CCW and the Courts

[Thain]

I currently work for a capital-area law firm here in Michigan, in addition to my filing and photocopying at the office, the main part of my job is running things back and forth. To other firms, to clients, and - above all - to court.

Now, I don't yet have my CCW license, although I am savingmy pennies to pay for the class(es). But, I've wanted one for years and try to get semi-regular range time with the firearms I do have. Anyhoo, my family moved from Oakland County to Lansing, and is very much happier for it. That said, there have been something like five homicides in the city in 2007. Two of these, that I'm aware of, happened in the residental area that surrounds the state government's various buildings downtown.

Now, state law is pretty clear on the subject. Since 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court:

"Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."

Now, I know I can get a good lockbox, and disarm when heading into court... but here's my question. Can I leave my weapon with the guard(s) at the door?

Eaton County Circuit Court has a sign out front which says "no weapons, yadda yadda, uniformed police, yadda yadda..." and then goes Concealed Permit Holders may leave their weapons with the guards at the door. You have to have proof of ID, your CPL, and (probably) get an extra sweep of the magnetic wand.

But, I asked a guard at Ingham County Circuit Court (where I spend the bulk of my time, it's also two blocks from two of this year's murders) and he told me in no uncertain terms that this was verboten. He even seemed a little offended that I asked.

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[.cheese.]

Not likely. Even if you could though, would you want to? Leaving your gun in the hands of somebody you really don't know is never a good idea.

But, let's just humor the idea and say it wasn't a bad idea, here's what would probably go down. You get within 25 feet of the courthouse (especially a federal courthouse) and start saying to a guard, "I would like you to hold onto my gun for me." As you pull it out, he yells, "HE'S GOT A GUN." and within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you. Then, as you're bleeding profusely, you're cuffed and read your rights.....

even assuming you don't get shot, you will go to jail for a long long time most places.

Not worth the risk my friend.

I was just in federal court today conducting a CLE training for bankruptcy attorneys. On my way in with a friend who just passed the bar, I couldn't even have my phone because I'm not an attorney yet. Fortunately, the lady finally looked the other way and let me give my phone to my friend who is allowed to have a phone because he's an attorney. In addition, you can't even smoke within 25 feet of the court.

So, cell-phones and cigarettes are serious no-go's...... a gun would just be and invitation to be beaten senseless or something.

I HIGHLY advise you to reconsider trying.

Now, there is possibly an alternative, if you were somehow law-enforcement or a security guard (possibly - not sure) on official business relating to the court. I'm not even sure about that though. You'd have to check.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Rather than listen to internet hypotheticals about getting shot, I suggest you do the following:

• Research statutory and case law on the subject. If your state has had CCW for any length of time, there will be case law on this.
• Do the Sheriffs run the coursehouse security? They do here in PA. If so, ask the Sheriff in a letter what the policy is. Don't go into history about yourself. Simply ask what the law is, explain that you have business from time to time in the courthouse, and how can you comply with the law.
• Befriend an attorney at the office, one who is on good relations with a Judge, and at some point later on once you become good friends, ask him to casually bring this issue up with a good judge, and guage their attitude on the storage of personal arms in lockers.

In PA we have a statutory requirement that lockers be made available at the state courthouses for storage of personal firearms.

When I need to use one, I've simply walked up to the officer handling the security detail, and politely said, "I need to use your storage lockers, please. I have a firearm to check. You're the one that handles that, aren't you?"

I've never been denied. I was once encouraged not to return with it, after I was strapping everything back on. But I've never been denied, or shot, or had anyone freak out. I was treated respectfully, and everything was just as I left it when I locked them inside the locker. I had a 5" 1911, spare mag, and a 4" fixed blade knife. The only thing I ever experienced was curosity. They never touched me, threw me against a wall, made me unload, anything. I just unbucked my belt and slid it off, holster and all, and put it inside myself.

 

[nemoaz]

But, let's just humor the idea and say it wasn't a bad idea, here's what would probably go down. You get within 25 feet of the courthouse (especially a federal courthouse) and start saying to a guard, "I would like you to hold onto my gun for me." As you pull it out, he yells, "HE'S GOT A GUN." and within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you. Then, as you're bleeding profusely, you're cuffed and read your rights.....

Uhhhhhhh, you know that all day, every day, people bring firearms into the courthouse and lock them in the lockboxes, right? Or in some cases flash their badges and go right on through. Never seen a civilian CCW do it, but just seeing a firearm on a holster on a belt doesn't do much to the guys as the metal detector.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

You get within 25 feet of the courthouse (especially a federal courthouse) and start saying to a guard, "I would like you to hold onto my gun for me." As you pull it out, he yells, "HE'S GOT A GUN." and within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you. Then, as you're bleeding profusely, you're cuffed and read your rights.....

My, that is quite a fantasy. And to think, this is how "one of us" views the world.

I suggest you take BullfrogKen's suggestion and contact someone there. Politely ask if they where the lockers for secure weapons storage are located.

Since you say you haven't gotten your CCW yet, I think this is a great question for your class. However, straight from the horses mouth is always the best bet.

Here's a something I found that might help you on your quest:
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/standards/fc_section3.pdf
"Gun lockers should be provided outside of the prisoner holding area for a minimum of 10 handguns." - Michigan Courthouse Design guidelines

So, they should have them available, it's just a matter of whether they actually do and will be ok with using them. You might get some funny looks at first, but I wouldn't be too concerned. Just go through the proper channels to find out what you need to do and you should be good to go.

 

[Geronimo45]

"within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you"
Have you read about the police shootouts where they put a hundred or so rounds downrange, without hitting their target more than a dozen times? If you've got a SWAT team with SAWs inside, maybe it would happen.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

I just unbucked my belt and slid it off, holster and all, and put it inside myself.

OUCH!!!

 

[BobCav]

Now THAT hadta hurt! What he said!!!!

All new meaning to Concealed Weapon!!!

 

[GRIZ22]

Not likely. Even if you could though, would you want to? Leaving your gun in the hands of somebody you really don't know is never a good idea.

But, let's just humor the idea and say it wasn't a bad idea, here's what would probably go down. You get within 25 feet of the courthouse (especially a federal courthouse) and start saying to a guard, "I would like you to hold onto my gun for me." As you pull it out, he yells, "HE'S GOT A GUN." and within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you. Then, as you're bleeding profusely, you're cuffed and read your rights.....

Generally agreed that leaving your gun with someone is a bad idea but if the courthouse security are leos they become responsible for your gun.

If your scenario is played out like you say you'd be asking for trobule. The proper way is to show your CCW identification and tell them before you do anything. A LEO flashing a badge doesn't cut it in most courthouses as they want to see LE ID also. Anyone can have a badge and there are so many different ones out there you can only expect a LEO to recognize their own (read all those posts on CCW badges).

 

[Trebor]

Here's a something I found that might help you on your quest:
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/...c_section3.pdf
"Gun lockers should be provided outside of the prisoner holding area for a minimum of 10 handguns." - Michigan Courthouse Design guidelines

So, they should have them available, it's just a matter of whether they actually do and will be ok with using them. You might get some funny looks at first, but I wouldn't be too concerned. Just go through the proper channels to find out what you need to do and you should be good to go.

Those are intended for LEO's so they can lock their pistols up before they go into the secure prisoner holding area. They aren't anywhere near the main entrance where the metal dectectors are and a CCW holder isn't going to get anywhere near those lock boxes.

In Michigan, there is no requirement for courthouses to provide lock boxes or any any way for a citizen CPL holder to lock up a pistol before entering the court house. Any court that actually does provide such a service is doing so voluntarily and is to be commended for their decision.

Your best bet is to inquire, in writing, with the people who run the courthouse where you do your work.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You get within 25 feet of the courthouse (especially a federal courthouse) and start saying to a guard, "I would like you to hold onto my gun for me." As you pull it out, he yells, "HE'S GOT A GUN." and within about 10 seconds you have somewhere between 55-160 bullet holes in you.

Why exactly would anyone pull their gun out before getting a confirmation from the guard that he knows you have a gun and is willing to hold on to it?

 

[.cheese.]

Down here where I live we don't have lockboxes. At least not at the federal courthouse I have to deal with. Officers carry and ccw'ers aren't allowed inside period.

Wasn't aware you have that where you guys live.

My example was indeed an exaggeration - as it was meant to be.

And yes - all the points raised questioning my example are valid.

However, at the courthouse I deal with, there are usually about a dozen armed guards/officers outside as you walk in watching everybody. If they suspected you're armed without a badge to back it up, you have a world of trouble to deal with.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong - I'm just saying over here that's how it is.

 

[Thain]

The typcial state courthouse here has 2-4 guards, usually three. One at each door, with a third guy sort of bouncing between them as needed. (Line gets big, someone needs to be wanded, etc.)

Ingham County Circuit Court does not have storage for non-sworn civilians to store their handguns. I'll need to buy a lock box for the car. Thankfully, I'm only going there during daylight hours, and it is unlikely (not impossible, certainly) that we'll have another "active shooter outside the courthouse" anytime soon. I rarely, if ever, will need to be in Federal Court... and it seems most wackjobs tend to go for the Federal system, rather than state and local.

To be pefectly honest, given the number of messy divorces the firm I work for handles, by big concern (apart from random street crime) is a disgruntaled spouse that decides to get 'revenge' gunning down his ex's lawyer... and the poor sap (me) that mans said lawyer's photocopier.

Now... to approach the partners or not, and ask if its okay. Eh, I'llwait until I'm licensed, and bring it up then.

 

[pax]

Here in Washington state, the courts are required by law to provide secure lockboxes for citizens to store their weapons while the citizens are inside the restricted areas. A few of the courts have been resistant, especially in & around Seattle, but it is the law.

Just goes to show the value of knowing your own state & local laws, I think. Because I've lived here long enough that it never would have occurred to me that some court systems would have no provision for weapon storage. And it certainly would never occur to me that I might get gunned down for asking.

pax

 

[.cheese.]

You'd hope not.

All I know is I remember getting in deep trouble for having a Leatherman Micra on my keychain. I forgot I had it on there, and I've never forgotten since because I thought I was going to go to jail with how they reacted.

So you could safely say I'm too scared to bring a gun anywhere around that place or even mention the word "gun".

Oh yeah - also, I also got in trouble for having a cell-phone even though it was off and they were going to escort me off the premises to put it back in my car. Fortunately I was with an attorney who just took it and since attorneys are allowed to have cell-phones that was ok.

The sign at the door doesn't say anything about cell-phones, but once you get inside, anything beyond the elevators is apparently restricted. I haven't forgotten that either since. They're strict over here.

 

[expvideo]

Here in Washington the law requires the court to have a locked box (similar to a PO box) at the entrance. When you go to court, before you pass through the metal detectors, you tell the guard "I need to check in a weapon". Depending on the court, they either make you wait for a uniformed police officer to assist, or they point to the lockers and say "remember which one it's in". I'd recommend asking the guard (while unarmed) if they have a place to store weapons. Washington would rather that I leave it in a lockbox than see it stolen from my car.

 

[.cheese.]

I wish that was the case here.

You guys have me interested now in if there is a special procedure that I don't know about.

I've been too afraid to ask anything to that effect since being given a rough time over the cellphone and leatherman micra.

My problem is the downtown Miami area is not my favorite place and if I have to walk around there, I really want to be armed.... but days when I have to go to court I've been unarmed and it ticks me off. I usually leave my gun in the car locked up, or I lock it up at home that morning.

 

[Robert Hairless]

If you don't leave your gun in your car before entering a courthouse or other place in which concealed weapons permitees are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, you could be depriving a poor criminal of the means to acquire a firearm essential to his line of work. Please don't do that. You miss the point of such laws if you do.

There would be an uproar throughout the country if any legislative body stated openly that it providing direct grants to murderers, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals so that they could acquire a useful tool for those trades. But our nation's legislators--federal, state, and local--do have a social conscience, so they have developed indirect grants to effect the same purpose.

No one is willing to talk about it, of course, but that is why holders of concealed weapons permits are not allowed to carry firearms in such places as courthouses, publicly owned buildings, bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, national parks, schools, and elsewhere.

People try to argue that law enforcement officers are allowed to do it, so the issue can't be that the firearms themselves are considered dangerous.

People also try to argue that holders of concealed weapons permits have passed FBI and state background checks, or that they are allowed to carry firearms in many other places where irresponsible use of firearms could cause serious harm to many people, or that people could run amok equally well inside or outside a prohibited place.

Those arguments always fail to change the minds of legislators. The reason is that none of those arguments address the only relevant issue. Once you understand the social purpose of these laws, their rationale becomes obvious and unassailable. That is why these and other places are conspicuosly posted with signs that read something like "No Guns" or "Gun Free Zone."

Most people mistakenly believe that the signs are only intended to prohibit guns from the premises. They then argue, foolishly, that only law abiding people comply with that prohibition: criminals, they argue, won't comply. Then they become frustrated because no legislator pays attention to such arguments. Of course they don't: it's an absurd argument once you realize that it misses the point of these laws. The point, again, is to transfer the guns owned by law-abiding people to the criminals who need them at no cost to the taxpayer. Think of it as a public welfare program, or a kind of small business assistance program.

A "No Guns" sign is intended to inform the criminal that there is no need to waste his valuable time looking for guns inside the building: he should look for them outside but in the immediate vicinity of the building.

The meaning of a "Gun Free Zone" sign should be obvious. It tells the criminal that the vicinity of that building is the zone in which he will find free guns.

I hope that this little explanation will be of use to you. Please don't upset the social fabric of our country. Respect the law.

 

[Nasty Jack]

NO GUNS means no guns.

You're not an "officer of the court" -- That would be an attorney. Couriers don't count. Security is at the door to ensure you're not armed. They're not there to check your firearm. They're there to ensure you don't have a firearm.

Just for the record, since I know an attorney or two . . . Despite all the signs and rules about "no weapons" in the courthouse, most attorneys and nearly every judge I know of has a firearm in the briefcase, or behind the bench.

The guards are aware of this. Attorneys don't need to pass through security checks.

But that just makes the guards all the more contientious about making sure that those who pass through the check point are not armed.

Besides which it's a major felony.

 

[MacEntyre]

I called the Greensboro NC police to ask if I could check my weapon at the door, like the cops to, when I go to the courthouse. The police referred me to the courthouse, where security is handled by a contract outfit. The fellow I spoke with was barely able to communicate, so I spoke to a supervisor. He was only a little better at verbal communication. I think he said only cops could check their weapons at the door.

I did not feel very secure when I went to the courthouse... if anything happened, who knows what the fellows handling the security checkpoint would do!

 

[Thain]

NO GUNS means no guns.

You're not an "officer of the court" -- That would be an attorney. Couriers don't count. Security is at the door to ensure you're not armed. They're not there to check your firearm. They're there to ensure you don't have a firearm.

You are correct, I am not an officer of the court and have never claimed such. However, I fail to see how that has any bearing on anything...

Just for the record, since I know an attorney or two . . . Despite all the signs and rules about "no weapons" in the courthouse, most attorneys and nearly every judge I know of has a firearm in the briefcase, or behind the bench.

Under Michigan law, these attorneys and judges would be committing a felony unless the chief judge has given prior approval. I can see a few judges exercising that, but by no means "most attorneys."

Furthermore, in Ingham County Circuit Court, for example, the chief judge has flatly refused to give such approval to anyone. The only people who can carry are uniformed on-duty police, or detectives displaying a badge, and the weapon must be openly carried...

Attorneys don't need to pass through security checks.

Not at Ingham, Eaton, or Oakland County Circuit Court, in my experince. Nor in any of the half-dozen or so municipal courthouses I've visted in my life... Now attorneys who work in the building (such as a judge's clerk or a procescutor) do not need to pass through security, they have magnetic/rfid ID badges and can enter through the otherwise locked emergency exit doors. They're subject to any other policies one would have in a workplace, and under Michigan law, may still not carry unless given permission.

Everyone else enterign the building goes through security checks... no exceptions.

(Okay, prisoners in custody do come in through the basement garage )

 

[Nasty Jack]

"Officer of the Court" is an attorney or a judge. Transcriptionists and guards don't count.

Attorneys in most courts don't pass through security in most instances. The rationale behind this is that they're Officers of the Court and members of the State Bar. That's a big deal. Attorneys and judges have liberties in court that don't get extended to others.

Nooooooo . . . it's not "legal" for an attorney to carry a firearm into court. But most attorneys do, and also, judges usually have a firearm on the bench. That's part of the priviledge of being an "officer of the court."

I wasn't aware that WA state provides a lock box for firearms. I think it may be a good idea. But then I'd want to see that area physically removed from the courthouse, and persons checking firearms doing so under tight security.

 

[Thain]

Actually, "Officer of the Court" is a term of art with precise meaning in a legal context. I am away from my copy of Black'sLaw Dictonary, but in general it applies to all who, in some degree through their professional qualifications, have a legal part in the functioning of the judicial system as a whole. Being an officer of the court carries certain legal and ethical obligations and duties.

There are basically three different types:

Those who make the decisions that determine the course of justice: judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and jurors...

Certain other (para) professionals have duties as officers of the court, but do not have discretionary power. Bailiffs, court clerks, and process servers all act in roles vital to the functioning of the justice system...

Coroners, bail bondsmen, law enforcement officers, and the like... can be considered officers of the court in certain instances, depending on what they are doing at the time.

Ahh... here we are:

officer of the court
n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.

Now, how does an "absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth" mesh with carrying a deadly weapon into a area prohibited by law?

Anyhow, all of this is moot.

An attorney has no special privileges or rights inside a court house than anyone else. True, some specific courthouses may waive the security inspection for certain attorneys under certain circumstances.... I know for a fact that the clerks of all the judges locally enter through the backdoor with only an ID badge, and no security scan. However, any other attorney who has business in the building - but doesn't work there - goes through security.

The state bar is not some sort of secret initiation mystery cult... Honestly, getting on bar isn't that difficult. Get a B.A., pass your LSAT, survive law school, and pass the bar exam. It's not easy, but its just an advanced education: no different than doctors, dentists, psychologists, veternarians, and CPA's....

Why some many Americans attribute some sort of religious status to doctors and/or lawyers baffles me....

 

[peace]

Hilarious....

If you don't leave your gun in your car before entering a courthouse or other place in which concealed weapons permitees are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, you could be depriving a poor criminal of the means to acquire a firearm essential to his line of work. Please don't do that. You miss the point of such laws if you do.

There would be an uproar throughout the country if any legislative body stated openly that it providing direct grants to murderers, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals so that they could acquire a useful tool for those trades. But our nation's legislators--federal, state, and local--do have a social conscience, so they have developed indirect grants to effect the same purpose.

No one is willing to talk about it, of course, but that is why holders of concealed weapons permits are not allowed to carry firearms in such places as courthouses, publicly owned buildings, bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, national parks, schools, and elsewhere.

People try to argue that law enforcement officers are allowed to do it, so the issue can't be that the firearms themselves are considered dangerous.

People also try to argue that holders of concealed weapons permits have passed FBI and state background checks, or that they are allowed to carry firearms in many other places where irresponsible use of firearms could cause serious harm to many people, or that people could run amok equally well inside or outside a prohibited place.

Those arguments always fail to change the minds of legislators. The reason is that none of those arguments address the only relevant issue. Once you understand the social purpose of these laws, their rationale becomes obvious and unassailable. That is why these and other places are conspicuosly posted with signs that read something like "No Guns" or "Gun Free Zone."

Most people mistakenly believe that the signs are only intended to prohibit guns from the premises. They then argue, foolishly, that only law abiding people comply with that prohibition: criminals, they argue, won't comply. Then they become frustrated because no legislator pays attention to such arguments. Of course they don't: it's an absurd argument once you realize that it misses the point of these laws. The point, again, is to transfer the guns owned by law-abiding people to the criminals who need them at no cost to the taxpayer. Think of it as a public welfare program, or a kind of small business assistance program.

A "No Guns" sign is intended to inform the criminal that there is no need to waste his valuable time looking for guns inside the building: he should look for them outside but in the immediate vicinity of the building.

The meaning of a "Gun Free Zone" sign should be obvious. It tells the criminal that the vicinity of that building is the zone in which he will find free guns.

I hope that this little explanation will be of use to you. Please don't upset the social fabric of our country. Respect the law.

Hmmm...this is really some food for thought. When you think about it that would be a BG's playground.

 

[okcorral]

Of course this is state to state but in Oklahoma if a CCW holder was to enter a state or federal building with a firearm it's an automatic felony, loss of license, and more than likely you will spend a little time in jail. You can keep it in your vehicle. This is not something I would advise testing or asking the guards once inside. The law better be clear and not a LEO's interpretation. e.g. "SSA 1.2.5.3: Permit holders are allowed to enter state buildings with their firearm out of view and the state must provide a facility for temporary storage...". Even then if you find yourself five feet out of place while looking for the storage lock box you're gonna have a bad day.