John Lott's Website: It is fine for New York Judges to Keep Guns Under Their Robes While They are On the Bench

7/16/2006

It is fine for New York Judges to Keep Guns Under Their Robes While They are On the Bench

Another example of where an anti-gun jurisdiction recognizes how useful guns are in protecting people:

NEW YORK Jul 15, 2006 (AP)— It's one way to assure order in the court.

The New York state Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has ruled that it is permissible for judges to pack a pistol beneath their robes while on the bench.

"From an ethical standpoint, there is no prohibition … barring you from carrying a firearm while performing your duties on the bench," the committee said in a decision published in this week's New York Law Journal.

Judges would have to comply with existing laws to bring a gun into court.

The committee was asked by one of the state's 3,400 judges whether it was "ethically permissible" to carry a pistol into the courtroom. And though it ruled in favor of pistol-packing jurists, the committee warned that judges must "be patient, dignified and courteous" to those appearing before the bench and behave in "a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." . . . .

10 Comments:

saturdaynightspecial said...: No it isn't; they should either place their 45 cal revolvers on the bench in front of them and next to their gavels or keep them under their armpits in a court approved holster. These evil and deadly tools of the court should be visible to the defendents.

Hopefully this idea will catch on until all judges learn the benefits of gun possession. What is good for one is good for all.; 7/16/2006 7:43 PM
John Lott said...: Dear Saturdaynightspecial:

I think that there are strong benefits from anyone keeping a gun concealed in that others will not know in advance whether a particular judge is armed or not. Otherwise those who seek to attack will know for sure who is disarmed and for the others exactly where the gun is.; 7/16/2006 7:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I think, perhaps, that SNS was being sarcastic...commenting on the absurdity of laws that affect us Joe Shmoes, forcing us to expose our firearms in certain locations.; 7/17/2006 10:28 AM
Nimrod45 said...: I thought court houses were "gun free zones" - or is that just for Federal Courts?; 7/17/2006 1:02 PM
saturdaynightspecial said...: I have not forgotten Judge Barnes of Fulton County Georgia. He was on the bench while a prisoner easily and forcibly took a female police officer's gun, went into the court room, shot a clerk and then shot the Judge. I say the Judge may have had a better chance if he had placed his gun directly in front of him on the bench.

I agree on the benefits of a concealed gun, especially for women and smaller people. Women should always carry a concealed firearm then it is seldom a temptation to take it, and use it on them.

But I was also thinking of Judge Jack Weinstein of New York. When our judges respect the right to keep and bear arms then all anti gunners will have no say in court - as it should be.; 7/17/2006 3:43 PM
John Lott said...: Dear Nimrod45:

Not everyone is banned from having a gun in a court house, for example, police, DAs, and obviously judges.

Dear saturdaynightspecial:

I would just say that there are trade-offs on keeping the gun concealed versus in front of the judge. You are possibly right that it would be easier to get a hold of the gun faster if it were in front of the judge, though it might also be more easily taken from him. But I also still think that there are strong benefits from anyone keeping a gun concealed in that others will not know in advance whether a particular judge is armed or not. I am not taking anything away from your point, but that there are other points to consider. I also think that in a court room that it is immportant to keep the gun under physical control. Thanks.; 7/17/2006 3:50 PM
Nimrod45 said...: Not everyone is banned from having a gun in a court house, for example, police, DAs, and obviously judges.

Police and Corrections Officers, naturally, but I wasn't aware that DAs and Judges were exempt, too.

Special rules for special people, I guess...; 7/17/2006 9:12 PM
saturdaynightspecial said...: In places such as Arizona store owners place signs instructing gunners not to bring their guns into the store. But this is self defeating; when citizens have guns then it is easier to stop a maniac or thief. And it's not fair to the safety of others in the store to demand everyone be unarmed, or to assume store security can protect everyone without the aid of armed citizens in the store. Everyone benefits when citizens are armed in every store (including banks.)

Courtrooms have always required spectators be disarmed. It's the one place where a sniper has a strong motivation to attack. Gun bans are nonsense (don't make any sense;) nowhere is this proven to be true than in the courtroom where judges are unarmed. Wouldn't you think judges buy their own home security equipment and carry guns at all times ? Why do even judges accept gun bans as good procedure. If Judge Joan Lefkows' husband carried a gun he might be alive today.

But the whole point of this discussion is 'concealed.' I say that the public know judge's are armed. And there will be other benefits for that.; 7/18/2006 4:36 AM
John Lott said...: Thanks very much for the comment, Saturdaynightspecial. Getting people to know that Judges carry guns, could be very useful. I guess the question is what is the best way for that to happen.; 7/18/2006 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Many Town and Village Courts are small affairs, with little or no security. Metal detectors, guards, secure entrances, and other measures simply aren't available in many upstate areas. To allow judges to carry concealed may be the only protection some of them have within their courts. Even though these courts are small, they still deal with alleged criminals and disgruntled civil litigants. Why should they be asked to do their duty without some form of self defense?; 8/30/2006 10:13 PM