TX: Showdown looming over courtroom guns

[HerrGlock]

http://www.herald-coaster.com/articles/2007/08/30/news/top_story/topstory.txt
Showdown looming over courtroom guns
By Stephen Palkot Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:56 PM

A new Texas law letting assistant district attorneys bring guns to the courthouse has drawn largely negative reactions from judges in Fort Bend County, who rely on uniformed sheriff's office bailiffs for security.

By law, courthouses in Texas are places with strict regulations on who may carry guns. The Texas Penal Code prohibits members of the general public from bringing firearms to courthouses, even if they are licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Until May of this year, only uniformed law enforcement officers, elected county attorneys and district attorneys, and a few others were exempted from this restriction.

With the new law (HB 1503) now in effect, both assistant district attorneys and assistant county attorneys can carry a weapon in courthouses, provided they have concealed handgun licenses.

One local assistant district attorney, Mike Elliott, has opted to do just that, to much opposition from both district court and county court-at-law judges.

At a combined meeting of the six state district court judges and four county court-at-law judges on Wednesday, both 268th District Court Judge Brady Elliott and 240th District Court Judge Tom Culver III said they do not want guns in their courtrooms.

Judges do have latitude to set rules in their courtrooms not specified in state law, such as dress code requirements, but whether they can now prevent assistant district attorneys from wielding firearms in their courtrooms remains under question.

To that end, the group of judges voted to request that the county attorney's office seek an opinion on the matter from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

In the meantime, the judges individually said they will continue to enforce the ban in their own courts.

Courtrooms are often the scene of emotional proceedings, and district courts in particular draw individuals accused or convicted of violent crimes.

Culver said the possibility of armed attorneys presents several issues. For one thing, if an incident did break out requiring law enforcement response, the sight of a person without a police uniform drawing a gun could lead to confusion, especially if the bailiff does not know the person is an assistant district attorney.

"All of a sudden the bailiffs see a person in a suit with a gun in the spectator area, whom they may not know, because there are a lot of assistant district attorneys," Culver said.

Furthermore, he added, there exists the possibility a gun could be taken from a lawyer by a defendant or other person in the courtroom. Bailiffs carry weapons in holsters that by design require several steps to open, and they are specifically trained how to react to individuals reaching for their weapons.

The Legislature passed the law as a reaction to a recent courthouse shooting, explained several individuals.

"The argument I've heard is that this law was passed because of an assistant district attorney years ago that lost their life in the courtroom. That was before Tarrant County had metal detectors in their courthouse," Culver said.

District Attorney John Healey said he did not have any comment on the law itself.

"I've done a substantial amount of research on the issue so far, and I will continue to do research," said Healey. "And at this particular time until its completed, it would be premature to comment on it as it relates to Fort Bend County."

Submit a Letter to the Editor:
newsroom@herald-coaster.com

[Brown Hawk]

Originally posted by HerrGlock
. . .
Until May of this year, only uniformed law enforcement officers, elected county attorneys and district attorneys, and a few others were exempted from this restriction.

. . .
At a combined meeting of the six state district court judges and four county court-at-law judges on Wednesday, both 268th District Court Judge Brady Elliott and 240th District Court Judge Tom Culver III said they do not want guns in their courtrooms.

. . .


Let me get this right. County and district attorneys can carry guns in the courtroom. So the guns are already there. But the judges don't want guns in their courtroom? :shocked:

I hope these judges don't use the same kind of "logic" when they are deciding on points of law.:upeyes:

Hawk

[saspic]

"The argument I've heard is that this law was passed because of an assistant district attorney years ago that lost their life in the courtroom. That was before Tarrant County had metal detectors in their courthouse," Culver said.
Well, I guess they don't need the bailiffs, anymore, then.:laughabove:

[Warp]

I still have a hard time believing that adding people to the "special, more rights than everybody else" list is the answer.

[EFG83]

Originally posted by Warp
I still have a hard time believing that adding people to the "special, more rights than everybody else" list is the answer.

Absolutely. How is an ADA different from any other person who obtains their CHL legally? Are they inherently better or more stable/moral/trustworthy?

Once again, it is shown that gun control laws favor an elitist system.

[Biscuitsjam]

I think the idea is that ADAs are somehow in more inherent danger than other folks in the courthouse. And, yes, there is a presumption that somehow who can handle that job of great responsibility is more responsible.

I think the key here, however, is not so much encouraging ADAs to have guns in the courtroom, but in making it possible for ADAs to carry guns to and from the courthouse.

I don't know if this is fair or just, but I think there is a logic behind it.

[Judgemax]

:2gun:

[DocwithGlock]

Originally posted by Judgemax
In Florida's 11th Circuit (M-D County) only sworn LEOs from selected jurisdictions, and Judges, are authorized to carry firearms/knives/ow in the Ct. Hs. w/o restriction. Usually it's only me.


I, personaly, would not allow any Asst. St. Atty., &/or any other CCW permit holders to carry a weapon in my Ct. Rm. unless they were "qualified by local LE" on a prescribed COF, and was briefed on specific rules of engagement.


Judge, have you been "qualified by local LE" on a prescribed COF, and briefed on specific rules of engagement?

Are you willing to assume responsibility for the safety of everyone in your courtroom that is not allowed to carry a weapon for self defense?

I do understand that you have a dangerous job, but does that mean you are deserving of special status over every other citizen?

[Judgemax]

:thumbsup:

[Warp]

Originally posted by Judgemax
Response. No, my responsibility is to keep order in MY CT. RM. The Chief Judge sets building-wide rules. Still, if I were he, I don't know that I give every Tom-Dick-Harry-Betty & Sue CCW holder the right to carry in this kind of emotionally charged enviroment. I'm sure you've seen some kind of bonehead move/accident by many "GUN" People.

I do understand that you have a dangerous job, but does that mean you are deserving of special status over every other citizen?Response. Well, how many of your friends can say they have been the target of a few death threats?

In FL a circuit court judge is considered (by its Atty. Gen.) to be a "Peace Officer", and therefore LE. Perhaps more important is that the job makes me a "Constitutional Officer". Every day I make decisions that impact peoples lives to one degree or another. Loosers sometimes lash-out at the judge through anger, frustration and sometimes fear.

Unfortunately, it may be more likely that I'll need my piece in a Ct. Hs. than anyone else. And, when you can't tell the good guys from the bad (remember every one is presumed innocent)-- then no one having a gun probably makes it an overall safer space.

So why do you get/want one?

[Judgemax]

:upeyes:

[Warp]

Originally posted by Judgemax

But I carry b/c I may need to defend myself if some one decides to carry out their expressed or secret threat.


And you aren't the only one in that situation.

[Judgemax]

.

[hmb]

Saspic: Incorrect. The event you discussed was long before prosecutors were armed in TX.

Agree with judge max. Warp sounds like sour grapes.

We are in a very small town in Texas. We have no roving bailiffs of any kind in our courthouse. We have no cameras or any other kind of security. I am on the fourth floor with only one paralegal. We have no security of any kind. We do have panic buttons but it would take a deputy 3-4 minutes to get to us. (The Sheriff's office and jail are across the street in another building.) The last time we hit the panic button, it took deputies 5 minutes to respond. I am thankful for the Texas officials who proposed the arming of elected prosecutors. We do have a baliff at all court appearances, if the staffing allows. The Texas law passed two years ago. Here is the stated justification for the law. "This change was brought after the Smith County Courthouse shootout in Tyler in February, 2005. Although it may not be clear from the plain language of the amendment, the lesiglative intent behind this bill was to apply this change only to the officials holding those offices, not to their assistants or anyone else who might otherwise be referred to as "Prosecutors," "prosecuting attorneys," or "attorneys representing the state. ....The new law (now two years old) removes the need to obtain the court's permission, and it applies to more than just courtrooms or courthouses."

Then what happened in the 07 session...another sponsor got the bill arming assistants in the 07 session.

[Warp]

For the record, I would not vote against Judges being allowed to carry in their own court.

ADAs, on the other hand.....undecided.

[HerrGlock]

Originally posted by Warp
For the record, I would not vote against Judges being allowed to carry in their own court.

ADAs, on the other hand.....undecided.

I would vote for defendants while in custody being the only ones not allowed to carry in court rooms.

[SC-Texas]

No guns in the courtroom other than the bailiff and the judge.

WHY?

Because the bailiff is going to light up anyone with a gun that he dioesn't expect to have a gun.

How do I know this?

Because I have had this conversation with many bailiffs and I agree wit them.

[dmx11523]

All guns from everyone should be banned in the court rooms. To many emotional and unstable people walking around those halls.

[dmx11523]

I'm sorry ... those are the laws I'm sworn to uphold. Your kind of complaint should better be heard by your representatives and senators. They make the laws and I humbly carry them out to the best of my ability.

Please take no offense to you personally but it absolutely drives me up the freaking wall when I hear a judge/magistrate say that. You know as well as anyone that will do nothing. I/most working people have neither the $$$ nor the connections to have any complaint taken seriously. Major news coverage and lots of $$$ are the only way laws get "fixed"

I currently am $50,000 in lawyers, into a "complaint" I have with MI. I have a group of about 125 of us involved and we all call/write/stop at the offices of these people and NOTHING is done ever. I literally mean NOTHING. I even have the Judge from my case involved because of what a railroading the state is doing but even with his input they don't do a damn thing. They all on a personal level say that my "issue" needs to be fixed and never should of been done up in the first place, but guess what. NOTHING...10 yrs and nothing worthwhile. So please stop with the "I just carry out the laws and you need to contact the lawmakers"

Sorry about the rant, and I know the "system" doesn't allow you to do much about it but I just get upset when I see/hear that. No offense to you personally just a pet peeve I guess.

[Warp]

Originally posted by SC-Texas
No guns in the courtroom other than the bailiff and the judge.

WHY?

Because the bailiff is going to light up anyone with a gun that he dioesn't expect to have a gun.

How do I know this?

Because I have had this conversation with many bailiffs and I agree wit them.

I somehow think this would be different if people they don't expect to have a gun, were allowed to.

I also imagine there would still be security to pass through and a valid license/permit would be required to enter.

Not srue exactly how I would impliment courthouse carry. Tricky situation.

[saspic]

from The Fort Bend Herald and Texas Coaster:
"The argument I've heard is that this law was passed because of an assistant district attorney years ago that lost their life in the courtroom. That was before Tarrant County had metal detectors in their courthouse," [240th District Court Judge Tom] Culver said.
[i]Originally posted by saspic:
Well, I guess they don't need the bailiffs, anymore, then.:laughabove:
Originally posted by hmb
Saspic: Incorrect. The event you discussed was long before prosecutors were armed in TX.
<snip>
I'm a little confused. I wasn't talking about the incident where the district attorney lost their life. I was mocking Judge Culver's assertation that ADAs have no need for a defensive handgun because of the infallible life saving presence of...metal detectors! My postulation being if metal detectors were so effective at safeguarding assistant district attornies, then judges shouldn't need armed protection either. (Obviously this was meant sarcastically)

For the record I do support LEAs, judges and prosecutors having guns in courthouses.
I also support CHL holders having the right to carry just about everywhere including schools, race tracks, polling places the day of an election, the secure area of an airport, airplanes, and government offices.
The only place where I think it could be a bad idea for average CHL carriers to carry is at criminal justice proceedings and correctional facilities (including at executions). Admittedly I have no experience in this area, but my restrictions would be much less obstructive than what we have now!

[DepStocky]

I have to do Court Room Security sometimes during the week, and no I don't think any but the Deputy shall be armed.

[DocwithGlock]

Originally posted by DepStocky
I have to do Court Room Security sometimes during the week, and no I don't think any but the Deputy shall be armed.

I don'y think anyone but me should carry a gun either, but we do have that paper called a constitution with those pesky Bill of Rights;) :upeyes:

[Judgemax]

:hugs:

[phddan]

Beg to differ there Judge.

You seem to think that you are more apt to run into serious confrontations than the rest of us, and are therefor entitled to more rights and perks than the "common man".
We, the "common man", have to go about our lives without panic buttons, without bailiffs, without radio backup, without special privileges accorded to judges and leo's.
We have to enter and leave the courthouses, schools, and various other places unarmed, without any backup, and walk alot farther to get to transportation, all because we are held to a different set of rules.
From your postings it sounds like your life is more important than mine. That is where I take offense.

Good day,

Dan

[Sharkey]

Originally posted by Biscuitsjam
I think the idea is that ADAs are somehow in more inherent danger than other folks in the courthouse. And, yes, there is a presumption that somehow who can handle that job of great responsibility is more responsible.

I think the key here, however, is not so much encouraging ADAs to have guns in the courtroom, but in making it possible for ADAs to carry guns to and from the courthouse.

I don't know if this is fair or just, but I think there is a logic behind it.

+1 to those comments. A lot of ADA's where I'm at don't have secured parking. They often times have direct contact w/ friends and family members of the people they just put in prison. Those w/ CHL's were forced either not to carry or to lock their guns in their car making a burglary very enticing.
Are they special? I would answer no except at the courthouse where they are indeed different than the average joe that wonders into the courthouse.

[SC-Texas]

Here is the deal . . . If the ADAs can carry then the defense attorneys should be able to carry in the courtroom.

Why?

Because the ADAs are no more stable than the defense attorneys and the most dangerous part of any lawyers and judges day is the trip to nad from the courtroom when we are unarmed and have to go to a place that has more emotiionally distrought criminals and people than any other place at 830 in the morning other that a federal/state jail/pen.

[Sharkey]

I guess the main difference I see is that the ADA is trying to send your client to prison while you, as a defense attorney, are trying to set him free. I would think that the accused is more apt to assault those trying to send him to the pen, ie. judges and ADA and not assault those who are helping him.

Of course, you have those that just twist off in front of the courthouse and just start shooting like the Tyler TX episode.

We watch a lot of Court TV and when the accused twist off, they usally seem to go for the ADA, Judge, and victims family.

As for stability, if you have a CHL, I think you've shown yourself to be reasonably stable.

[cjlandry]

Oh, I don't know, a just-convicted felon may well be upset that his attorney didn't do enough to keep him from being convicted. He may go after the jurors for coming down with the verdict. He may go after anyone. He's a criminal, remember?

Originally posted by dmx11523
Please take no offense to you personally but it absolutely drives me up the freaking wall when I hear a judge/magistrate say that. You know as well as anyone that will do nothing. I/most working people have neither the $$$ nor the connections to have any complaint taken seriously. Major news coverage and lots of $$$ are the only way laws get "fixed"

I currently am $50,000 in lawyers, into a "complaint" I have with MI. I have a group of about 125 of us involved and we all call/write/stop at the offices of these people and NOTHING is done ever. I literally mean NOTHING. I even have the Judge from my case involved because of what a railroading the state is doing but even with his input they don't do a damn thing. They all on a personal level say that my "issue" needs to be fixed and never should of been done up in the first place, but guess what. NOTHING...10 yrs and nothing worthwhile. So please stop with the "I just carry out the laws and you need to contact the lawmakers"

Sorry about the rant, and I know the "system" doesn't allow you to do much about it but I just get upset when I see/hear that. No offense to you personally just a pet peeve I guess.

Just a reminder regarding what this thread is about, which is the new law in Texas.

Do you know why Texas gets new pro-gun legislation passed every two years lately? It's because Texans are active in the TSRA, NRA, NRA-ILA, and other pro-gun organizations.

With the support of these organizations, and some attorneys and officials who keep us informed through web-sites like TSRA and Texas CHL Forums, we're able to move mountains.

It's not easy staying on top of everything, and God knows that I don't stay on top of it all. It is nice to know, however, that I'm part of a large group of citizens who do make a difference with legislation that gets passed.

The anti-gun folks call us "the gun lobby", as though this "lobby" is an evil corporation or other singular entity.

In reality, we're a bunch of people who use some of our time and other resources to make things happen.

Maybe your state's elected officials won't listen. That means it's in your best interest to actively campaign against them, and do the same for someone who will listen.

[TxP8riot]

Hate to rain on this thread - but according to Texas Legislature Online, the bill referenced in the news article (HB 1503) - was vetoed by Governor Perry on 6/15/07. I read his veto message. Evidently the anti-gunners threw some bad language in at the last minute. There is no indication that his veto was overriden. Am I missing something here? Was there a different bill giving ADA's authority to carry in courtrooms?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1503

:headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:

[cjlandry]

Originally posted by TxLawyerJohn
Hate to rain on this thread - but according to Texas Legislature Online, the bill referenced in the news article (HB 1503) - was vetoed by Governor Perry on 6/15/07. I read his veto message. Evidently the anti-gunners threw some bad language in at the last minute. There is no indication that his veto was overriden. Am I missing something here? Was there a different bill giving ADA's authority to carry in courtrooms?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1503

:headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:

The posted story is about HB 1503, so I guess the author of that story got his facts wrong, as apparently did some Judges and prosecutors.

[Judgemax]

:wavey:

[cdurand]

Originally posted by Judgemax
phddan,
I'll let you in a little secret -- my life was totally free of death threats -- until I was elected as a circuit court judge and had the "pleasure" of dealing with our societies worst criminals. I was a mere and "common" civil defense atty for over 20 years. I never felt as vulnerable as I do now, after having sentenced a whole lot of really bad guys to as many years as I could under the law -- that's more life sentences than I could keep track of.

I never went out after midnight (married young), didn't hang around bars, and stayed out of the drug trade. There, I reduced my exposure to trouble to a minimum!

I firmly believe that anyone actively involved in the prosecution of crime deserves extra protection. But I suppose you may think it unfair that police officers can carry where you can't.

I know my life is no more valuable than anyone elses. But I don't think you appreciate the risk I've exposed my wife and kids to just b/c my chief judge assigned me to the criminal section. Before I worked with the most insane, addicted and desperate characters I had no idea how bad it is "out there". Is your fear of your bailiff not knowing who the bad guy is based on real world events or just theory?

I don't know why you seem to believe that I must think I'm some elitest person just b/c the legistlature allows me, as a judge, to carry at the courthouse. I'm lucky to be living in the enlighted state of Florida where any upright, law abiding resident can carry in most places - but certainly not enough. There is a good question as to whether I am allowed to carry any place different that any other ccw holder.

Your jealousy and/or resentfulness is, respectfully, misplaced.



And DMX, didn't your mama tell you "LIFE AINT FAIR". I suppose you've never been wronged by a plumber, electrician, doctor etc.



Remember please, that I only got involved in this thread b/c I think there are many gun owners out there that are more of a danger to themselves, their family and their friends than "the bad guys", unless they get some decent firearms training and education. Just a followup question. Are there any stats to show people who are lawfully allowed to carry pistols have shot people in courtrooms? I can understand if someone faces death threats needing to arm themself. What if someone else, not a judge, is facing death threats and needs to go to court for whatever reason? As you have said, you don't gaurantee that person's safety.

If the bailiff is supposed to be good enough for me in a courtroom he/she should be good enough for the judge as well. If a judge is armed in his own courtoom that would make me think he/she doesn't have a lot of faith in their bailiffs.

[DocwithGlock]

Originally posted by cdurand
Just a followup question. Are there any stats to show people who are lawfully allowed to carry pistols have shot people in courtrooms? I can understand if someone faces death threats needing to arm themself. What if someone else, not a judge, is facing death threats and needs to go to court for whatever reason? As you have said, you don't gaurantee that person's safety.

If the bailiff is supposed to be good enough for me in a courtroom he/she should be good enough for the judge as well. If a judge is armed in his own courtoom that would make me think he/she doesn't have a lot of faith in their bailiffs.

I don't think you understand. Judges may be more likely to get death threats and are therefore statistically more likely to need a gun for protection. Us silly peons don't understand that RIGHTS apply more to people who may statistically need them more often.

Let me explain. White men may be more likely to vote after they get to a certain age. So by the same logic, young black women do not NEED to vote. Get it?
:upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes: :upeyes:

[Judgemax]

:animlol:

[EFG83]

Originally posted by Judgemax
Gentlemen,
I don't need stats to know that I need to carry -- b/c no one around me "has me covered".

The same goes for us little people.

Our bailiffs are not armed. I don't intend to become a statistic!

Neither do we.

Even with the best firearms training and education, no one can guarantee even their own safety. Weren't Reagan and Brady shot while surrounded by well armed and trained secret service agents? Hell, Ruby shot Oswald in a police station crawling with cops! Who can guarantee anyone elses safety?

The government can guarantee me the right to protect my own safety. Incidentally, this right is the Second Amendment, which protects that right of citizens (not ADAs, judges, bailiffs, or "insert name of group of 'special people' here") to keep and bear arms to protect themselves.

Remember please, that I only got involved in this thread b/c I think there are many gun owners out there that are more of a danger to themselves, their family and their friends than "the bad guys", unless they get some decent firearms training and education.

Were you also assigned to be the arbiter of who should be deemed a competent owner of firearms? The "you are more likely to shoot your own family than a bad guy" argument has been debunked for quite some time, although it is still a rallying cry of anti-gunners. Making a distinction between who may carry on the basis of training is just one more way of creating a "special" group of folks who are allowed to carry.

Do I like the fact that some firearms owners are not well educated or trained in the employment of their firearms? No. But do I think the right of everyone to keep and bear arms is more important? Absolutely. IMO, we can make a bigger difference by advocating training and education in our own community circles, rather than just standing back and saying "Get training or you don't get to own a gun."

[phddan]

Originally posted by Judgemax
phddan,
I'll let you in a little secret -- my life was totally free of death threats -- until I was elected as a circuit court judge and had the "pleasure" of dealing with our societies worst criminals. I was a mere and "common" civil defense atty for over 20 years. I never felt as vulnerable as I do now, after having sentenced a whole lot of really bad guys to as many years as I could under the law -- that's more life sentences than I could keep track of.

I never went out after midnight (married young), didn't hang around bars, and stayed out of the drug trade. There, I reduced my exposure to trouble to a minimum!

I firmly believe that anyone actively involved in the prosecution of crime deserves extra protection. But I suppose you may think it unfair that police officers can carry where you can't.

I know my life is no more valuable than anyone elses. But I don't think you appreciate the risk I've exposed my wife and kids to just b/c my chief judge assigned me to the criminal section. Before I worked with the most insane, addicted and desperate characters I had no idea how bad it is "out there".

I don't know why you seem to believe that I must think I'm some elitest person just b/c the legistlature allows me, as a judge, to carry at the courthouse. I'm lucky to be living in the enlighted state of Florida where any upright, law abiding resident can carry in most places - but certainly not enough. There is a good question as to whether I am allowed to carry any place different that any other ccw holder.

Your jealousy and/or resentfulness is, respectfully, misplaced.



And DMX, didn't your mama tell you "LIFE AINT FAIR". I suppose you've never been wronged by a plumber, electrician, doctor etc.



Remember please, that I only got involved in this thread b/c I think there are many gun owners out there that are more of a danger to themselves, their family and their friends than "the bad guys", unless they get some decent firearms training and education.



Judgemax,
Funny how you equate dealing with our societies worst criminals from a chair behind a big wood desk with armed guards at your side, after they have been processed through the jail and are in cuffs, with the majority of people who deal face to face, elbow to elbow, and hand to hand with the same criminals, who aren't disarmed and in cuffs.
The secret is you and your kind feel more important, more entitled to protection, more worthy of advantages that the rest of us aren't deserving of.

"I never went out after midnight (married young), didn't hang around bars, and stayed out of the drug trade. There, I reduced my exposure to trouble to a minimum!"

Well, good for you, but so do a good majority of the American people. I don't see your point, as we still have to mingle with the criminals every day.

"I firmly believe that anyone actively involved in the prosecution of crime deserves extra protection."

Why? Is your life any more important than the person who turns a criminal in, or the person who is an innocent bystander that gets caught up in the criminals game plan?
You knew the risks going in to that job, and now you want special status. Can't live with the risks, get another job.

" But I suppose you may think it unfair that police officers can carry where you can't."

So now you are equating yourself and ADA's to police officers?
And now that I think of it, I don't recall ever hearing of a defendant grabbing a "commoners" gun in a courthouse and shooting people. But I have read of numerous instances where the criminal takes the leo's weapon and kills people.
And, yes, actually I do think its ludicrous that I'm restricted from carrying in schools, racetracks, 51% businesses, and a host of other places.

"I know my life is no more valuable than anyone elses."

Can't tell from your postings.

" But I don't think you appreciate the risk I've exposed my wife and kids to just b/c my chief judge assigned me to the criminal section."

And I don't think you appreciate the common Americans risk of just going about their daily lives amongst the criminals.
Like I said before, if you can't handle the risks, than get a different job.

"Before I worked with the most insane, addicted and desperate characters I had no idea how bad it is "out there"."

Now this I truly believe.
But this is what the "commoners" have lived and known for a very long time.



"I don't know why you seem to believe that I must think I'm some elitest person just b/c the legistlature allows me, as a judge, to carry at the courthouse. I'm lucky to be living in the enlighted state of Florida where any upright, law abiding resident can carry in most places - but certainly not enough. There is a good question as to whether I am allowed to carry any place different that any other ccw holder."

I don't seem to believe it, I truly believe it.

"Your jealousy and/or resentfulness is, respectfully, misplaced."

Your perceived notions of my feelings are, respectfully, misplaced, misguided, misinformed, and quite frankly, just what I expect from someone who is defending an elitist position.
I am neither jealous nor resentful of elitist propaganda.

"Remember please, that I only got involved in this thread b/c I think there are many gun owners out there that are more of a danger to themselves, their family and their friends than "the bad guys", unless they get some decent firearms training and education."

Seems to me I hear of way more leo's causing much more damage to themselves and others by careless handling of firearms, than I do of "commoners".

I find it very telling of you, that your long condescending reply to my post did not directly address any of my points made, save for your life being worth more.

Good day

Dan

[Judgemax]

:laughabove:

[Judgemax]

*****

[cjlandry]

Personally, I've never felt endangered in a courtroom, and I've stood on both sides (defendant and witness for the prosecution).

I'd rather have the judge armed, behind the bench, than no one at all.

I don't spend a lot of time in courtrooms, so I don't know the facts.

It seems, from reading these articles and first-hand experiences from Judgemax, that courtrooms are indeed very violent places. Perhaps I should petition the government to allow me to carry in the courthouse, when my attendance is required by law. After all, the judges are constantly receiving death threats. It seems that there is likely to be a shootout at any moment in a courthouse. There's nothing I hate worse than attending a shootout unarmed.

How do I know the judge has sufficient training to keep from accidentally shooting me? Perhaps he/she should post a copy of their credentials from Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, or one of the other tactical training schools.

Things have certainly changed since I used to attend court more regularly.

[cdurand]

Originally posted by Judgemax
Gentlemen,
I don't need stats to know that I need to carry -- b/c no one around me "has me covered". Our bailiffs are not armed. I don't intend to become a statistic!

Even with the best firearms training and education, no one can guarantee even their own safety. Weren't Reagan and Brady shot while surrounded by well armed and trained secret service agents? Hell, Ruby shot Oswald in a police station crawling with cops! Who can guarantee anyone elses safety?

I wish I had the power to hand out more RIGHTS, and if I were King I would, but alas, I am but a lowly judge sworn to follow and enforce the laws created by the legislative branch - whether I agree with with them or not. I agree, you don't need stats to know you need to carry. I am saying I don't need stats either and should be allowed to carry just like you.

You say you don't like the idea of people carrying guns in your courtoom. I was asking about that, not your right to carry. I think you are basing this on an unsubstantiated fear was my point. I don't hear about people who are lawfully allowed to posses and carry a firearm shooting up courtrooms.

I could have been more clear. You are obviously getting beat up here and that was not my intent. We may be on different sides of this argument but I'm not trying to make it personal.

[phddan]

Originally posted by Judgemax
I was posting when phddan was responding, but instead of trying to be understood, I'll surrender. You guys remind me of some journalist trying to egg on a fight rather than try to understand a fellow Glocker.

Have a good day gentlemen.


Judgemax,

Sorry you feel that way. I was under the assumption that point-counter point discussions are a good way of understanding each other. PM me if you feel threatened by open board discussions.

Dan

[Judgemax]

:thumbsup:

[cjlandry]

Originally posted by Judgemax
I don't think I've said anything negative about anyone here, but I feel like I'm dodging bullets.

I don't believe anyone means to attack you personally. Many of us take it personally when governmental authorities make statements that they should be allowed to be armed, but the ordinary citizen should not.

We believe that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure that government should never disarm citizens. That government is in place to serve the people, not the other way around.

I understand that a courtroom may not be considered a good place to be armed, and I have no inclination to carry in a court of law. I also have no problem with the person behind the bench being armed. I prefer that one or more of the good guys are armed.

When asked why we carry a gun, many of us sometimes answer, "Because I can't carry a cop". I don't feel the need to carry my gun when I have armed protection in the room.

I do feel the need when that protection isn't present.

[Judgemax]

:deadhorse:

[wild bill kelso]

Originally posted by Warp
I still have a hard time believing that adding people to the "special, more rights than everybody else" list is the answer.

Amen.

[EFG83]

Originally posted by Judgemax
cj,
It's amazing for me to see how easy it is to be misunderstood.

It seems so odd for someone to think of me as one of them, and not part of the "us" or "we" that you talk about(assuming your "us & we" does not include vigilanty or underground militia groups). I am not a part of that scene. You might find it interesting to know that one of my trial decisions was used as support for the Florida legislature's enactment of our Stand-and-Defend law.

It's too long a story to tell completely, but suffice it to say that after my very expansive interpretation of FL's old Castle Doctrine Law was reversed by our 1st level appellate court, the legislature, saw the inequity in a situation where the good guy was charged with murder after he and his new girlfriend were attacked in the doorway of HER APT. by an homicidal maniac of a old boyfriend, who happened to have a lengthy rap sheet.

The new boyfriend stood his ground when the fight spilled back into HER APT. where he shot and killed the attacker. Our over zealous prosecutor had taken the position that I had to tell the jury the good guy had a duty to retreat b/c he was not defending HIS HOME. My refusal put the ball in motion to give more life to all of our 2nd Amendment rights, at least in Florida. My reasoning: Where you hang your pants is your home!

Your welcome.

That particular anecdote, while I applaud you for your reasoning, has nothing to do with this current discussion. Your interpretation of the Castle Doctrine has no bearing on this thread, which is about who should be "allowed" to carry and where.

Originally posted by Judgemax
Notwithstanding my support for all of our Rights, especially the 2nd, I got to know a whole lot of prosecutors that I don't think should handle a sharp knife without supervision. In general they don't understand the benifits of an armed populice. Some have tunnel vision when it comes to the God given right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. On the other hand I've shot with one particular prosecutor I would love to have armed in the courtroom.

This thread got started about prosectors being armed in the courtroom -- and I still say NOT WITHOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAINING AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. The "street scene" is a totaly different situation that calls for more self reliance and awareness!

Is this horse dead yet? :deadhorse:

The horse is dead, but you didn't notice because you were out chasing cows...once again, you miss the point. You seem to think that you should be the one to decide who gets to carry and who doesn't, based on your perception of whether you would trust them with a firearm and/or they have "a significant amount of training". If you fail to see how that is a contradiction of the Second Amendment, then I don't think you will get it anytime soon.

You don't have to like the fact that all citizens should be allowed to arm themselves how, when and where they choose. That is their right. Period. No one is special.

[RenegadeGlocker]

With the new law (HB 1503) now in effect, both assistant district attorneys and assistant county attorneys can carry a weapon in courthouses, provided they have concealed handgun licenses.

Says here (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1503) that the law was VETOED by Governor Perry.

Looks they meant HB2300 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB2300)...

[degoodman]

I'm with the judge on this one.

Contrary to the beleifs of some, there are in fact places where guns in the hands of John Q Public have no place. The list of such places is short, but it does exist. My list would go something like this:

Prisons, detention facilities, jails, workhouses, etc where persons under custodial control are housed. The risks associated with a person, even a well trained person, losing control of his weapon are far too great.

Courtrooms. Guns exert influence and power. The carriage of justice should be dependant on the impartial trial of facts,independant of influence and the exertion of power. The persons of authority in such situations should be armed to maintain the security of the situation. The mere possibility that persons of one party or the other could be armed can create pressures on the jury in the execution of their duties that can place a thumb on the scales of justice that should not be.

Meetings of legislative bodies. Again, the power and influence thing. The meetings of the ELECTED governing bodies carrying out their duty to craft laws through enlightened debate free from outside influence and the exertion of power. While in many ways the current political system doesn't seem to operate above influence or engage in enlightened debate, in most cases it actually does. Again the mere possibility that armed persons in a room may exert power and influence taints that process.

In the presence of the elected chief executive over any jurisdiction. Whether the president of the US, Governor of the state, or mayor of your town, the elected executive DOES have more value than the rest of us, in a power exchange that we agreed to by virtue of electing him. In execution of their duties they can and should be able to control the presence of weapons in proximity to them. The threat of revolution by an armed and right thinking populace who elect to take back some of the power they have entrusted the government with is quite different from an attack by an armed individual who disagrees with this or that, or may just have completely lost his grip.

Places where environmental conditions make the discharge of weapons physically dangerous. While it makes common sense, in light of people who think they should be armed everywhere, there should be a legal prohibition on the carrying of weapons in places where the mere presence of a weapon is dangerous. Oil and gas facilities, explosives plants, chemical processing facilities, etc. If pulling the trigger could cause an explosion, environmental disaster, or cause the release of poisonous or toxic chemicals you should be prohibited from carrying there.

And that's about it.

And this is also a rough sentiment, but a Judge, legislator, executive office holder, whether appointed or elected, who is engaged in the execution of his sworn duties at that time is more important than the average citizen. As such, they are entitled to rights and priviliges that the average citizen is not by virtue of that status. And while some people will not acknowledge it, those people are at greater risk than the John Q Citizen who may be standing right next to him. When people flip out in the gallery in a courtroom, its not others in the gallery that are targeted. Its the judge, the prosecutor, and as often as not, the handcuffed defendant who is presumed to be innocent and has no means of defending himself from what is in that moment a criminal attack.

I am certainly in favor of the most liberal interpretation of all the rights guaranteed us by the constitution, and not just the second ammendment. However no rights eneumerated by any document of government are absolute. Just as the right to free speech does not entitle you to commit slander or libel, or shout fire in a crowded theater when there is none, the right to keep and bear arms is also subject to some limits. In general there are too many laws rules and limits in place today, but some of those do have a place.

[Warp]

Originally posted by degoodman
but a Judge, legislator, executive office holder, whether appointed or elected, who is engaged in the execution of his sworn duties at that time is more important than the average citizen. As such, they are entitled to rights and priviliges that the average citizen is not by virtue of that status.

This is exactly what we do NOT need.

[saspic]

I could conceed that some public figures might have an increased need to carry a gun than the average Joe, but I don't really believe they should actually have special liberties beyond what we have.
The one time I do think weapon possesion needs to be controlled is in regards to the justice system. Most courts and correction facilities are just the subject of too much emotion. And I doubt very much you will ever be allowed to visit your family member in prison with your GLOCK on your hip.
Even so, I think as many people as possible should be allowed to carry in the court, including judges and prosecutors.
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[phddan]

It would be nice to sit down with you and discuss this issue over a cup of coffee or cold Shiner, then maybe you could stay on topic and actually answer to rebuttals of your position.


Dan

[cdurand]

I think the Judge has clearly stated his position. We are on the same side here people.. mostly.

The issue I have with his latest statement is how he needs to know who has a gun and who doesn't. Might as well just allow open carry in the courtroom to make it simple. Or maybe anyone carrying a weapon has wear a bright orange vest for easy identification.

Also, the Judge has yet to point to all the courtroom shootings by people who legally allowed to posses and carry a firearm.

I know he doesn't like being compared to the anti-gun crowd but he sure is using a lot of the same nonesense justifications gun grabbers use against people carrying concealed weapons.

Again, I'd like to know how many times this has happened to make Judges so concerned.

The Judge makes it sound like courtrooms all over this country are under constant attack with his "A well coordinated defense is like poetry in motion" statement. I can just see the Judge barricaded behind the bench providing cover fire for the court reporter and jury while they evacuate. Then he throws a smoke grenade and calls for an airstrike on all the crazed gun toting nut jobs fighting their way into his courtroom.

[Judgemax]

:rofl:

[Mark 19]

Originally posted by Judgemax
Gentlemen, ... I wish I had the power to hand out more RIGHTS, and if I were King I would, but alas, I am but a lowly judge sworn to follow and enforce the laws created by the legislative branch - whether I agree with with them or not.

Thanks for contributing. Good health and peace to you and yours, sir.

[SC-Texas]

Originally posted by Judgemax
Gentlemen,
I wish I had the power to hand out more RIGHTS, and if I were King I would, but alas, I am but a lowly judge sworn to follow and enforce the laws created by the legislative branch - whether I agree with with them or not.

Funny you shouls say that. As a judge, you can ensure that people's rights are protected & that they are expanded to the fullest extent possible. This includes 2nd amendment rights and right to carry concealed weapons or open carry of weapons.

[cdurand]

Originally posted by SC-Texas
Funny you shouls say that. As a judge, you can ensure that people's rights are protected & that they are expanded to the fullest extent possible. This includes 2nd amendment rights and right to carry concealed weapons or open carry of weapons. Ok, now you're just getting carried away. Judges can't expand people's rights. We're not talking about the Supreme Court here.

[SC-Texas]

Oh really?

How do you figure that?

[Judgemax]

:banana:

[DocwithGlock]

Don't all judges have a responsibility to not convict people who have been charged with laws that are unconstitutional?

I thought that one purpose of judges is to decide cases based on the law, with the constitution in mind.

[HerrGlock]

Originally posted by DocwithGlock
Don't all judges have a responsibility to not convict people who have been charged with laws that are unconstitutional?

I thought that one purpose of judges is to decide cases based on the law, with the constitution in mind.

Not really, that's what appeals courts are for.

[Judgemax]

:shocked:

[DocwithGlock]

Originally posted by Judgemax
I have found a statute unconstitutional and been affirmed by the local appellate court and Florida's Supreme Court, but that's rare event for a trial judge.

Trial judges clearly don't have the constitutional authority to create a law or add to the Bill of Rights, and whichever way they rule, it's subject to appellate review by two levels of state appellate courts.



It might not be so rare if some judges ruled against any law that relates to gun control.

We don't need new rights or laws. We have plenty of both (actually more laws than we need). What we need is to have the rights we were born with upheld by those in positions of authority.

[Judgemax]

;)

[SC-Texas]

Originally posted by cdurand
Ok, now you're just getting carried away. Judges can't expand people's rights. We're not talking about the Supreme Court here.

Trial judges are o the front lines of ensuring that everyone's rights are given the broadest license or definition possible. Or the narrowest if they so choose.

Trial judges can dismiss iffy cases.

Trial judges decide what is and is not presented to a jury within the rules of evidence.

Trial judges are where every starts.

[Judgemax]

:wavey:

[Razoreye]

Originally posted by Judgemax
I wish. Don't worry guys and gals, I'll be fair.

An M1 Abrams in every driveway. :banana: Interesting thread. However, if I was in FL, I'd vote you to whatever if you came through on that promise. :supergrin: :rofl: You can take my guns, just give me an Abrams with ammo! :2gun:

[Gunnut 45/454]

Judgemax
I disagree with your statement about the Gov.t guaranteeing my 2nd Admendment Right's -They "don't" and you as a judge should know that!
"We the people" guarantee our rights-not the Gov't!! As no one in Gov't can remove our rights!:supergrin:

[cdurand]

Wow, some of you guys have no idea how the legal system works in this country.

Judges don't have all emcompassing powers to do whatever they please. A judge can't "expand" rights.

Judges have rules to follow. If the stray too far they get in trouble. Some are elected and that means they have to watch what they do even more so.

Our gun rights have been eroding since the 1920's and it wasn't Judges making those changes. It's the lawmakers of this nation, both state and federal, who don't want an armed population no matter how clear the founders of this country were.

The way to undo all of this would be to get a case to the Supreme Court. The anti-gun crowd has done an excellent job to make sure that never happens either.

We'll see what falls out of the Washington D.C. case.

[Judgemax]

:tongueout:

[SC-Texas]

Originally posted by cdurand
Wow, some of you guys have no idea how the legal system works in this country.

Our gun rights have been eroding since the 1920's and it wasn't Judges making those changes. It's the lawmakers of this nation, both state and federal, who don't want an armed population no matter how clear the founders of this country were.

We'll see what falls out of the Washington D.C. case.

the Judges on the Supreme Court are to blame for allowing the legislative branch to encroach on the second amendment.

[uhlawpup]

Originally posted by SC-Texas
the Judges on the Supreme Court are to blame for allowing the legislative branch to encroach on the second amendment.

Really?

How about it is the voters to blame for electing the legislators who are doing the encroaching?

You do vote, don't you, SC-Texas?

[RussP]

Originally posted by HerrGlock
[url]...With the new law (HB 1503) now in effect, both assistant district attorneys and assistant county attorneys can carry a weapon in courthouses, provided they have concealed handgun licenses.

...Culver said the possibility of armed attorneys presents several issues. For one thing, if an incident did break out requiring law enforcement response, the sight of a person without a police uniform drawing a gun could lead to confusion, especially if the bailiff does not know the person is an assistant district attorney.

"All of a sudden the bailiffs see a person in a suit with a gun in the spectator area, whom they may not know, because there are a lot of assistant district attorneys," Culver said....Make them wear these on a neck chain...

http://www.fototime.com/CA738302A077F4C/standard.jpg

:wavey: :wavey:

[SC-Texas]

Originally posted by uhlawpup
Really?

How about it is the voters to blame for electing the legislators who are doing the encroaching?

You do vote, don't you, SC-Texas?

Wow, I can see why you are confused attending UH law and all:laughabove:

Yes I vote. do you?

The Supreme court is the last defense agasint teh tyranny of the majority! You should know that . . . attending UH Law and all.