Arming Texas First Responders

Here are my comments in April 2015 to the Texas Senate sub-committee regarding SB 1684 (a bill to allow first responders to carry concealed weapons on duty).

 

Good morning, I rise in opposition to SB 1684. I am a Captain with twenty years experience in the fire service. I am also a former two term president of the Houston Professional Firefighters Association. I say that only so that you have some sense of my professional background. I am testifying as an individual and I’m here at my own personal expense on behalf of, I believe, the best interest of firefighters across the state of Texas.

You should also know that I am a native Texan, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, a gun owner and a concealed handgun license holder. That being said I am opposed to SB 1684 for numerous reasons. 

I will briefly cover some of my greatest concerns, but I am prepared to provide answers and detailed explanations to any questions you may have today. Additionally, I will be leaving my contact information with you should a question arise later.

First, I would like to remind you that firefighters have better and more immediate access to law enforcement officials than the general public. That access has been improved over the last decade after the  9-11 Commission Report identified communications deficicies between police and firefighters, referred to as interoperability, as a priority.  

Next, this legislation ignores the numerous non-lethal options available to address the rare but admittedly growing number of violent attacks on first responders. Those options include (but are not limited to): changes in dispatch protocols for better collection and dissemination of information collected by call takers, mandatory descalation training, department issued body armor or even stun guns.

The additional training prescribed in this legislation doesn't come close to the tremendous amount of frequent, high fidelity training that our brothers and sisters in law enforcement receive. Despite all of that high quality training, mistakes are made by police agencies more often than they would like.

Finally, armed first responders present significant security concerns for the organizations to which they belong. It is impossible to carry a handgun while wearing the firefighter's personal protective ensemble. Therefore, a means to secure weapons on our emergency apparatus and in the station would be necessary thereby placing financial and legal liability burdens on the city.

I have a duty to get my firefighters safely through the day and I took an oath to protect the citizens of my city. I am opposed to SB 1684 because it threatens both of those obligations.

Thanks for your consideration. 

Is rapid communication a "freedom multilper?"

It has been a year since my last post. Obviously I haven’t been silent for a year. The proliferation of social media, journaling apps, text messaging and other electronic media have made it possible to communicate and document at nearly the speed of thought thereby making it difficult to slow down for the likes of written communication and blogs. That fact is indicative of one of the most tremendous improvements in human history. The common man can etch his story on the wall of a cave for anyone in the world to see and almost everyone can see it for the first time ever. In my opinion the ability to document at the rate and volume we enjoy today should be a “freedom multiplier.” From the stand point of a democratic people, when everyone can hear and be heard, the net result should be the most free world in human history.

Is it?