S. 921

[GOAL C.M.]

S.921 Judges Disarming Law Enforcement Officers

On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 a piece of legislation had a public hearing before the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security that brought to light a very disturbing practice in our courts.

Senator Stephen Brewer has filed S.921 “An Act Relative to the Safety of Law Enforcement Officers.”*

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.*Section 1 of Chapter 275 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting at the end thereof, the following words:

“provided further that any law enforcement officer, in the course of official business, shall be permitted to carry such weapons as are authorized by his appointing authority while in any state or county courthouse".

As used in this section, ‘law enforcement officer’ shall mean any state, county, or municipal police officer or special state police officer authorized to make arrests or serve criminal process.*

The complaints from certain officers started back in 2007 when an Environmental Police Officer tried to enter the Worcester Central District Court. Upon entering the building the officer was told by court officers that he was not allowed to enter the courtroom unless he surrendered his firearm to them.

According to some news articles on the issue, this is a fairly new practice in the courts of Worcester County, Hampshire County and the courthouses in Marlboro, Framingham, Natick and Palmer. Within these courts only State and Municipal Police Officers are allowed to carry their firearm in the courtroom. This policy leaves out Environmental Police, Campus Police, and any other entity that has police authorities.

In a recent State House News article a Trial Court spokeswoman Joan Kenney defended the policy. “The Trial Court security policy seeks to maintain a safe environment for everyone in the courthouses by minimizing the number of guns allowed inside court facilities,” she said. “Court Officers on duty employed by the Trial Court are not authorized to carry guns in courthouses. The State Police and local police within a particular court’s jurisdiction are allowed to possess guns inside courthouses when they are on official business because they are trained to respond to court emergencies and occasionally assist court officers in difficult situations. Keeping the courthouses as gun-free as possible is the goal of the Trial Court Security Department in an effort to keep employees and the public safe.”

For several years now, law enforcement agencies have been trying to work out this policy within the court system, but have been continually stonewalled. It is because of this lack of positive action that Senator Brewer has filed S.921 to correct the misguided policy.*

At the public hearing in January many law enforcement officials testified that an officer with an empty holster is a target especially since they are most likely to meet the very people they have arrested in court. Other concerns that were addressed were that the court officers taking the firearms may not even be licensed to possess them since court officers are not allowed to carry firearms at all while on duty. There was also a great concern that the officers were being disarmed and the firearms stored in a public area so that all of the suspects and their friends could see where the guns were being stored.

For over a decade now lawful gun owners in this state have been fighting against laws, regulations and policies that have divided us into classes based on what we own for firearms or are not allowed to own. Now certain court officials are beginning the process of dividing law enforcement officials in a similar manner. GOAL certainly supports the effort of Senator Brewer to correct this issue, but it is unfortunate we have to welcome yet another sector of society into the fight to be treated equally and with respect. GOAL urges our members to contact their legislators and ask them to support S.921.

 

[BigMike]

I don't have a problem with any officer who is issued a gun, to possess it at all times. Seems silly that they would draw a line between officers that can and can't.

 

[Serapis]

What a joke. This state blows.

 

[Bill Nance]

UN-FING-BELIEVABLE!

Better arm yourself going to the courthouse. Even the court cops are unarmed. It's a weapons-free zone with a FELON MAGNET.

 

[Supermoto]

Let me know when there is a bill that actually does something other than give cops more rights then the people.

Until then I couldn't care less if the squirrel patrol can bring their guns to court

 

[HTRN]

Let me know when there is a bill that actually does something other than give cops more rights then people.

Until then I couldn't care less if the squirrel patrol can bring their guns to court

I have to second the notion that I cannot support any bill where some folks are "more equal" than others.
The bill regarding the murder of an officer was similar. I guess in a police state, police are more equal than the citizens.

 

[Friday]

This is hilarious. My wife, an attorney, can bypass the metal detectors and walk right in without a search, so long as she presents her bar card. Does it in Worcester all the time, did it in Plymouth last month, as I watched her come in the main entrance.

Cops can't carry but attorneys can? Maybe it's to protect the lawyers from the cops

 

[economist]

Let me know when there is a bill that actually does something other than give cops more rights then the people.

Until then I couldn't care less if the squirrel patrol can bring their guns to court

Perfect. I couldn't say it better.

 

[exo]

Let me know when there is a bill that actually does something other than give cops more rights then the people.

Until then I couldn't care less if the squirrel patrol can bring their guns to court

Agreed. If law abiding citizens can't carry in court, I won't shed any tears if some LEOs aren't allowed to either. Now if the bill were to allow anyone who can lawfully carry a gun in this state to carry in court, I would support that.

 

[Bill Nance]

Agreed. If law abiding citizens can't carry in court, I won't shed any tears if some LEOs aren't allowed to either. Now if the bill were to allow anyone who can lawfully carry a gun in this state to carry in court, I would support that.

Should someone in a red town say the same about a person in a green town getting shafted? I don't' know about you but I get called for jury duty like clockwork. I'd just as soon have someone who's not a felon in the courthouse with a gun thanks. It SHOULD be allowed for anyone. But Jeez could we get a little support for actual security in a place that's crawling with criminals? And I mean the ones coming to court to testify, see their buddies etc. not just the ones going through the system.

 

[exo]

Should someone in a red town say the same about a person in a green town getting shafted? I don't' know about you but I get called for jury duty like clockwork. I'd just as soon have someone who's not a felon in the courthouse with a gun thanks. It SHOULD be allowed for anyone. But Jeez could we get a little support for actual security in a place that's crawling with criminals? And I mean the ones coming to court to testify, see their buddies etc. not just the ones going through the system.

A fair point, but consider that the courts already have armed officers on duty for security. Allowing other types of officers to carry may add more security, and allowing the regular law abiding citizenry to carry even more so. I'm not against this bill per se, but I'm not going to go out of my way to support it either. If as I said in my previous post everyone who can legally carry could do so in court there wouldn't be a need for this bill at all.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A fair point, but consider that the courts already have armed officers on duty for security.

Really? Wel if they do, I certainly haven't seen them. MA courts aren't like you see on TV . . . the court officers and bailiffs are all unarmed.

The problem with the current situation is that if an EPO, Constable, Campus PO, etc. brings in a prisoner . . . the officers are then disarmed! The storage of firearms in said courthouses is anything but "secure" (BTDT), etc.

The current system is just looking for a very bad day where a murderer runs off or ends up shooting some unarmed officers inside the courthouse in MA!!

I know of one case where a Constable was bringing a prisoner into a MA courthouse, and since they won't allow Constables to come in thru the "police only" access point (which leads to the holding cells), they must come in the front door. Courthouse security person demanded that the prisoner be UN-handcuffed to go thru the metal detector. Sounds good but what if the prisoner then ran off . . . BTW, the Constable is legally liable in a case like this, by MGLs he is responsible for the prisoner until the judge dismisses the Constable.

 

[Supermoto]

It has nothing to do with safety. Its all about Ego and rank, just a pissing contest over who can bring their toys to work. The Court is telling the Squirrel patrol, the hall monitor and the paper delivery boy that they aren't real cops.

 

[Bill Nance]

I urgeyou guys to go to the new courthouse in Woburn. Try to find someone there with a gun unless it's a town cop who just happens to be there.

If there's a felon who wants to be broken out of jail by his buddies, there is nothing to stop such an attempt absent good luck. All the bailiffs are unarmed. This is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't think you guys who are saying this is a bad law will be willing to say: "We could have supported cops having the right to be armed there, but we were mad because there was unfairness in the system and opposed it." to some juror's widow who was killed because the many trained cops on site were disarmed.

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the idea of a perfect plan. -Von Clausewitz

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This whole thing is a result of an administrative judge taking it upon himself to decide who was and was not a cop. It's a stupid reason to have to pass a law.

And while I too would like to see GOAL focused upon the rights of citizens, I'd rather see them supporting this than chasing windmills.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Another interesting thing about this. The person that handles all of the firearms at the courthouse typically does not have a license of any kind, so the state of MA is in effect, breaking their own laws on a daily basis in every courthouse in the state.

Also, the lock down areas are typically very vulnerable to theft. Interesting that a state so interested in gun control would be so lax isn't it?

There are many good reasons to get this bill passed, as others have mentioned our current system is a tragedy waiting to happen and needs to be fixed.

 

[Supermoto]

I don't think you guys who are saying this is a bad law will be willing to say: "We could have supported cops having the right to be armed there, but we were mad because there was unfairness in the system and opposed it." to some juror's widow who was killed because the many trained cops on site were disarmed.

I oppose all laws that give fundamental right to some but refuse them to others, even more so when the rights are given to the State but not the people. But Hey, if I can save just one life... think of the children

 

[codenamepaul]

I refuse to support a law that allows the police more rights than a citizen. As police they have only priveledges accorded to them by virtue of their vocation.I would also suggest that my annual GOAL donation and membership would be better spent on our rights than on those who will be the first line in any confiscation scheme.

 

[Bill Nance]

I oppose all laws that give fundamental right to some but refuse them to others, even more so when the rights are given to the State but not the people. But Hey, if I can save just one life... think of the children

This law doesn't strip anyone of any rights. It addresses a specific portion of the issue of security in courthouses.

If gun rights advocates had taken your position from '94 on, we would not have seen any progress on gun rights. All the progress of the last 16 years would have never happened. After all, why are we fighting for people to get PERMITS to CCW when it's clear that it's a right that needs no permit. We should oppose a shall-issue statute because it inserts a permitting process or excludes people who've been convicted of a DUI, something that bears no relation to violence or guns.

Are you going to do that? Oppose a new Shall-issue statewide standard ala 2259? After all, it would grant rights to one group (people that are lucky enough not to have been CAUGHT doing something the government has decided is wrong) and denies them to others.

Absolutist stances that block meaningful progress on an important issue (And yes, as a juror I consider security at the courthouse important) are quixotic and self-defeating. It doesn't help the situation with citizen rights, it just guarantees that there will continue to be essentially no security in a high-profile target site.

 

[Supermoto]

Giving rights to one group group but not another is the same as stripping rights

There are laws on the books that exclude felons from firearms, why do we need shall issue permits?

An Absolutist stance is the only acceptable position on constitutional rights

You want the government to provided your security? I can provide my own

 

[HTRN]

Absolutist stances that block meaningful progress on an important issue.

This is a scary statement dude.

I hope if anyone ever hears me say "meaningful progress" I get decked right then and there.

 

[economist]

I urgeyou guys to go to the new courthouse in Woburn. Try to find someone there with a gun unless it's a town cop who just happens to be there.

If there's a felon who wants to be broken out of jail by his buddies, there is nothing to stop such an attempt absent good luck. All the bailiffs are unarmed. This is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't think you guys who are saying this is a bad law will be willing to say: "We could have supported cops having the right to be armed there, but we were mad because there was unfairness in the system and opposed it." to some juror's widow who was killed because the many trained cops on site were disarmed.

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the idea of a perfect plan. -Von Clausewitz

Dear Juror's Widow:

It's odd you should be coming to me on this, but here are my thoughts. Your husband is dead because his government decided that discrimination was preferable to his right to defend his own life, and that unarmed victims are preferable to those who can defend themselves. Some sought to address this by allowing a select few (based on their type of employment) to carry weapons whenever they happened to show up. This notion was flawed and I opposed it. In any event, your husband was not one of these select few, and there is no way to be sure one might have been around when he was killed. I cannot tell you why your government did not have sufficient regular security in place at the time.

Sincerely,
economist

 

[Coyote33]

Let me know when there is a bill that actually does something other than give cops more rights then the people.

Until then I couldn't care less ...

I have to second the notion that I cannot support any bill where some folks are "more equal" than others.
The bill regarding the murder of an officer was similar. I guess in a police state, police are more equal than the citizens.

Perfect. I couldn't say it better.

Agreed. If law abiding citizens can't carry in court, I won't shed any tears if some LEOs aren't allowed to either. Now if the bill were to allow anyone who can lawfully carry a gun in this state to carry in court, I would support that.

...And while I too would like to see GOAL focused upon the rights of citizens,....

I oppose all laws that give fundamental right to some but refuse them to others, even more so when the rights are given to the State but not the people. But Hey, if I can save just one life... think of the children

I refuse to support a law that allows the police more rights than a citizen. As police they have only priveledges accorded to them by virtue of their vocation.I would also suggest that my annual GOAL donation and membership would be better spent on our rights than on those who will be the first line in any confiscation scheme.

I was actually AT the hearing for this, and was the ONLY ONE to speak out in favor of non-police having this ability. In fact, I even spoke with all the police big-wigs out in the hallway, and they AGREED WITH ME that EVERYONE should have a chance at storing a firearm or knife or spray in a locker, not only in courthouses, but other state buildings, such as State House, Ashburton, etc. . I remember some people on the committee hosting the hearing agreeing with me, but I don't recall ONE PERSON in the audience speaking up on this.

Another interesting thing about this. ...There are many good reasons to get this bill passed, as others have mentioned our current system is a tragedy waiting to happen and needs to be fixed.

GOAL staff did not stick around to speak on this, either.