New York judges may carry guns in court

Go ahead, impiiiiinge upon the separation of powers.

Comments

[John Lucid]

I don't have a problem with this, as long as I can also bring my gatt into the courtroom. You can't be too careful around them activist judges. I also promise to conceal it and keep it safeguarded on my person, as to maintain the dignity of the court. So where do you think is more dignified, in the back of my pants or strapped to my ankle?

[Trystero]

I don't understand why armed civilians are allowed to conceal their weapons. I say, if you're armed, it should be clearly visible so that everyone can make informed decisions regarding their safety.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

As far as real life goes, I have to agree. Concealed carry is ridiculous in terms of public safety. The idea that anyone could be packing is not going to discourage the average armed assailant. Whereas, the assumption that you know you're packing and your assumption that your intended victim isn't is only likely to encourage violence, or fail to discourage violence, that would never have escalated if everyone had their pieces in plain sight.

[Crablaw]

Most states' jurisprudence reflects the tension between the self-regulatory capacity of the judicial branch over court administration and the Bar, and the legislative power to legislate in the public interest. Example: when an attorney violates the rules regarding attorney trust accounts (holding client money), she can be both prosecuted criminally under statutes governing attorney embezzlement of client funds, and disbarred judicially. Another example is attorney advertising - both legislatures and judicial authorities have imposed laws and rules regarding the form, content and delivery method of such advertising.

This panel has, apparently, not attempted to preempt local laws, according to the article. Thus the Sullivan laws for NYC and similar laws elsewhere would, presumably, remain in effect. The panel would lack jurisdiction to overturn a statute but might be able to argue that some activities of the judiciary are under the sole discretion of the judiciary itself under NY's Constitution. It seems unlikely, however, that such a claim would apply to something like firearms.

It appears not so much a violation of separation of power as an attempt by the judiciary to run its own house. To what extent the question involves the eternal New York State upstate-NYC cultural chasm, this Marylander won't hazard a guess.

[Storm]

At least it will liven up some of those dull Hollywood courtroom dramas. Even shows like Law & Order may become watchable with a few slow motion shootout-scenes.

[j swift]

I don't know why the judges need to go into court strapped. They could just stow an Uzi under the bench so that they can whip it out and spray the courtroom should it get out of hand.

Honestly, this is a bit much. Along with security measures at the front doors, judges often have armor plating built in to the bench. In most cases all a judge has to do is slip out of her chair and she is protected. There is of course the sherriff deputys or law enforcment presence available during family court proceedings.

Do things go bad on occasion...sure, that does not mean judges have to go on the bench packing. That is just one more gun in play if things go to hell in a hand basket, and judges may be smart people but that does not mean they know jack about shooting under those circumstances.

That said, when they leave the courthouse that is another matter entirely, more power to em.