Judges to carry guns

I guess it's a good idea, things can get crazy in and out of the courtroom.

Judges to carry guns​

I wonder if asked whether they are required to admit to posession of a firearm.

Sure they can take justice into their own hands

"Sure they can take justice into their own hands"

No, so they can protect themselves and their families from outlaw punks.

Hooray! Common sense is on an upswing.


Criminals have long stated that they avoid burglarizing homes where they know the owners are armed.

Just the fact that a judge MIGHT be armed will deter the average coward punk criminal. It's about time.


"An armed society is a polite society." Robert Heinlein

They should also change things that executions will be carried out immediately, no waiting around 25 years to give someone the needle. Public flogging should also be enforced for small crimes such as vandalism.

Should not be allowed.

1) citizens are not allowed to carry a concealed pistol in court. Allowing a judge to do it once again is creating a 1st and 2nd class citizen structure, where some citizens enjoy their rights more fully than others.

2) NY is a notorious anti-gun, anti-ccw state. An average citizen has a snowballs chance in hell of getting a CCW. Damn straight a judge in that state should be forced to live in fear for his live -- to the same extent that everyone else does. When NY wises up and becomes shall issue, then by all means the judges can apply for a permit just like everyone else.

It's total b.s. preferencial treatment... think Diane Feinstein and her CA CCW. She was 'enjoying' her RKBA in an anti-state, when she was actively working to infringe on the RKBA on a national level.

The above also applies to now passed H.R. 218. Regular citizen = second class citizen.

I thought the mayor of NYC wants to limit guns in his city?
Guess that only applies to regular citizens and not the rich, well connected or celebrities.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I've seen NYS court officers with a sidearm in court.
anyway, this is all moot as most of them probably already have the coveted NYC concealed carry permit already.

Frankly, while not adverse to it, I'm a little surprised that some judges feel that they need to carry a concealed firearm while in court. I assume that in the US, like here in Canada, one is required to empty ones pockets and pass through a metal detector before entering a court building. Yes? Also, court buildings are typically crawling with armed LEOs, both uniformed and plain clothes.

One of my jobs as a Reserve Deputy is to provide security for judges in court. Everybody goes through the metal detectors and bags go through x-ray machines. Reality is you see allot of the same faces day-in and day-out, employees and lawyers... Many times there is a big rush to get in due to court times. No system is 100% and weapons can be gotten in, hid on site or taken away from officers. Ideally another branch of government would be deciding who carries. I would suspect allot of judges wear guns under the robes now, I know I would...

While I agree that this promotes a "tiered citizenship structure," if the RKBA group plays it right they could use this to get their foot in the door to expand gun owner's rights in NY.

I've read that family law is one of the most dangerous fields for attornies and judges... personally I don't mind if they pack heat so long as they have to go through the training and anal probing everyone else does that wants a legal CCW.

"This... is my BOOM stick!!!"

Datasaurusrex said:

Should not be allowed.
The above also applies to now passed H.R. 218. Regular citizen = second class citizen.

Click to expand...

H.R. 218 was passed so police officer's could protect themselves and there families, from criminals who they arrested or put in jail. It also clears up the way for police officers/retired officers to carry concealed nation wide whether onduty or offduty/retired. But some cities/states are not following the law IIRC NYC police officers were told to arrest any cop they found out of there jurisdiction carrying a concealed firearm not on offical bussiness.

I call bs. It was put into place because it could be, because it was possible to give 1 class of citizens preferential treatment (that class that wields power and protects those who wield power).

The odds of a cop running into a person he once arrested, while the cop is in his home town, is great.

The odds of a cop running into a person he once arrested, while on vacation in another state, is virtually nil (statistically insignificant).

I've never heard of ANY data to support the need for HR 218 (where a police officer was accosted by a criminal he or she once arrested while the officer was visiting another state). And really it would have to be in one of the few rabid anti CCW states (NY, DC and CA) for it to count, because in most other states one can get a non-res permit.

If a cop wants to visit NY while not on official duty, he can do the same thing that any other citizen does.... go unarmed and be careful. And actually hooray for NY. The feds should not be selectively enforcing the second amendment... when they force all states to adhere to it, for all citizens to enjoy, then I'll join you in complaining about NY.

Furthermore, they knew it was a dangerous job when they signed up for it, that's called 'assumed risk.' So they shouldn't have been crying now about how they can't carry a gun 24/7 no matter where they go (on or off duty, retired or not). Same goes for a judge, you send people to jail for life, of course you're going to make enemies. If that scares you go find another job.

And by the way, living is dangerous. Each and every citizen deserves the EXACT SAME right of self protection no matter where they are. A cop (active or retired) does not deserve any special rights, or treatment. Nor does a judge, or elected official -- They don't deserve special protection or access to an ability to exercise the RKBA that 'normal' citizens do not enjoy.

The average street cop may not care too much about CCW (don't mind it). But the FOP is adamently anti-CCW, and a majority of chiefs, or police who hold elected positions, are against it. When they stop working against my freedom I'll start giving a hoot about theirs (and their safety).

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but acts like HR 218 only strengthen the 'us vs them' reality.

I'm with Datasaursrex on this one. He put it better than I could ever hope to. :goodjob:

scott.cr said:

While I agree that this promotes a "tiered citizenship structure," if the RKBA group plays it right they could use this to get their foot in the door to expand gun owner's rights in NY.

Click to expand...

This is also a good point. Maybe the rest of America will finally say "Hey, why do you have more rights than I do?'

Thank you datasaurusrex, excellent post.
If there ever was a "us vs. them" attitude regarding gun ownership, NYC is on top of the list.

The best summary I've ever read was "A Nation of Cowards"
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

This is really a non-issue IMO. A good thing, but a non-issue. We'll never know which judges are carrying unless things go terribly awry in the courtroom. And if that happens, it will be a good thing for another of the good guys to be armed.

I carry every waking moment, everywhere it is legal. I am fortunate to live in a free state, where the people still impose their will on the legislature and not the other way around. Few people know or care that I'm armed, and its a complete non-issue unless the unlikely occurs and some maniac tries to take my car at the gas pump while my kids are in the back seat. Then, it will be a very, very good thing that I at least have a chance of preventing something very bad from happening.

cheers

:lolsign: It is about time:goodjob:

It's always been up to the discretion of the judge whether he/she will pack a heater under the robe. That's just one of the perks that come with the job. Nothing new... This is PR for the bubsters.

cyberhobo said:

It's always been up to the discretion of the judge whether he/she will pack a heater under the robe.

Click to expand...

Not really. Judges are subject to state law just like everyone else.


cheers

The odds of a cop running into a person he once arrested, while on vacation in another state, is virtually nil (statistically insignificant).

Click to expand...

Unless that criminal is specifically targeting the officer. Using the statistically insignificant argument no police should carry guns, because depending on where you work you will never have to discharge that gun.

That reason was not the only one that was taken into consideration when passing HR218. There is a homeland security matter addressed in the bill. Makes sense to have your first responders armed in the event of another terrorist attack.

I'm no fan of the current gun laws in New York. I think it is a travesty. Every honest citizen should be able to carry a concealed weapon IMHO.

Its funny, the Judge probably needs a gun more when he leaves the court, not when he is in a court room full of armed police.