IBJNews

Judges could carry firearms under proposed law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judges could soon be allowed to carry firearms into the courtroom under a Senate bill.

Senate Bill 3, authored by Brent Steele, R-Bedford, would allow judges to carry firearms when they “engage in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s official duties.” Indiana law currently allows prosecutors and other law enforcement officers the ability to bring firearms to court, but, to Steele’s surprise, did not give the same power to judges.

“Understand that these men and women have, because of the work that they do and the things that they do, put themselves at greater risks,” Steele said. “We’ve given this protection to our police officers and our prosecutors, but didn’t give it to our judges. I quite frankly thought we had.”

Steele said the judges are working even outside of the courtroom and deserve protection as they do court-related jobs.

“They’re on the job all the time. They are asked to go talked to a school for example, a class for political science or a government class,” Steele said. “That judge cannot even go to a basketball game or school carrying a firearm the same as a police officer could.”

The bill passed 47-1 in the Senate, with the only opposition coming from Sen. Mark Stoops, D-Bloomington. Stoops said he voted against the bill because it does not require gun training.

“I really wish they would have considered some type of provision that anybody that carried a firearm in a court was trained – trained in safety, trained in the actual handling of the gun, taking it apart and cleaning it – but none of that exists in Indiana as far as a requirement for a permit,” Stoops said.

Steele said judges are entitled to be able to walk around and feel protected in public.

“They’re out and about, they’re in our communities,” Steele said. “That’s where we want them. We want our judges to mingle amongst the citizens. We don’t want them to become recluses.”

The bill moves to the full House for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Here comes the Judge, Jury and Executioner!
    Hey, Judge, is that a gun under your robe, or are you just glad to see criminals?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT