Advertisement

Bill would allow guns in court

By Janet Reid · January 22, 2009 · Comment on this

Prosecutors could win the ability to carry guns into court under a new bill passed by the state Senate.

Related story

Comments

igby 5 years, 2 months ago

The DA:"may I approach the bench your honor".Judge:"please remove your weapon first".Inmate whose brain is twitching like a toad starts to think:"weapon, jail, I need drugs, sex, freedom, now's my chance".Bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang.or is it,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang.Six, seven, ten of 14, for pre-band semi-autos.I really don't think a gun in the courtroom is a good idea, they should get a stun-gun and practice with it first.First he shoots the bailiff, victims family, judge, DA, his lawyer whom he doesn't need anymore.

0

igby 5 years, 2 months ago

The inmate in court could grab the gun from the DA's brief case while the Judge and his lawyer are in a "side- bar". Then he could shoot everyone and run out after un-cuffing himself with the handcuff key from the dead bailiffs' belt. Just like the case in the courtroom shooting in Georgia; which the cost of the shooter's case has reached in the millions. But wait, they un-cuff the inmates here in Douglas County while their in the court room. Makes you wonder!Just whats on their mind with this law.

0

elevenbravo 5 years, 2 months ago

compmd (Anonymous) says… "This is a colossally bad idea for innumerable reasons, the first of which is giving lawyers guns. The second reason is that by giving the prosecutor a gun, the courtroom is no longer truly presided over by the judge; the man with the loaded gun who also has the power to use the law to ruin someone's life has all the power in the room."compmd,Not so much. See a judge can carry in his court room as the law is written now.I can see the argument though that the Judge is now equaled in his courtroom by the prosecutor. However if you take in to account the judge seated at the bench has higher ground, cover and concealment there is a clear tactical advantage. (Just a little sarcasm there)

0

elevenbravo 5 years, 2 months ago

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says… "Getting a permit for concealed carry is fine, but the list of places where you can't carry it is almost as long as where you can. Citizen's got screwed on the concealed carry law. A lot of the places where you may need it, you can't carry it. Plus it is expensive. We should not have to pay to exercise a constitutional right, they don't in Vermont. Thank you, Lynn"Lynn, First the constitution does not specifically give anyone the right to carry a concealed weapon. Althought "bare" could be argued as keeping anyway a citizen chooses.The "list" you are speaking of although still on the books is superseded by this.The requirements for “no concealed carry” signage also changed with thepassage of HB 2528. In order to bring charges of unlawful concealedcarry against a licensee, those properties previously enumerated underK.S.A. 75-7c10 (schools, bars, churches, school & professional athleticevents, churches, etc.) must now be posted. One exception to this is theprovision regarding carrying in or on areas prohibited by Federal law;these areas are under no obligation to post their properties.This was changed to avoid confusion on the part of the permit holder.So, if it's not a federal building, certain national parks or monuments and the building is not posted a ccw licensee is legal to carry. (In Kansas)In addition the building must be posted in accordance with the attorney generals specifications. For instance, the county court house, the old court house and the hospital do not display proper signage. Personally I do not care to be case law there for I respect the intent but I question why the city and the county post invalid signage. Here is the wording from the KS AG.K.A.R. 16-11-7,” dated October 19, 2006, and hereby adopted by reference.(b) The size of the sign shall be eight inches by eight inches or larger. If the signis eight inches by eight inches, the size of the graphic adopted by reference insubsection (a) shall be six inches in diameter. If the sign is larger than eight inches byeight inches, the size of the graphic shall be proportional to the size of the sign.(c) Each sign shall meet all of the following requirements:(1) The background shall be white.(2) The portion of the graphic depicting the handgun shall be black.(3) The portion of the graphic depicting the circle and diagonal slash across thehandgun shall be red.(4) No text shall be placed within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic.(d) Each sign shall be displayed in a manner that makes the sign reasonablylikely to come to the attention of persons entering the premises.The signs used on the buildings I mentioned are displayed so they are likely to come to the attention of persons entering the premises. However the signs fail to meet any of the other requirements.

0

denak 5 years, 2 months ago

Why stop at the prosecutor? I'm a paralegal. Why can't I? Why not the court reporter? Why not the defense attorney? Really, I have yet to hear one well clear reason as to why this is needed.I'm sure if someone wanted to look up the number of prosecutors killed in the courtroom, it would only come down to a handful if even that.There is no legitimate need for this bill.This is just political grandstanding.Dena

0

Lynn731 5 years, 2 months ago

Getting a permit for concealed carry is fine, but the list of places where you can't carry it is almost as long as where you can. Citizen's got screwed on the concealed carry law. A lot of the places where you may need it, you can't carry it. Plus it is expensive. We should not have to pay to exercise a constitutional right, they don't in Vermont. Thank you, Lynn

0

kpitrl 5 years, 2 months ago

“A well armed society is a polite society.” - Robert A. Heinlein

0

compmd 5 years, 2 months ago

This is a colossally bad idea for innumerable reasons, the first of which is giving lawyers guns. The second reason is that by giving the prosecutor a gun, the courtroom is no longer truly presided over by the judge; the man with the loaded gun who also has the power to use the law to ruin someone's life has all the power in the room. In Chicago police have to check their firearms with the Sheriff's Court Services department when they arrive at the courthouse. Only the Court Services deputies have weapons, and they are not allowed to bring them into courtrooms. If there is a ploy here to say "its for the safety of the people in the courtroom" then I suggest the authors of this bill look at a place with much higher crime, such as Chicago, and ask themselves why it isn't a wild west shootout in the courtrooms there.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 2 months ago

What could possibly go wrong with guns in a court room?

0

KS 5 years, 2 months ago

Can't tell you about the Baliff! Haven't been in a courtroom lately, thank God. Arming the prosecutors may not "prevent crime", but it might save their own life, if someone decides to take the law into their own hands. Get a permit and get a gun. Use only when necessary. No one knows the time. That's the whole idea. I didn't hear anything in the video indicating that this would "prevent crime".

0

macon47 5 years, 2 months ago

this isnt quite fair, i thought that is why the govt wants to take away our guns,so only crooks would have themdoes this mean prosecuter willhave an edge over the bad guys?boo boo bad bad

0

preebo 5 years, 2 months ago

What about the Bailiff? Are they not armed? How does arming prosecutors prevent crime? I understand that they are considered officers of the court, but does that require them to be given a firearm?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Share this video
E-mail to a friend

URL Paste this into an e-mail or IM