A bit better explanation than mine from the D-News archives:
Judicial study eases tension over gun lockers
By Linda Thomson
Deseret News staff writer
05/29/2002
The sponsor of a bill requiring courthouses to install gun lockers is happy the Judicial Council is taking 90 days to study the issue â€" but he notes that the problem has not been solved.
"I'm pleased they're just not going to be out of compliance with the law," Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy, said.
The situation has been problematic on several levels. The state's 70 district court judges opposed the concept, arguing that the new law presented safety hazards and interfered with the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government.
But their actions bothered many people who perceived that judges sworn to uphold laws were themselves disobeying a law.
The Judicial Council finessed the troubling gun locker issue Tuesday by suspending part of a rule that allows it to "establish a secure area" in courthouses as defined by law.
That means all courthouses will still remain gun-free while the Judicial Council sends the gun locker issue to two of its committees to sort things out and perhaps mend fences with the state legislature.
However, Swallow said the law is still in effect and some solution must be reached after the three-month study period. "When 90 percent of all legislators voted for it and the governor signed it, we thought it was good sound policy."
Swallow also is unhappy that, as part of a technicality, the council's vote temporarily reduced the penalty for bringing a gun into a courthouse from a felony to a misdemeanor.
"The other thing this doesn't do is solve the concern the legislature had. The concern we had, both Republicans and Democrats, is what do you do with those weapons brought to court? Do you put them in the car where it's easy to break into? Have them exposed to the public?
Swallow said the bill originally passed by the House included safe storage for Mace, pocketknives and other items to preserve personal safety, but court representatives said they didn't have the space for that kind of storage so the bill was revisited. "Then they came back and said guns are too dangerous to store," he said. "I hope they can figure out a way to implement this in a way that is beneficial to them and the public as well," Swallow said. "I'm hopeful we can help them and they can help us to solve the policy concern â€" finding a safe place to store things people bring to court."
Paul Murphy, spokesman for Utah State Attorney's General's Office, found the debate among Judicial Council members heartening.
"It was good to see the judges were concerned that, one, they were in compliance with the law and two, that they follow the process. That was our concern in the first place," Murphy said.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff previously pronounced himself "baffled" that the judges would not obey a law and hinted he would take legal action if necessary.
"Now we're left with two options," Murphy said, adding that the Attorney General's Office is meeting to discuss the topic Wednesday. "We decide whether we still need to go before the courts on this issue, and then secondly, plan on working with legislators to see if there's a legislative solution to this."
Murphy said a court representative was involved in the legislative process when the bill initially was being debated. "The key now is to make sure they do get the input."
"A number of things about this process really, really concerns me," said Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilkins at Tuesday's meeting. He added that the topic should have come before the council first rather than after approval, but clearly judges didn't believe it would pass.
Third District Presiding Judge Ronald Nehring said everyone on the council was acting to safeguard citizens who come and go from courthouses. "The decision made by the council today answers the question, 'What is to be done?' There will be no gun lockers now. But it doesn't address who decides whether there are gun lockers in the future," Nehring said.
Wilkins said he had no opinion about the separation of powers debate, but said the proper way to handle that controversy would be for someone to bring legal action in court and get it decided ultimately by the Utah Supreme Court. Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, derided the council's "Clintonesque" reading of the law and said the courts should comply with the intended spirit of a law that now is on the books.
Later, Nehring said, "I readily recognize and respect opposing views. But it comes down to who has the responsibility to safeguard the people here â€" and that's us."
[Edited the link to shorten your link (but it's busted anyway) -- Jeff]
short link
