Judge shoots down gun ban worries

By T.J. Aulds
The Daily News
Published August 18, 2010

Second Amendment advocates up in arms about a commissioners court agenda item calling for a ban on handguns at county facilities can holster their calls to the National Rifle Association.

The agenda item is more about housekeeping and keeping current with state law than it is denying gun owners their right to bear arms.

Item No. 24 of today’s agenda reads: “Consideration of an order banning the carrying of handguns within the premises of various county owned and leased buildings, parks and other facilities submitted by county legal.”

At first glance, the order would appear to ban handguns from all county facilities.

Actually, the order would ban weapons at facilities that house courtrooms, which already are gun-free zones.

While the state’s concealed handgun laws allow handguns in most public places, they do restrict them in churches, bars, college campuses, courthouses and any private property where signs are posted prohibiting the weapons. Laws already provided restrictions on other weapons.

County Judge Jim Yarbrough said when county commissioners first adopted the order, the Justice Administration Building, which houses the county and district courts, was not built and was not included on the list of prohibited places. While sheriff’s deputies who provide security at the justice center conducted screenings and searches for weapons, the center was not included under the county’s order banning guns from some facilities, Yarbrough said.

Yarbrough said the only people caught attempting to bring guns into the justice center were “district court judges.” He would not say which judges had been found to be carrying weapons.

The ban, by law, does not apply to peace officers.

Today, county commissioners are expected to adopt new policies that add the justice center to the list of 11 county facilities that house courtrooms. That includes justice of the peace courts, the juvenile justice center, county courts and district courts.

Because some of those buildings are multiuse and house offices of other county departments — including parks facilities — the agenda item is worded in a way that appears to make the ban more sweeping.

http://www.galvnews.com/story/169802

Steve