ILNews

Bill pledges greater gun immunity, protection for judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Judicial officers would be granted the same ability to carry firearms and immunity as law enforcement officers under a bill introduced by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, is sponsoring Senate Bill 3. The bill also increases the criminal penalty for battery against a judge who is engaged in official duties. The offense would be reclassified from a Class B misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony, or a Level 5 felony if the battery resulted in bodily injury.

The legislation would allow judges to possess firearms anywhere a law enforcement officer may while the officer is carrying out official duties. Further, the bill says a judge “may not be prohibited from possessing a firearm on land or in buildings and other structures owned or leased by the state or any agency of state government or a political subdivision.”

In increasing the penalties for battery against judges, the legislation would extend to judicial officers the same protections as current law provides for law enforcement officers; penal, corrections and juvenile detention employees; probation and parole officers; community corrections workers; home detention officers; Department of Child Services workers; firefighters and emergency medical service providers.

The bill also contains language pertaining to judges who carry guns, stating they have “the same civil and criminal immunities and defenses concerning possession and use of the firearm that a law enforcement officer has when the law enforcement officer … possesses and uses a firearm; and … is engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s official duties.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT