Oklahoma House votes 94-4 to allow judges to carry guns in the courtroom

[MidKnight]

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4593647

OKLAHOMA CITY Oklahoma judges could carry guns in courthouses under legislation approved today by the Oklahoma House.
Tulsa state Representative Daniel Sullivan allows district judges and associate district judges to have firearms in a courthouse. It was approved 94-to-4 and sent to the Senate for a vote.

The measure arose from an incident in Tulsa in which a judge became concerned that a defendant had overpowered a deputy sheriff, prompting the judge to arm himself in self-defense.

Current state law doesn't technically allow judges to carry weapons in the courthouse.

In March 2005, three people were killed, including a judge, after a defendant overpowered a deputy in a Georgia courtroom.

Hope it's not duplicate, but I thought you guys might like to see this one!!

 

[Admin]

Well as long as the judges are safe f*** the minions.

Why do they need guns if there is a law against bringing guns in to court?

 

[MidKnight]

I had mixed reactions when I first heard it. First I thought great, the judges can protect themselves... but then I realized that "normal" people still can't. Are the judges "more equal" the other licensed gun owners? Looking forward to reading this thread.

 

[C-pher]

Why do they need guns if there is a law against bringing guns in to court?

That's the first thing that I thought.

 

[Admin]

I had mixed reactions when I first heard it. First I thought great, the judges can protect themselves... but then I realized that "normal" people still can't. Are the judges "more equal" the other licensed gun owners? Looking forward to reading this thread.

That's how I feel. I think the Judges should be able to, but I also think every licensed tom, dick, and harry should be able to carry too.

 

[KMaurer]

So you need to get a license from the government before your life is worth saving? The government has exactly the same right to require a license for a firearm as it does to require one to attend church, read a book, or get together with your friends to gripe about the government. Of course, those are just my sentiments; I suspect somebody with a license to think about things will jump in to set me straight.

Ken

 

[Admin]

So you need to get a license from the government before your life is worth saving? The government has exactly the same right to require a license for a firearm as it does to require one to attend church, read a book, or get together with your friends to gripe about the government. Of course, those are just my sentiments; I suspect somebody with a license to think about things will jump in to set me straight.

Ken

That's been the norm here in MA for years. You can't protect yourself legally with a firearm unless you have a license.

 

[Garys]

I'm surprised that they need permission from the legislature. The judges pretty much make their own rules within the court house. I would think that their equivilent of the Chief Justice would be able to make a rule allowing or forbidding this without having to go through the legislature.

Gary

 

[SnakeEye]

As far as theses judges go...Anyone responsible for, or whos hand has in any way, shape or form been involved in the passage of a gun law should immedietly and irrevocably be barred for life from ever posessing one.. You want to waive your individual rights, so be it..but it ends there..

That's been the norm here in MA for years. You can't protect yourself legally with a firearm unless you have a license.

And even if you are licenced you will be summarily stripped of all your assetts... if not by the criminal trial alone then most certainly in conjunction with the inevitable civil trial you will be facing, likely loose your job in the proceedings and probobly loose your permit along with your constitutional rights in the end...
all for defending yourself..
In this state, we all have a legitamate and persistent fear of persecution ready to crash down on us all at a pens stroke..Its a pretty sad day in age when its no longer in your best interests to report a righteous shooting incident to your police department becuase you will likely be the one who will be the criminal in the end. or at the very least, beaten within an inch of your life monetarily.

 

[Lugnut]

Well as long as the judges are safe f*** the minions.

Why do they need guns if there is a law against bringing guns in to court?

Derek- police can have guns in court- that is how the scum bag killed 3 people in the court in Georgia- he was able to unholster a LEO's gun and use it against them.

I think the more we have judges carrying the more they'll realize guns don't kill people all by themselves and they'll be willing to let us common people carry them.

 

[reinbeau]

That's been the norm here in MA for years. You can't protect yourself legally with a firearm unless you have a license.

And even then you're probably in trouble!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Derek- police can have guns in court- that is how the scum bag killed 3 people in the court in Georgia- he was able to unholster a LEO's gun and use it against them.

I think the more we have judges carrying the more they'll realize guns don't kill people all by themselves and they'll be willing to let us common people carry them.

Not necessarily true in MA or Fed (in MA) courts. The chief justice of each court makes his own rules, but generally speaking LEOs are disarmed in a number of courts (not all). Only Fed LEOs are allowed to be armed in the Boston Fed'l Court (no locals/MSP). LEOs are not allowed to be armed in most of the probate courts (where things often times turn real nasty).

 

[Admin]

Derek- police can have guns in court- that is how the scum bag killed 3 people in the court in Georgia- he was able to unholster a LEO's gun and use it against them.

I think the more we have judges carrying the more they'll realize guns don't kill people all by themselves and they'll be willing to let us common people carry them.

I forgot about that Lugnut, good point.

 

[KMaurer]

My point was rather simple. If you use the way things are in the People's Republic of Massachusetts as your baseline in discussing the way things should be done, you've already surrendered unconditionally.

Ken

 

[Admin]

My point was rather simple. If you use the way things are in the People's Republic of Massachusetts as your baseline in discussing the way things should be done, you've already surrendered unconditionally.

Ken

Got ya

 

[Lynne]

My point was rather simple. If you use the way things are in the People's Republic of Massachusetts as your baseline in discussing the way things should be done, you've already surrendered unconditionally.

Ken

Exactly....sad, isn't it?

 

[Skald]

Not necessarily true in MA or Fed (in MA) courts. The chief justice of each court makes his own rules, but generally speaking LEOs are disarmed in a number of courts (not all). Only Fed LEOs are allowed to be armed in the Boston Fed'l Court (no locals/MSP). LEOs are not allowed to be armed in most of the probate courts (where things often times turn real nasty).

Also, Armored Car Drivers are allowed to be armed in court, friends dad is one and he had to do a few jobs involving going into the courthouse. And I miss said friends dad, he passed away a few years ago but I remember when he had the interview and the guy asked 'What would you prefer to carry, 9mm or .38 spl." His dad went 'I'd prefer a .45.' (He collected them and just loved the cartridge.)