In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Utah Judges Panel Rejects Gun Lockers
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Utah Judges Panel Rejects Gun Lockers
8/19/2002
Email
Print
Subscribe
The Utah Judicial Council, which sets rules for Utah courts, voted against gun lockers in state courthouses, the Associated Press reported Aug. 17.
The issue was raised by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff who said that the courthouses were violating a new state law by not providing lockers for those legally permitted to carry concealed weapons.
In deciding not to install gun lockers for visitors with concealed weapons, the Utah Judicial Council said it had a right to control security at juvenile and district courts.
"All of the judges who have looked at this have decided having gun lockers poses an unacceptable risk," said Scott Johansen, a juvenile court judge in Price and head of a policy committee whose recommendation was adopted by the Judicial Council.
At the center of the controversy is the new gun locker provision, which applies to "secure" areas, such as courthouses, prisons and psychiatric hospitals.
In order to comply with the state law, the Judicial Council voted to remove designated secure areas from courthouses while keeping another rule banning weapons.
"They may have made courts less safe than when we had the felony provision," said Rep. John Swallow (R-Sandy), who introduced the gun locker provision. He added that the law "made a lot of sense, solving a problem about where weapons are left when people can't carry them into a courtroom."
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,553477,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
8/19/2002
Subscribe
The Utah Judicial Council, which sets rules for Utah courts, voted against gun lockers in state courthouses, the Associated Press reported Aug. 17.
The issue was raised by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff who said that the courthouses were violating a new state law by not providing lockers for those legally permitted to carry concealed weapons.
In deciding not to install gun lockers for visitors with concealed weapons, the Utah Judicial Council said it had a right to control security at juvenile and district courts.
"All of the judges who have looked at this have decided having gun lockers poses an unacceptable risk," said Scott Johansen, a juvenile court judge in Price and head of a policy committee whose recommendation was adopted by the Judicial Council.
At the center of the controversy is the new gun locker provision, which applies to "secure" areas, such as courthouses, prisons and psychiatric hospitals.
In order to comply with the state law, the Judicial Council voted to remove designated secure areas from courthouses while keeping another rule banning weapons.
"They may have made courts less safe than when we had the felony provision," said Rep. John Swallow (R-Sandy), who introduced the gun locker provision. He added that the law "made a lot of sense, solving a problem about where weapons are left when people can't carry them into a courtroom."
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,553477,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Out of control in Connecticut.
By John R. Lott Jr.
he last decade has seen state attorney generals use the power of the courts to shape public policy in unprecedented ways. Among the most aggressive in litigation ranging from tobacco to guns has been Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, though for Blumenthal this was just the warm up. Even if the ideas that he is now advancing fail in Connecticut, they provide a dire warning of what other state attorneys general may soon start trying.
In just 12 years, his office has ballooned in size, more than doubling its budget from $13 million to almost $27 million and increasing the number of cases completed by 65 percent. Yet, despite this growth, Blumenthal has gone so far into actions previously reserved for other parts of the government that he often neglects the real duties of his job.
On August 9, the Connecticut supreme court checked Blumenthal for overstepping his authority. The court unanimously ruled that Blumenthal's jurisdiction is largely limited by state statute to representing state agencies and officials in lawsuits brought by or against them, although the attorney general had claimed broader powers.
Unsatisfied with his traditional role, Blumenthal had gone after the administrator of an academy accused of mishandling state funds. The court noted that it was up to the Connecticut commissioner of education, not Blumenthal alone, to bring the case.
Blumenthal has received harsh words before. For instance, last December, New York state's highest court found that Blumenthal's office was "mishandling" and making "missteps" in a paternity case. The Connecticut Law Tribune reported that "the direct criticism by the court raised eyebrows in Albany .."
The state supreme court pointed out in its decision two weeks ago that the attorney general's office had been established in 1897 because of the inefficiencies in having "each state agency and department [retain] its own legal counsel." But in July, the Connecticut Law Tribune reported that because his staff was so busy, the attorneys in Blumenthal's office "will no longer serve as counsel to state boards or as counsel to agency staffs .."
Worse, not only is he abrogating his role to advise, represent, and defend the state of Connecticut, his office is now suing the state. The high-profile case involves Cross Sound Cable Co. and represents an unprecedented power grab. Blumenthal sued to stop a cable being laid between Long Island and New Haven on environmental grounds. The suit was brought against the Connecticut Siting Council, the state agency that approved the cable. Just as in the case decided by the supreme court, Blumenthal filed the lawsuit in his own name, not on behalf of a state agency charged with these policy decisions.
Blumenthal claims that there is precedent for state agencies to sue each other, and indeed there is when lines of authority conflict. Try as they might, legislatures cannot foresee all possible conflicts. Courts step in to determine not who made the "correct" policy decision, but who has the actual authority. What Blumenthal wants, however, is something quite different. Instead of having legislators resolving policy differences, Blumenthal would make himself and the courts the final arbiter over policy.
The grab for power also crosses ethical lines. Two of the law firms that Blumenthal contracted with to sue the tobacco companies were run separately by his former law partner and his partner's wife. Blumenthal's defenders claim that other law firms simply didn't want the job. In a Connecticut Law Tribune article, however, a few lawyers disagreed, one complaining that "we didn't ever get a meeting" with the attorney general's office and another saying that his firm wasn't included despite agreeing to the state's contractual terms. Blumenthal's former partner, David Golub, acknowledged, "I know how it 'looks' - he's my former partner ..."
Yet, whatever the concerns about Blumenthal giving a contract to a former partner, where did he get the authority at the time the contracts were negotiated to commit the state to pay private attorneys a sum then estimated to be more than $250 million?
During 12 years in office, Blumenthal has grown arrogant. People in and out of state government are afraid of him and are scared to publicly speak about their experiences. The state supreme court has better uses of its time than to monitor the behavior of an out-of-control attorney general.
- John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott082202.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878