Only Government Employees Should Carry Guns!!!
When Georgia Judge David Barrett grew frustrated with a witness who suddenly turned hostile, he drew his concealed handgun and offered it to her, telling her she was “killing her case.”
The judge has been reported to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, but the real facts will be ignored as they frame this simply as alleged judicial misconduct.
What would happen if you had done the same thing?
First of all, you’d be violating state, and possibly federal, law banning you from carrying a gun into a courtroom: one or two felony counts there.
Next, you’d be charged with brandishing. Considering the contentious circumstances, this could amount to another felony. Maybe you’d be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, another felony.
Since Barrett is a government employee, he’s allowed by law to carry a concealed handgun into court: Four to five felonies avoided.
Such a double standard is criminal.
– such as bailiffs are armed supposedly to protect those in the courthouse so don’t see why this judge even needed to take his handgun from his chambers into his courtroom.
The rationale for passing such laws–one was considered last year granting Texas legislators the right to carry concealed everywhere–is that public figures attract loonies and those bent on revenge real or imagined. (Not justifying, just explaining.)
Of course, my response is that if my state rep can carry concealed into bars and football games, what guarantee is there that somebody won’t attack me, and why shouldn’t I have such a right to carry everywhere?
Elitism, plain and simple.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/lorne-gunter-when-police-mishandle-guns-vs-when-you-do/
Above linked article poses the question, what happens when police mishandle guns as opposed to when you do….
Retired Peace Officer. I have been involved in court appearances of inmates from our AD-SEG Maximum Security state prison [the most dangerous and violent inmates] in a local court. One of the judges there was adamant. Even for hearings on motions with no juries involved:
1) having the inmate in transport coveralls would be an offense to the dignity of his court and the defendant.
2) having the inmate in any form of restraints would be an offense to the dignity of his court and the defendant.
3) having police, court bailiffs, or corrections personnel carry weapons would be an offense against the dignity of his court and the defendant.
4) he was known to carry a 9mm Beretta under his robes.
5) police and corrections personnel responded by carrying concealed weapons, just in case someone tried to break the inmate out of the courthouse.
6) corrections personnel made the inmate wear a RACC belt under the civilian suit. Picture TASER electrodes on a belt against the skin, operated by radio remote control.
7) our state has retention votes for judges every 10 years. He was removed by the voters after he made a series of highly questionable rulings that favored a friend of his who was a defendant in a sexual assault on a minor trial.
Judges [and their friends] believe themselves to be above the law. Usually, they are right.
Subotai Bahadur
In regard to comment #3 above. In my view allowing the police, or corrections personnel to be armed in court demonstrates bias on the part of the court. It indicates that the court has a prejudice towards one side in the dispute. The only people that should be allowed to be armed in a court are officers of the court, including the bailiffs, It is their job to protect everyone in the courtroom. Any court that allows police to be armed while in the courtroom provides reason for a motion to recuse.
Wrong!!! The bailiff’s job differs from your fantasy. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Deshaney v. Winnebago County. Bailiffs won’t be fired if they fail to protect people in the courtroom. They have no legal duty to protect any particular member of society. You want protection? Protect yourself.
I just do not have a problem with what the judge did.
The woman was alienating him, and he had to do something drastic to get her to recognize this. He did her a big favor. Seems like a common-sense solution to me. But then, I am not known as the most tactful of people. It probably hurt someone’s delicate sensibilities. I know I would vote for such a judge. Good on him.
I do not have a problem with him carrying, either. I think it should be required. A gun on your hip makes you aware of the seriousness of things. Besides, isn’t a judge considered an officer of the court? Or rather, he IS the Court.
You missed the point.
Oh — gimme a break. The reason judges are allowed guns in courtrooms and private citizens are not is to protect judges from loonies or people who are really angry at what the judge did.
It’s just like soldiers are allowed to carry weapons in a miliatry base but the MP better stop me if I try to get into a military base with my own stash of automatic rifles.
Just common sense here.
Okay, you are broken. You just published your belief that all citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the court of your mind.
Let’s look at it another way. Do you think somebody intent on murder would obey laws banning them from carrying a concealed gun to court?
No, soldiers cannot carry on base — only MPs can. That was one of the problems with the Nidal Hassan shooting at Fort Hood. No one could defend themselves or take out the attacker until the police arrived.
Another example of “the police only show up after a crime is committed.”
Give me a break. Judges are allowed weapons and regular folks not because IT IS A COURTROOM — and the fear is some loony or frustrated guy will pull a gun out on the judge. Similarly I couldn’t walk with my own gun into most hospitals, say, or for that matter into military bases, despite the fact that soldiers carry guns.
So if you carried into a hospital, would you suddenly be overcome with a desire to kill people? Otherwise, what’s the big deal? You may just stop somebody intent on murder, who couldn’t care less how many laws and fancy signs are posted prohibiting guns. Rapid mass murderers seek out places where law-abiding gun owners can’t carry. Raises the body count, which is all they want to see. When met with armed resistance, they generally commit suicide if not killed by defenders.
You do realize that soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on base don’t you? Just MPs. Soldier’s weapons are kept in the base armory and can only be checked out when they are deploying or heading to the range.
This would be why “Maj.” Nidal Hassan was able to wreak such havoc at Ft. Hood. See his victims were unarmed. The coward was able to gun down a raft of men who were trained in how to deal violence but were unable to respond because they were unarmed.
This once again proves that disarming the law abiding only makes them targets while the criminals (by definition) do not obey the law.
I’d wager money he’s never been on a military base of any sort.
But that doesn’t stop him from being an Expert in Everythingology.
He could be a Brady Campaign implant. I shudder to think he’s a gun owner, but I’ve seen a lot of gun owners doing Brady’s bidding. Too bad, because by itself Brady is failing.
Just to clarify. This happened in north Georgia, Dahlonega to be exact, which is in Lumpkin County. This also happens to be the chief judge for the circuit, not just any ole judge. Also, he advised the victim witness to “shoot her attorney.” The victim witness was testifying in regard to being raped and held at gun point by the alleged defendant. I do not think that brandishing a loaded weapon, yes, it is always loaded, is legal by anyone. There is no point that could possibly be made by this action by this judge. He needs to be removed from the bench.
If you’re not the accused, and you’re licensed to pack a concealed weapon in public, there shouldn’t be an issue with packing a declared concealed weapon in a public court room. In reality the armed bailiffs often leave the courtroom unprotected to run paper work to the clerks. And usually the spectators as well as the criminals waiting their turns for a hearing before your honor cringe when the lone “idiot” acts up in court, offending the judge and thus spoiling the scene for everyone waiting there turn for “justice.” Just as an aside, once back in the slammer it’s not uncommon for the miscreants burned by the idiot’s behavior in court to have a serious cell discussion with the moron over his courtroom demeanor, or lack there of. Moral of the story? More guns, less crime in the court room.
Did you get the point of the story? It’s not about packing. It’s about judges getting extra special privileges denied to average Americans.
Oops, rereading your first sentence I see I misunderstood you. Apologies.
Didn’t Himmler or his buddy Adolph think only government employees should ahve guns? How’d that work out?
Get your facts straight. It was a Georgia judge NOT a NC judge.
You’re correct. The article said “north Georgia”. Sorry.
Seems to me there are pretty strict penalties if I bring even a knife into the court building. Magnetometers, etc. So why should ANY court officials be armed with anything more than Mace?
Remember the shooting in the Atlanta court one or two years ago? Seems the defendant overpowered his granny-guard and took her weapon. Oops – damn, we’re real sorry.
This judge was acting like an ass, and should be disciplined for his lack of sense.
Re: your second paragraph — that situation resulted in calls to disarm correction officers/deputies during a transport.
What it really calls for is to avoid having grandmothers unable to carry out their duties. Her boss is at fault for expecting her to control a violent offender like that.