. Procutors and Judges don’t have that training.

    Is the life and protection of it for Procutors and Judges more important than Citizens? Thousands upon thousands of lawfully armed citizens maintain their training and skill levels far above those of Procutors and Judges who who would receive this golden ticket.

    No damn Cutouts, repeal those currently in effect.

  48. avatar Frank says:

    making more “only ones” what a great idea!
    and these will be the activists who are actively trying to remove our Rights
    Outstanding!

  49. avatar Steven Burns says:

    Tell me about the gun and holster

    1. avatar Steven Burns says:

      Found them. Never mind.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email