Guns in courtrooms, airplanes, and the like...

[Drjones]

Clearly there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in courtrooms, airplanes, schools, etc. (well, except for some members of TFL...you could severely exceed the max. weight limit of the plane with some of the collections you guys have!!! )

Seriously though, what was the "rationale" behind such restrictions originally?

 

[labgrade]

Bad guys = hi-jackers started taking unscheduled trips to Cuba in the early '70s.

Laws passed to control the bad guys which disarmed all the good guys which let the bad guys have a field day.

It got worse.

 

[Walosi]

Guns in courtrooms have a fairly sordid history. Ask Professor Angela Davis of Left Coast fame.

Several elections have been settled in and near the polling areaas well, in KYs' bad old days.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I know that if I were in a courtroom where someone like Ted Bundy was on trial for raping and killing my daughter, it would be very wise of them not to let me carry an firearm.

On airlines, other than to prevent hijackings, I would say it is a safety factor. A ND at 30,000 that blows out one of the little windows could ruin your whole day.

 

[labgrade]

What it boils down to is this.

A very small minority did some bad things with guns. We all get to eat it 'cause "they" (we, by definition) can't stand anyone having all that freedom.

Enough "loose freedom," & somebody sometime is gonna do something bad with a gun, knife, frozen duck - whatever.

There are guns in every courtroom I've ever attended. Cops with guns. There's guys with guns at the l'il machine to prevent me from having a gun further than The Line. Come again where they are more responsible than am I? or have more rights than do I?

Shooting out an A/C window will ruin your hairdo, it won't ruin your day unless your pants are the sort that require dry cleaning.

Folk who have problems with other folk having guns in certain areas have issues of their own that need addressing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

LEOs in the courtroom don't have more rights than you, labgrade, but are sworn to uphold the law. Part of that law and particular to the courtroom is to keep an eye on the prisoners, to make sure people like Hkmp5sd don't prematurely snuff the defendant (or anyone else in the situation he described - and I whole heartedly understand), and to protect the judge, jury, and other members of the legal process from being harmed or intimidated in any manner that might sway a decision. Addtionally, there is a pretty long history of judges being done in as well, many while on the stand, hence the law.

It isn't that they have more rights. It is that it is their job. If you become an LEO, then maybe you can do it as well.

 

[labgrade]

Too funny, DNS, that second sentence. How cutely ironic in that I do b'lieve that yon gent you ref'd is LEO.

{edited to retract my last = gent is LEO remark. Got 'im cornfused with someone else}

Sure, sure. I can see that a courtroom may be a charged atmosphere, but so is any major interstate hiway/major city/rush hour.

Cops' job is to carry a gun outside a courtroom too. What's that got to do with it?

"long histories" of folks doing each other in & the resultant clamor have been used to justify all sorts of rights-stripping. Doesn't wash.

Far as me going LEO - been there, done that, no thanks.

 

[David Park]

"to protect the judge, jury, and other members of the legal process from being harmed or intimidated in any manner that might sway a decision"

Be careful how you state your position. See, that's just the logic the gun grabbers have been using here in VA. We have the right to carry into (state and local) government buildings (except courthouses and schools), and we also have the right to carry openly without a permit. So, when cities like Norfolk decide to debate a gun ban, members of the VCDL show up, wearing their guns, to explain why gun bans are a bad idea. A few locals feel that this is "intimidation" even though enough police officers (doing their sworn duty) usually show up to outnumber the VCDL speakers. I suppose one could complain that this large LEO presence was an even greater form of intimidation, since they not only carry guns but also have the power of the State behind them, but that would be stooping to the level of the grabbers.

Remember, a public courtroom is really no different from any other public area where police have a responsibility to serve and protect, yet in other areas citizens can walk freely while bearing arms. After all, what's to stop someone from shooting a judge in the parking lot? Hoplophobes will always be frightened and intimidated if they think that someone nearby might be armed, but that's their problem. As long as reasonable measures are taken to prevent a "jail break" I see no reason why the public in a courthouse should be disarmed. But that's just me.

 

[LawDog]

Emotions run too high in court rooms.

The innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant in a high-profile case will probably spend the majority of his time safe in jail. When his trial comes about, the defendant will be moved quickly by way of a secured path to the courtroom, wearing body armour if necessary.

Very difficult target, in the jail and on the move to court.

Now, once you sit that critter down in a courtroom, he loses the armour - because it might sway the jury either way on his case, he loses the screen of officers - same reason, and he sits in the same place for hours at a time.

This is what is known as a Sitting Duck.

Now, the Constitution of these United States guarantees each critter gets a fair trial before a jury of his peers, not a bullet in the back of the head by an outraged family member of the victim who has decided to circumvent justice by donning the mantle of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

Now, on another paw, y'all may find this hard to believe, but many times the critter either doesn't want to be on trial, or may find it somewhat expeditious to leave the trial if said trial doesn't go his way.

And critters have been known to have friends and/or family who may be tempted to bypass the judicial process. Now, an armed assault on the jail doesn't usually get anywhere, because jails expect this kind of thing.

Ten or fifteen or howevermany cousins and/or friends with .38's sitting in the gallery of the court, now, that's a different story.

And it doesn't have to be deliberate. Chester the Molester may notice the custom Kimber in Joe Citizens waistband as Chester is being led into the courtroom. Little later in the trial, Chester's case gets a major setback when his victim decides to testify. Chester is looking at 99 years, Joe Citizen is flirting with the little darlin' sitting next to him and not paying any attention, and hey! All of a sudden Chester has a gun.

It don't get pretty from there on out.

Incidentally, kids, weapon snatches are the reason why I don't carry a weapon when I've been the escort on court duty.

As far as officers go, if a Peace Officer is a family member of a victim of a particularly nasty crime, that Peace Officer doesn't get to take his weapon into the courtroom either. Not anyplace I've ever worked.

LawDog

 

[labgrade]

No argument in essense, Lawdog or others, just trying to draw it out some, especially regards some of the earlier posts.

Easy to not allow firearms in certain areas/under certain conditions. I have my own pet peaves. Joe, next door's got his, & so on.

We all get our way & nobody gets to have access to firearns any longer anywhere "because .... "

Fact is, I'm in favor of some gun control. Clearly, there are those who, even though hadn't yet caused a grave societal ill, have at a later time. Lots of previous law-abiders did later use a firearm to harm another.

Danged thing is, I don't know how to reconcile the two. Can't go trampling on the rights of the vast majority of good guys, but some shouldn't have access to the firearm (or knife, frozen duck).

Beats me. Just yakkin' tonight anyway .....

 

[BrianW]

Victim disarmament is never a good idea. Let's follow the word and the intent of the 2nd and allow all the passengers and crew of an airliner to be armed and see how Timmy Terrorist does on his attempted hijacking. Can you say, "body bag"?

Emotions run high in football stadiums, political debates and high school graduations; are we going to restrict one's right to self-defense based on others' emotions? Fact is, in rereading the 2nd Amendment, I don't see anything mentioning exceptions for courtrooms, emotions or mass transit.

Arrest and try those that initiate harm, leave the rest of us alone.

 

[LawDog]

Emotions run high in football stadiums, political debates and high school graduations;

So, are you comparing a high-school football game to hearing the obviously-guilty molester of a family member set free on a technicality?

There are high-emotions and there are High Emotions. One of the cases that I regret involved a critter who raped a child, and in doing so, bit off a part of the girl's anatomy. The critter wound up only getting about five years TDC time, and when the verdict was rendered, it was necessary to physically restrain the father of the victim. To even consider comparing the emotions running through that man's mind to a high-school graduation slips my mind totally.

The gamut of emotions suffered by family and friends of a victim upon hearing what they must consider to be a miscarriage of justice when the man who beat their son to death with an axe handle walks free of the courtroom, is completely beyond my ability to comprehend, yet you can compare it to a political debate.

Incroyable.

I should wander off and contemplate my navel until I, too, can render the depths of human tragedy into a high school athletic function.

LawDog

 

[BrianW]

So, are you comparing a high-school football game to hearing the obviously-guilty molester of a family member set free on a technicality?

Nope, I'm clearly pointing out that emotions matter not a whit as far as rights are concerned. I made no comparison explictly or implicitly, so perhaps navel contemplation may be your best hold.

Again, please show me where in the 2nd Amendment exceptions are provided even for extreme emotions? Thanks.

 

[Abaddon]

The emotions at football games are rarely directed at one individual. The emotions in a court room are ALWAYS directed at one individual. People are more likely to try to kill one individual than a whole crowd. Also, Lawdog makes a good point that the emotions are much higher.

The laws of our nation were designed to protect the freedoms of the people. Those people can be very emotional when they disagree with a court decision. Being pro-RKBA does not mean you must deny the emotional nature of human beings.

Jeff

 

[Abaddon]

BrianW

Quote:

"Fact is, in rereading the 2nd Amendment, I don't see anything mentioning exceptions for courtrooms, emotions or mass transit."


Just why do you accept the 2nd Amendment? I accept it because, if taken as a general rule it leads to the continuity of a moral society. Its not possible for humans to come up with a law that, when followed to the letter, always leads to good consequences. That is why general rules have exceptions. It takes legislators and citizens using their God-given reason to determine where those exceptions apply. You can't just take one law written by people and apply it across the board as Gospel Truth, the world isn't that simple.

Jeff

 

[BrianW]

Just why do you accept the 2nd Amendment?

Because it's in the BoR, which is part of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. That, and because our right to life is meaningless without the ability and means to defend it, and the 2nd as written clearly covers one's right to bear arms, even in a courtroom.

Until the 2nd is amended, exceptions are not constitutionally allowed, now matter how much you think they are needed. For instance, how "high" do emotions have to be to rate infringing on the right enumerated in the 2nd? Many folks believe that road rage will lead to exchange of gunfire if people are "allowed" to carry firearms in their automobiles. Does driving in traffic then constitute "high" emotion? And here I thought pro-rkba types didn't like it when antis use emotion to argue their side.

The emotions at football games are rarely directed at one individual.

Oh, really. So you've never seen a ref make a bad call, or a placekicker miss a game winning field goal. (For the record, I'm not claiming that being ticked off at a referee is sufficient motivation to start sniping zebras.) I'd say the most extreme emotions at sporting events are indeed directed at one individual, the vast majority of the time. Hero or goat, they're the ones we admire or revile.

The laws of our nation were designed to protect the freedoms of the people. Those people can be very emotional when they disagree with a court decision. Being pro-RKBA does not mean you must deny the emotional nature of human beings.

I agree, the laws were designed to protect our freedoms, I'm merely stating that disarming people is not protecting their freedom. Further, I never denied the emotional nature of people, on the contrary, I brought up multiple examples of it. That's my point: your emotional duress is no reason to infringe on my rights.

 

[gruven]

That is why general rules have exceptions. It takes legislators and citizens using their God-given reason to determine where those exceptions apply. You can't just take one law written by people and apply it across the board as Gospel Truth, the world isn't that simple.

Ok. Legislators and citizens have determined that the exceptions are that we can't have magazines with more than 10 rounds, can't carry in courthouses, often can't carry in schools/colleges/bars/restaurants, can't carry in national parks and even in some ENTIRE STATES, can't have a bayonet lug on our AR-15's...

I agree with BrianW: "Arrest and try those that initiate harm, leave the rest of us alone."

 

[Leatherneck]

Well,
I was all climbed up on my high horse to answer the original question with: "Control. Control then, control now." Then along comes LawDog making sense. Back on terra firma am I.
TC

 

[labgrade]

{while waiting for the coffee to kick in .... }

Lawdog does makes excellent sense here.

"The laws of our nation were designed to protect the freedoms of the people.'

But, y'all be careful here. There's The People & there's the individual & I'd contend that the whole shebang was instigated more in line with individual liberties rather than regards The People. Big difference.

When liberty is ensured for the individual, the society as a whole will thrive & florish. When freedoms are curtailed in the interest of The People, the society becomes more Euro-like.

I, for one, don't care for the Bowler hat look.

Guess that's why there's those smarter than I to reconcile the differences.

In every instance though; high emotions in courtrooms, armed passengers on A/C, a gun in school, someone is uncomfortable with placing their trust in the individual. Usually, it's not us we're concerned about, but always worried about the guy next to us, whether he can handle his emotions.

I find that hypocritical to a point.

Every infringement on our freedoms has been due to an "overriding state interest."

I know that we used to be able to take (at the least) a pocket knife into court, I've flown commercial with a shotgun & can currently carry CCW in any CO school.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

but always worried about the guy next to us, whether he can handle his emotions.

In the courtroom scenerio, I would be worried about *MY* emotions. I seriously doubt that I could sit there day after day, looking at someone who had harmed a loved one and not want to kill him. It would not take too much to push me over the limit and if I had a gun, I would kill him. I know this about myself and would not want to put myself in that situation.

Do you think that OJ would have been alive at the end of his trial if Ron Goldman's father, sitting in the courtroom watching OJ joking about the whole thing, viewing graphic crime scene photos and listening to step-by-step autopsy descriptions of how his son died, had access to a firearm?

I also think Lawdog's comments about the BG not really wanting to be in court is another good reason to keep firearms out.