Like I saw here already, this is just creating another class of "US vs. THEM" citizenery. But then again, considering the Party affiliation of this sponsor, I would expect nothing less. With a very few exceptions Democrats of Today are not at all happy with the idea that the common citizen is allowed to own firearms, let alone carry them. As for this particular House Bill, I am not surprised. If I had to guess the reasoning would go something like this: "Prosecuting Attorneys being Officers of the Court need to be allowed to carry anywhere in order to protect themselves because they DO prosecute criminals, and are therefore targets of opportunity for the criminal element."
What we need is for this Bill to be shut down because it gives added benefits to someone based solely on their job title. I was for the waiving of the basic pistol safety requirement for certain Veterans and retired LEO's but that is because they already have that particular discipline of training. This bill does not reward someone for a specific skill set that they have, instead it rewards them just because they are or work for the County Prosecuting Attorney. I want to know what specifictraining they have that makes them safer than the rest of us to be allowed to carry in the "Free Crime Areas" also known as gun free zones.
Anyways that is just my little rant on this subject.
"Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it begin here."
--Captain John Parker, commander of the militiamen at Lexington,
Massachusetts, on sighting British Troops (attributed), 19 April 1775