Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Section 76-8-311.1 addresses secure areas. Part 4(a) provides for a secure weapons storage area before entering secured areas.

Does anybody here have experience with secure areas and have you found that there are indeed storage facilities at these locations? If so, are the security personel cooperative?

How about courthouses... specifically the SLC Justice Court. I ask because I received a jury summons and there is a section that talks about not bringing weapons or things that could be considered weapons, and that security will not hold such items. It seemed to be general information and did not specifically address concealed weapons.

I have some phone calls to make but wanted to know if anybody here has previously dealt with this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
As I recall, the judge's committee that has an oversight role on the function of courts decided that courts did not have to comply with this law in regard to secure storage in court buildings as the Legislature had strayed out of legislative branch territory into judicial branch territory, thus infringing on the perogative of the judicial branch to run their courts any darn way they see fit. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Huh, that's interesting. I'm kinda shocked by that here in Utah. It's always been my understanding that the Judicial branch is bound to INTERPRET law but can't just up and write it's OWN laws any way it sees fit.

Based on the explanation provided, could not the judicial branch then argue that the Utah State Statutes breach the Judicial Prerogative when they stipulate what penalty a particular crime warrants, and just disregard that law and hand down any penalty the judge personally wants to??? Their line of reasoning seems both ludicrous and potentially without limit. If I were a Legislator this would both offend me and anger me and I would make it my mission to come down hard on the judges involved....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
+1

Bane for State Rep!!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Althor,

The responsibility for the "Justice Court" in the Third Judicial District IS to provide lockers per State Law. They are in violation. Unfortunately my
Reps are all Democrats, including my Senator who has several times been labeled the least effective person in the Senate. So trying to get anything done through them is difficult to say the least.

Two years ago I did run for Senate so I could help with these issues, now that didn't work due to political backstabbing--who'd a thunk?

Anyhow, Senator Valentine is probably our best bet at this time with issues like this, or filing a suit in District Court or State Supreme Court against the Third District Court requiring compliance with the law as well as a monetary fine for the use of Hunter Safety, BCI, Gun conservation efforts or other related areas. Then we might actually see some justice in that evil court.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
And yet, 5 years later nothing has been done! :?
There is no excuse for disobeying the law. Simply because you are a court of law is no reason to breach the laws you are sworn to uphold and for which our legislature is in place to provide.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top