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
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Protecting other people as opposed to self defense requires a higher standard of training.
This is a reasonable action.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)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?
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)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...
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)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 ?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Rigorous standards and training are the issue here. You seem to have both.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)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
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)You cannot have it both ways in the gun control debate.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)they want to exploit.
AllyCat
(16,188 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)are from the class they despise.