Judge Banned Firearms in the Courthouse

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Idaho.

Has a District Administrative Judge (AJ) violated State Constitution and/or State Statue/law/code by passing an "Order" banning weapons (specifically firearms) in the courthouse when state law does not "expressly authorize" the Judge to do so?

Is there grounds enough for someone to file a state civil rights violation? Or, does someone first need to have "legal injury" (e.g., be charged with 'contempt of court') to then have legal standing?

Foremost, a District Judge is elected. Thus the District Court and/or Judge(s) are "a political subdivision of the state".
The District's AJ, having already been publicly elected, is then elected to be AJ by other District Judges.

The "powers" granted to an AJ are enumerated in Idaho Code (IC) § 1-907. Of specific note is section (l) {lower-case "L"}, which reads (emphasis added):
(l) appointing personnel when needed to attend to the courts, and assigning duties to these court attendants for the purpose of maintaining the security and efficiency of court facilities.

You'll read below both Idaho's "right to bear arms" amendment (or Article) and Idaho's state statute (Idaho Code, or IC).
Specifically, that IC § 18-3302J(2) does explicitly state "Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no ... political subdivision of this state may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the ... carrying ... of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition".

I have researched what the legal definitions for: express, expressly, authority, authorized. The links below don't necessarily state that I hold these definitions as the sole definition qualifiers, just for decent reference.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/express
http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/authority.html


I have yet to find and/or learn of any case law wherein someone was "held in contempt of court" by carrying a firearm into this specific Idaho Judicial District's courthouse being in "violation" of the "Order".

Below are additional "helps" / links to aid in this matter.

Thank you.
KC


The full "Order" put forth can be found at this link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1..._zlHC3K6E/edit


State of Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11 reads:
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.


Idaho Code (IC) § Title 18, Chapter 33, Section 02J, subsections (1) and (2), or IC § 18-3302J(1)-(2), reads as follows:
18-3302J. PREEMPTION OF FIREARMS REGULATION. (1) The legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the individual citizen's right to bear arms guaranteed by amendment 2 of the United States Constitution and section 11, article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho. It is the legislature's intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city, agency, board or any other political subdivision of this state may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition.

Are you referring to open carry or concealed? Concealed carry in a courthouse is prohibited by Idaho law. It's just plain common sense not to allow firearms/weapons of any kind in a courthouse/courtroom. They are highly volatile, emotionally charged places. Would you want a rape victim's father to bring a gun into a courtroom? Would you want the brother of a murder victim to have a gun/knife during the trial? What about in a particularly contentious divorce? What if one side gets taken to the cleaners and doesn't like it? They whip out a weapon and attack their attorney, the other side's attorney, the judge, their now ex-spouse?

to add to freeman's statement about concealed carry:


I.C. §18-3302C

Quote:

---

FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS

18-3302C. PROHIBITED CONDUCT. Any person obtaining a license under the provisions of section 18-3302, Idaho Code, shall not:(1) Carry a concealed weapon in a courthouse, juvenile detention facility or jail, public or private school, except as provided in subsection (4)(f) of section 18-3302D, Idaho Code; or
(2) Provide information on the application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon knowing the same to be untrue. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.



History:

---

as you can read in the order, the judge is citing I.C. 9-107 as empowering the judge to make such a rule. If you will read that statute, you will see that it does state:

Quote:

---

The administrative judge or acting administrative judge in each judicial district, subject to the rules of the Supreme Court, shall have administrative supervision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in the district. These powers and duties include, but are not limited to, the following:

---

including the statement: administrative supervision and authority over the operation...


That is what they are standing on giving the judge the right to enforce the order. If you read the remainder of the statute, you will see it addresses purely administrative actions. Nothing in the remainder of the statute suggests a rule prohibiting weapons is within the intent of the statute.

Personally, while I agree with the purpose of the rule, I do not believe IC 9-107 does give the judge authority over the issue. I do not believe "administrative supervision" would included creating a rule suspending state law. Authority over the operation, to me, would speak to the day to day workings of the court but would not include creating a rule suspending state law.

The problem; you need to either get your legislature address the issue or breach the order, face a contempt charge, and fight the order through the courts.


edit:

Quote:

---

(l) appointing personnel when needed to attend to the courts, and assigning duties to these court attendants for the purpose of maintaining the security and efficiency of court facilities.

---

that statement is clear in its intent. It is in regards to assigning personnel, not implementing rules. It does not allow the rule you are addressing. The vague statements I pointed out previously is the only thing I could find that would allow the rule to be imposed.

Most any question that begins with the words, "Can a judge ..." can be answered with a simple, "Yes."

But, here's a link to the Attorney General's opinion on the matter in 2007:

http://blog.joehuffman.org/content/b...8125807052.pdf

Quote:

---

=cdwjava;654708]Most any question that begins with the words, "Can a judge ..." can be answered with a simple, "Yes."

---

so often that is true

Quote:

---

But, here's a link to the Attorney General's opinion on the matter in 2007:

http://blog.joehuffman.org/content/b...8125807052.pdf

---

Using the dept AG's statements, the judge could require everybody that entered the courthouse to be in cuffs, regardless of their reason for being there simply because it would create a safer environment. Obviously that wouldn't be allowed yet a judge is allowed to impose a rule that is contrary to state law by banning weapons in the courthouse when state law expressly forbids any infringement on those rights, ah, but it is directed towards cities, and county commissioners only.

I get it now:

if there is not a law expressly allowing the carrying of guns in the courthouse, or anything else the judge deems appropriate to inhibit, it's ok because there is no law preventing the judge from doing it.

I guess you get to leave your Constitutional rights at the entry door on your way in.

No Constitutional right is absolute. There are responsibilities and limitations associated with each of them.

Frankly, I can see how a bunch of angry supporters of someone in a hearing all carrying iron might intimidate a jury, a witness, or even a judge. And, the poor clerks and unarmed civilians that have to deal with an angry public every day might become a tad nervous. I would. What you might have happen is guns allowed, but transactions would then be conducted behind several inches of protective glass and shielding to provide some sense of security for staff and others.

There are courts out here that have prohibited off duty law enforcement from carrying firearms into the courthouse, and we are specifically exempt from the prohibitive statutes. But, the presiding judge gets to set the rules. Most courts here only apply a no firearm rule to law enforcement if the case is a civil matter (divorce, restraining order, prosecution, etc.) directly involving the officer as a defendant or respondent.

Don't get me wrong Carl. Personally I believe no weapons should be allowed in a courtroom. You describe a few reasons why. There are many other situations that are conceivable as well. I just have a problem with a judge imposing a rule that, on its face, is contrary to state law. The only salvation here is he is a judge rather than a city official or county commissioner.

Much worse but quite plausible would be the little gang member that is there as an observer only being allowed to carry in a gun shooting some witness or defendant as retribution. It would be impossible to stop that from happening and given the attitude of many gang members, the fear of incarceration, or even a death penalty, won't stop a lot of them.

But don't you think there are some pissed off people that go to the city or county offices? I see no basis of justification that a court should be able to make this rule but a city or county office can't.

I don't know that a city or county official could NOT make such a rule. I haven't researched the Idaho law that far.

The AG does outline what he believed to be the relevant legal justifications to support a judge making such a declaration prohibiting firearms and I suppose that the justification might readily carry over to the city government side as well. Heck, I suspect that a private business even in Idaho can prohibit firearms, and if that is the case I would think that a court or other government office probably should as well.

Some time back we had an "open carry" fellow come to our city hall and hang out near the front desk just loitering and giving one of the girls the willies. We thought he was going to push the issue and force us to either arrest him or leave him alone ... fortunately he opted to leave. I was never quite certain what point he was trying to make, but he was not a local.

Quote:

---

cdwjava;654741]I don't know that a city or county official could NOT make such a rule. I haven't researched the Idaho law that far.

---

Quote:

---

50-343. REGULATION OF FIREARMS -- CONTROL BY STATE. No city may in anymanner regulate the lawful ownership, possession or transportation of firearmswhen carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of thestate of Idaho.

---

Quote:

---

31-872. REGULATION OF FIREARMS -- CONTROL BY STATE. No board of countycommissioners of any county may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership,possession or transportation of firearms when carried or transported forpurposes not prohibited by the laws of the state of Idaho.

---

so, unless there is a law prohibiting carrying a weapon into a city or county building, the city or county admin cannot make one of their own.

Quote:

---

Some time back we had an "open carry" fellow come to our city hall and hang out near the front desk just loitering and giving one of the girls the willies. We thought he was going to push the issue and force us to either arrest him or leave him alone ... fortunately he opted to leave.

---

loitering?

Quote:

---

I was never quite certain what point he was trying to make, but he was not a local.

---

maybe it was that yahoo a couple states north of you expanding his territory. He is one of the guys that open carries with the intent of involving the police so he can stand on his soapbox and declare his right to open carry. He has about a dozen videos on YouTube proudly showing his idiocy.

There is another guy from Tennessee that was on here doing a similar thing (kwikrnu). He got into a bit of trouble and decided to sue everybody. He has not been successful in his court battles but he did obtain an FFL and now runs a store from his home. Scary thought there.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

so, unless there is a law prohibiting carrying a weapon into a city or county building, the city or county admin cannot make one of their own.

---

But, I strongly suspect there are other codes that allow the city or county to establish regulations for the safety and security of facilities and this might be permitted under one of them.

I have found that most states have volumes of statutes and very often what seems to be the end of the discussion in one tome is carried on ion another. But, maybe it's just a problem with us large, bureaucratic states.

Quote:

---

loitering?

---

That was one option, as was interfering with the operations of a city office and refusing to leave after being requested (a trespassing section).

Quote:

---

maybe it was that yahoo a couple states north of you expanding his territory. He is one of the guys that open carries with the intent of involving the police so he can stand on his soapbox and declare his right to open carry. He has about a dozen videos on YouTube proudly showing his idiocy.

---

These guys became a nuisance in southern California for a while, but, as a result of all the attention paid to these yoyos the legislature has now banned the open carry of sidearms and long arms ... oops! The law of unintended consequences in action!

Quote:

---

There is another guy from Tennessee that was on here doing a similar thing (kwikrnu). He got into a bit of trouble and decided to sue everybody. He has not been successful in his court battles but he did obtain an FFL and now runs a store from his home. Scary thought there.

---

Yeah ... too bad that no mandatory psych test is required before the issuing of an FFL. I've had to arrest and commit two guys with FFLs in my career, and one of them shot a cop in the head (a friend of mine). He was a loon! (He decided that laying on the RR track in front of a repair train and crew was a good place to pleasure himself with dirty magazines ... yeah ... fun ... and that was just the first of a few encounters leading up to the eventual shooting of an officer a few years later - and he still had his FFL.)