What are your thoughts on this subject?

Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?

Click to expand...

The Founders had to walk the fine line between individual Liberty and the need for the people to protect themselves from a person who was probably a criminal, but not yet convicted. For this reason, reasonable bail for accused was built into our Constitution.

Clearly, some Liberty of the accused is, at least temporarily, forfeit to provide society some level of protection against the accused's probable future criminal exploits or his escape. Yet, the accused is given a chance to retain some of his Liberty.

This system is not perfect. Some criminals continue to commit crime. Some escape. Some innocents have been denied some of their Liberty through no fault of their own.

It is a true dilemma in a Free Republic. Is it justifiable to restrict the Liberty of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

We should consider gun rights in this same vein. Should we restrict the gun rights of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

I would say yes. The extent should be determined at the bail hearing. At the very least, the accused should be considered to be "in custody" while in the courtroom, and therefore, unarmed. It may be reasonable for the judge, at the bail hearing, to also decide that the accused should be denied, while out on bail, as a condition of bail, his right to keep and bear arms.

The point of the bail hearing, as I see it, is to judge the danger to the public and the risk of flight. Based upon that judgment, the judge must balance the rights of the accused against those risks.

Click to expand...

If someone is under indictment by a grand jury I don't feel like restricting their right to bear arms in a court of law is unjust. outside the court of law they should retain their right to keep and bear arms, after all they are innocent until proven guilty.

That being said, It is not your right to be witness to court proceedings. In keeping with this, there is nothing unconstitutional in requiring people disarm in a court of law. There is a reasonable law enforcement presence to assure the safety of those present.

Click to expand...

I completely feel that there are no places where a law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to carry their firearm.

Click to expand...

Aaron1124 wrote:

Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?

Click to expand...

No. This is a situation where there is an immediate law enforcement presence who's duty is to protect all those involved and or present for the proceedings, including the accused. Their response time should a threat occur is immediate.

Click to expand...

Aaron1124 wrote:

Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?

Click to expand...

No. This is a situation where there is an immediate law enforcement presence who's duty is to protect all those involved and or present for the proceedings, including the accused. Their response time should a threat occur is immediate.

Click to expand...

I completely feel that there are no places where a law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to carry their firearm.

I feel personal protection is the responsibility of any given individual, and they should not have to surrender their firearm in any building, or on any premises that is also open to the public.

Click to expand...

In my not so humble and totally politically incorrect opinion.... and belief...

There is no need for any restrictions on where, or who, can carry a gun.

There is a need to punish those who use guns irresponsibly and/or in a criminal manner.

Court rooms where emotions run high? No big deal... anyone who shoots anyone else for other than self defense inside a courtroom gets to go to prison same as if they shot someone for other than self defense in any other place.

My logic is simple.... the right.. and it IS a right.. does not need to be tampered with in any way shape or form. The only thing necessary is to punish those who abuse that right to inflict harm onto others.

If someone is too dangerous (either criminally or mentally) to be trusted with a gun then they should NOT be out in society anyway. Lock 'em up and leave 'em there.... because the gun had nothing to do with them being dangerous as they would still be dangerous with a knife, baseball bat, or rock.

Hold the person who does harm responsible... not the gun he/she used to do the harm... period.

It ain't the gun Son... it's the human being using it.

Click to expand...