Anybody Seen This Yet?

I have not formed an opinion yet on this matter but maybe some of you have. here's the story. Maybe you have heard of it before.

For the second time, Winnebago County’s two top prosecutors have been turned down in their efforts to carry concealed weapons in their courthouse. The Second District Appeals Court in Waukesha ruled this morning that the circuit judges in Oshkosh have the authority to prohibit anyone they choose from carrying concealed weapons in their courtrooms. But District Attorney Christian Gossett and his deputy Scott Cernan say they work in a different building than the courts – and walking to-and-from each location puts them in danger, so they need to carry the hidden heat. And they say they have the right to do so, because they obtained the state permits required under the Wisconsin concealed carry law which took effect last November. The Oshkosh judges turned down the prosecutors’ requests. So the DA went to the State Supreme Court, and the justices turned down his petition in June without saying why. Today, the Waukesha appeals court said the judges can control gun possession in their own courtrooms – and the county’s chief judge operates at the pleasure of the Supreme Court. Among other things, the appeals court also said Gossett and Cernan did not say what grave hardship or irreparable harm they would face from not carrying the weapons. The attorney for Gossett and Cernan has not commented on today’s decision.

Seems to me the judges are not obeying the law here.

If a law passed saying a law judges had to wear blaze orange and only rule on sundays or any other thing they could disobey that also.

Too bad some recourse wasn't put in to place like large fines and jail time.

Do you have a link to the article, or better yet to the decision itself?
Looks like this will be going to the federal level.

I'm curious to know how the various judges claim to be able to prohibit people from following the law in their offices?
Because they can't use the employer clause (they don't employ the DA),
or the "I rent this space" clause (they're given the courtroom as their office by their employer, the county of wherever).

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/court-judges-can-prohibit-das-concealed-weapons

Court says only supreme court can overrule the judges decision and they aren't wanting to hear the case so its a dead issue as far as the judges are concerned.

judges have great power in their courtroom, like they are gods. Its wrong but the way it is ... interesting that state employees are crying about it .. too bad for them

I read it as the judges weren't allowing the prosecutors to be exceptions to their rule of not permitting concealed weapons in their courtroom. In which case, kudos to them. Either everyone is allowed to be armed, or you don't let state lawyers be exceptions to NOBODY being armed. Maybe I missed something?

Suggestion: Please put the actual subject of the thread in the subject line. "Anybody Seen This Yet" doesn't remind me what the thread is about when I'm looking through the threads I'm keeping track of.

They can't just turn the firearm into the the sheriff for safekeeping?

davidmcbeth said:

... interesting that state employees are crying about it .. too bad for them

Click to expand...

Gee ... shouldn't the right to keep and bare arms apply to ALL law obeying citizens ...:banghead:

From ss175.60


(16) PROHIBITED ACTIVITY. (a) Except as provided in
par. (b), neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee
may knowingly carry a concealed weapon, a weapon thatis not concealed, or a firearm that is not a weapon in any
of the following places:
1. Any portion of a building that is a police station,
sheriff’s office, state patrol station, or the office of a division
of criminal investigation special agent of the department.
2. Any portion of a building that is a prison, jail,
house of correction, or secured correctional facility.
3. The facility established under s. 46.055.
4. The center established under s. 46.056.
5. Any secured unit or secured portion of a mental
health institute under s. 51.05, including a facility designated
as the Maximum Security Facility at Mendota
Mental Health Institute.
6. Any portion of a building that is a county, state, or
federal courthouse.
7. Any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom
if court is in session.
8. A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.
(b) The prohibitions under par. (a) do not apply to any
of the following:1. A weapon in a vehicle driven or parked in a parking
facility located in a building that is used as, or any portion
of which is used as, a location under par. (a).
2. A weapon in a courthouse or courtroom if a judge
who is a licensee is carrying the weapon or if anotherlicensee or out−of−state licensee, whom a judge has permitted
in writing to carry a weapon, is carrying the
weapon.
3. A weapon in a courthouse or courtroom if a district
attorney, or an assistant district attorney, who is a licensee
is carrying the weapon.

So this rule also applies to the bailiff and any/all law enforcement personnel too?

If not, I see a serious bias on this.

As I see it paragraph (a) of section (16) of ss175.60 prohibits the carry of a concealed weapon in any portion of a building that is a courthouse. A courtroom of course is a portion of a courthouse. However, paragraph (b) modifies that prohibition by excluding district attorneys and assistant district attorneys. That is providing they are licensed to carry. In addition paragraph (b) specifically adds courtrooms to the exclusion (re: (16)(b)3). In my opinion the judges have put themselves above the law. Who protects us from our protectors?