Court House Weapon Ban

imported post

Yeah, 12-2-19 is all about about administration and record keeping. I read AG 99-00023 and it says the security plan was adopted under Rule 37 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration. Was this ever put into the code? I can't seem to find it on the alacourt website.

If ARJA Rule 37 is legal then so is the weapon ban. :X:cuss:

ETA: 11-14-9 does state that "the county commission has charge of the courthouse and the county sheriff, at the discretion of the county commission, must prevent trespasses, and keep out intruders." But I would ASSUME that the use of that statute by counties to ban firearms would be preempted by 11-80-11.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

just one more, in an endless procession, of instances why this site needs an OC attorney.
The time for sitting around complaining is long gone.

Click to expand...

What is the practical contribution? Starting a fund are you?

Yata hey

imported post

REB wrote:

We have recently been through this guys.

12-2-19 gives authority to the Supreme Court of Alabama to make rules pertaining to the security of all courts in the state.

It is through this law that courthouse security committee was established to make rules for the security of all courthouses. The sheriff of the county is responsible for enforcing these security measures.

See AG opinion 99-00023 for more information.

Click to expand...

I downloaded 99-00023 and it did not address security. It was about whether the security committee was subject to the sunshine law.

Is there another opinion on the subject?

Do you know where one might find the security rules set up the security committee?

Thanks in advance.

imported post

Come on guys read through it before complaining.

Alabama code 12-2-19 (b) In connection with its duty to make and promulgate such rules, the Legislature finds that it is within the scope of such authority for the Supreme Court to make rules of administration pertaining to the collection, use, protection and disclosure of information, statistics and records involved in the administration of justice, criminal or otherwise, including information to be stored or which is stored in computers; collection of unpaid court costs, fines and forfeitures; the security of courts; the procedures, forms and standards for appointment of attorneys for indigents in criminal cases and, in the event an indigent becomes nonindigent, collection procedures for attorney's fees, transcript fees and other expenses paid by the state during the period of indigence.

The opinion does pertain to sunshine laws but if you read it, itis about the courthouse security committee established under the law sited.


I don't like it either but thats the way I see it.

imported post

I read it.

Please read my post again.

I downloaded the AG opinion you cited. It did not address security. It only discussed whether the security committee is subject to the sunshine law. Can you double check the AG opinion number? Thank you.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Please read my post again.

Click to expand...

Please read my post again.
mcdonalk wrote:

I read AG 99-00023 and it says the security plan was adopted under Rule 37 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.

Click to expand...

If ARJA 37 (which I can't find a copy of) allows them to enact the ban, and is itself legal, then this is where the problem comes from. If the weapons ban is outside the scope of ARJA 37, or if ARJA 37 is preempted by 11-80-11 (as I suspect, but can't prove), then we are good.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Please read my post again.

Click to expand...

Please read my post again.
mcdonalk wrote:

I read AG 99-00023 and it says the security plan was adopted under Rule 37 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.

Click to expand...

If ARJA 37 (which I can't find a copy of) allows them to enact the ban, and is itself legal, then this is where the problem comes from. If the weapons ban is outside the scope of ARJA 37, or if ARJA 37 is preempted by 11-80-11 (as I suspect, but can't prove), then we are good.

Click to expand...

My post was to REB and stands as posted.

I read your post and it is not pertinent to either of my two posts to REB.

REB posted a legal chain that supports a ban on courthouse carry. 99-00023 was presented as one link in the chain. However, it does not put into place specific security measures or the power to implement them.

It is not that I don't believe REB. I just like to read the primary sources myself. Either 99-00023 was a mis-cite, or his point fails. I think it is the former and am simply asking him to correct the citation. That cite may well be ARJA 37 (Of course, I also chose to match his level of snark.)

imported post

Doesn't the constitution state we bear arms in defense of self and STATE.
How can the courthouse be secured if the citizens cannot defend it?
A clear violation.

Can anyone give or have ever heard of a single case of a gun being used
by someone who is ordered to appear? Every case I ever heard of
was either spectator, or court officer.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Doesn't the constitution state we bear arms in defense of self and STATE.
How can the courthouse be secured if the citizens cannot defend it?
A clear violation.

Can anyone give or have ever heard of a single case of a gun being used
by someone who is ordered to appear? Every case I ever heard of
was either spectator, or court officer.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Defendant_shoots_Judge,_three_others_at_Atlanta_courthouse

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446392686

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19900516&id=zDsVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=POoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2898,5855938

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=A_SPECIAL0259

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19840112&id=1f0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gnwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4855,2704976

Yata hey

imported post

These are all criminals. They weren't allowed to have weapons in the first place with pending cases. The legal citizens there to do legal business should still be allowed to protect themselves.

imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:

These are all criminals. They weren't allowed to have weapons in the first place with pending cases. The legal citizens there to do legal business should still be allowed to protect themselves.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree - was just responding to the question.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Hollowpoint38 wrote:

These are all criminals. They weren't allowed to have weapons in the first place with pending cases. The legal citizens there to do legal business should still be allowed to protect themselves.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree - was just responding to the question.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Oh I know. No disrespect intended or sound rude. I was just saying that it's another example of criminals being criminals.

imported post

@eye95

Sorry, didn't realize you were calling him on his BS. When I realized he was off, I just followed my own rabbit trail.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

@eye95

Sorry, didn't realize you were calling him on his BS. When I realized he was off, I just followed my own rabbit trail.

Click to expand...

I wasn't "calling him on his BS." I choose my words carefully. As I said, I suspect that he is correct. I just like to read primary sources myself.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

I do not disagree - was just responding to the question.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

That is why I asked with the except visitors, and court officers. All the links were using the latter's guns. Was looking for any case of someone allowed to possess
shooting up the place with there own gun. Even with the visitor shootings they
never mention if they were legally carrying leading me to suspect otherwise.

But if you look at it as a whole, to make the court house safer they should ban the
officers from carrying. Just another case of government causing a problem to then
use the solution to deprive people of their rights.
I can wait till I am falsely charged to challenge it.