Gun-toting judges don’t mean greater safety in courts

Capital Eye by Randi Bjornstad

Here’s one of the less sensible ideas to surface in the U.S. Congress this year, as embodied in a bill introduced by Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania: Authorize federal judges to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, in their courtrooms.

Yes, there have been a few tragic circumstances in recent years in which psychopathic people have created chaos in courtrooms by somehow sneaking in firearms and opening fire on legal opponents, attorneys and even judges.

But giving judges the responsibility–or the opportunity, if you want to view it another way–to tote guns in the conduct of their judicial duties will not help the situation. In most cases, no pun intended, it probably would make it far worse.

After all, beyond the purview of judges to pound the gavel and bark out orders, up to now keeping order in the court has fallen to bailiffs and law enforcement officials present in the courtroom. And that’s where the division of labor should remain.

Consider this scenario: During a court proceeding, someone with a grudge against some other party in the courtroom stands up–most likely from the portion of the room where the public gathers–and brandishes a gun.

In response, the bailiff pulls his weapon. Maybe, especially if the case involves criminal activity, one or more law enforcement officers in the room whip out their pistols, and then sitting above them all on the bench, the judge also picks up a firearm.

Who’s going to shoot? Everybody at once? Nobody, because they’re all waiting to see what the others are going to do? The judge, because he has the highest rank in the courtroom? And what happens to all those innocent bystanders caught in a possible deadly crossfire?

It sounds like the OK Corral run amok. And we thought we’d gotten beyond that kind of frontier justice.

There are those who don’t share English’s enthusiasm for this possibility. Writing recently for the National Center for State Courts, an organization whose mission is “helping courts anticipate change and better serve the public,” Don Hardenbergh, president of Court Works in Williamsburg, Va., acknowledges that fair and impartial justice requires “a safe and secure environment that balances security with openness.”

However, Hardenbergh says, “with adequate preparation, training and attention to proper procedures, many of the shootings that occur in our courts can be prevented.”

Of course they can. Truly efficient security measures can ensure that no one gets into a court facility with a lethal weapon unless, as Hardenbergh says, “lax procedure, attempts to cut costs or carelessness” compromise the effort.

However, he takes a point of view that seems to have been lost lately in other federal approaches to security, specifically some of the Draconian measures sought by Administration officials with regard to the extension of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Rather than trying to repress individual freedoms, Hardenbergh still supports “(making) courthouses safe and secure while fulfilling the need for greater openness and access to our courts and local government.”

The U.S. Marshal Service has borne the responsibility for many years to provide security for judges and others in federal courtrooms, augmented by local sheriff’s departments and municipal police. In most cases, these lines of defense have been sufficient.

However, judges may need to take extra precautions in terms of personal security systems in their homes as well as increased awareness of people approaching them in public places, Hardenbergh advises.

Similarly, better security can be provided in courthouses in terms of screening during all open hours, at all entrances and in all offices, not just in areas adjacent to courtrooms.

But encouraging judges to arm themselves isn’t the answer to the problem, Hardenbergh says.

Those who wish to do so should undergo regular police firearms training and be certified to carry their weapons, he recommends. Furthermore, all security staff in court areas should be made aware of which judges carry guns, in order to avoid dangerous crossfire and the possibility of injuring or killing innocent bystanders.

We often seem to misunderstand the issue involved with guns and the damage they do. Courts, like any other places, should be places where guns are not present, not places where people carry guns in case other people who have evil agendas may be present with their own.

Legislation regarding firearms in courtrooms–or anywhere else, for that matter–should focus on increasing the absence of guns, not enabling their presence.

For more information or to express an opinion, contact:

*Your state’s congressional representatives

*Rep. Phil English, Republican of Pennsylvania, 1410 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; (202) 225-5406

*National Center for State Courts, www.ncsconline.org