ANNIE, GET YOUR GUN!

I take issue with your comment on the ruling.

Please remember that those guys and gals in black robes are the people who actually send other people to jail. (Not the cops; they just make it possible for the courts to do it.) They are also the people who issue search warrants, set bails, suspend people's licenses, kick them out of their homes, keep them away from their children, tell them to pay ex-spouses sometimes enormous sums of money in perpetutity, issue restraining orders, and generally make more enemies than friends.

I can understand what you are saying if some judge had a couple of six-shooters strapped outside his robe, but that is not what this is all about. It is about concealed weapons. By definition, the "public perception of judges" will not be changed one iota if the public is not aware that the judge is packing heat under his or her outerwear!

And I can tell you that at least one judge I am intimately familiar with has, on countless occasions, found himself sitting in the catbird seat in a courtroom packed with scores of entry-level bad guys while the court officer assigned to protect him is momentarily out of the courtoom. And what about those few scary moments after a particularly nasty night in night-court when the judge is making his or her way out of the courtroom and into a poorly-lit garage on his way to his car?

Ironically, in New Jersey, and in New York as well, I suspect, it is more difficult for a judge to get a concealed weapon permit than it is for a doctor, lawyer or private investigator to get one.

Would this judge I am referring to feel more comfortable with a .40 caliber Sig-Sauer strapped to his hip? I submit that he would. Alas, though, he probably wouldn't qualify for a permit.

Great points.

Since plenty of lawyers (throughout the country) have been attacked, threatened and/or killed by many of these very same people, why not allow us to carry weapons as well? (In theory, our lives are also in jeopardy whenever--and whereever--we encounter a disgruntled litigant or adversary.)

It's a slippery slope and, frankly, I don't know where to draw the line. If the problem is courthouse security, then let's address it. But to send a message to the public that it's accpetable for a Judge to pack a pistol strikes me as ... backward and unseemly. (What's next spittoons?)

You wrote: "Since many lawyers ... have been attacked ... why not allow us to carry weapons as well?"

You're right. And you can. Unless you live in a place like New York or New Jersey.

In most states--in fact, in the vast majority of states--lawyers can carry concealed weapons. At present, 48 states have concealed carry laws with 39 states having "shall issue" laws. That means that unless there is a reason to deny a person a carry permit, the government shall issue one. New York and New Jersey are among the most restrictive states in the country! (In fact, if I remember correctly, you don't even need a permit to carry in Vermont. And, in Pennsylvania, the local county sherriff issues them routinely.)

When you say, "it's a slippery slope, and, frankly, I don't know where to draw the line," I have to point out that the line has already been drawn: most states would allow a judge to carry, provided he or she had the proper permit; and, in most states, such a permit is easy to get. And, again, remember that we are talking about a concealed weapon. How can it be unseemly to carry a concealed weapon if no one knows you're carrying it?

No offense, but you wouldn't happen to be a shill for the gun lobby, now would you?

I believe that where we are at loggerheads is on the issue of pistol-packing while in the courthouse. Currently, those "elite" (nonjudicial) few who feel compelled to bring a weapon or two to work are required to surrender such paraphernalia at the courthouse door. (Warning signs demand that all weapons be checked.) I say, let's all be on equal footing. Everyone should be required to leave their "heat" with the appropriate security personnel when entering government property.

And, while we may not "see" the gun, perception is often worse than reality. We may now assume that judges can--if they've got the right connections--secure and carry firearms. That possibility doesn't afford me a great sense of comfort, nor does it instill a sense of confidence in the judiciary. It communicates that there are judges who feel vulnerable, threatened, and harbor a grave distrust of those who appear before them. (Arguably, such sentiments run contrary to the governing judicial code of conduct and suggest an inability to perform one's professional duties with integrity and impartiality.)

Once again, I say, if there are problems with the system, let's identify and correct them. If it's paranoia, we need to address that as well.

If you're interested in the New York State Unified Court System's "Task Force on Court Security Report to the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge," (October 2005), follow this link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/publications/benchmarks/issue2/security.shtml

For a copy of the Chief Administrative Judge's Rules of Judicial Conduct, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml