Over the years I have been summons 4 times to jury duty...The first was in Federal Court in Downtown Detroit,
The second was Macomb county court in Mt. Clemens (I was excused from sitting jury there as it had been less than an year since I had sat in Federal Court. (your not obligated to sit more than once per year on jury duty)
The third time was District court in Sterling Heights Michigan,
The 4th time was in Lapeer County Michigan (had a good reason for the judge to let me off duty)
Tempers run high in court rooms and I am all for no guns allowed in those area's...I personalty saw one fight break out in the hall way at Lapeer. (I was sitting in the hall waiting to be called as a witness).It ended up with a little girl about 6 being knocked down on the floor because the 2 women fighting didn't give a damn about the kid and she belong to one of them. Sure glad neither one of them had a gun...
Any one that has spent time around courts would be very leery of anyone toting a gun within the building....If you have ever watched the TV show on what really goes on in court cases and the fights that break out would be a fool to want anyone carrying a gun in those instances....It is not an unusual request....I have to say the same for going into a police station packing just to make a point....
It is not unreasonable to tell the person to lock their gun in their car.
Too many people looking for their 15 minutes of fame would do what this guy did....he was being stubborn and unreasonable.....
“Too many people looking for their 15 minutes of fame would do what this guy did....he was being stubborn and unreasonable..... “
This was not a courthouse and Joel was well within his rights. Someone has to stand up to officials who will not obey the law. The problem is that it is very difficult to get the courts to hold judges accountable for their illegal acts.
Tempers run high in court rooms and I am all for no guns allowed in those area's...
The statute in Minnesota does not allow local communities to ban guns. The only places where guns are forbidden are those specified in state or federal law. The City of Minneapolis cannot add its own.
Courthouses are covered specifically under the state statute. Carry is forbidden in court buildings, unless you have a permit and have specifically informed the county sheriff that you intend to carry in the courthouse.
There are those that argue that despite the statute, basic separation of powers principles provide that judges have the authority to ban guns in their courtrooms, regardless of what the legislature might do. Given that it's a court that's going to decide this case, I expect that will turn out to be true. The question is how broadly can such orders can be written.
Immediately after the shall-issue bill passed, a number of courts issued judicial orders banning guns - but not just in their courtrooms, but usually over considerably wider venues.
Most of the suburban courtrooms are in government centers that are in a shared complex with a regional public library. These libraries are usually in the same building", but have no publicly accessible connection from one to the other. In some cases, they have no connection whatsoever, and only share a common wall. The judicial orders as originally issued purported to ban carry in the adjacent libraries, as well. These have generally been withdrawn, as being clearly over-broad.
Minneapolis City Hall, of course, is not a courthouse. It contains a couple of courtrooms, back up in the garrets, that haven't seen regular use in a number of decades. The "courthouse" is across the street, in the court tower of the Hennepin County Government Center. The two are connected by an underground tunnel.
The charge, in this case, is that Joel has violated the court order banning carry in the Minneapolis City Hall. There is no question that he has. The issue is whether the courts have authority to ban carry over so wide an area, when the statute clearly states that they do not.
The hope is that this case will result in a precedent establishing that courts do not have an unrestricted authority to impose gun bans in violation of statute.
Personally, I'd not bet that it comes out that way.