ILNews

Bill pledges greater gun immunity, protection for judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT