ILNews

Judges restate: no guns in City-County Building

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 2007 order banning guns and weapons from the Indianapolis City-County Building that houses most of Marion County’s Circuit and Superior courts remains in force despite questions raised after the Indiana Legislature widely voided local gun regulations.

The Marion Superior Court Executive Committee on Friday reaffirmed its active order that prohibits carrying weapons in the building. The restrictions do not apply to law enforcement, judges, magistrates and judicial officers.

“All we wanted to do was to make absolutely certain judges and their courtrooms continued to be safe places,” said Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg, who prepared the reaffirmation.

“The intention is to make no change to current policy,” said Marion Superior Judge David Certo, who chairs the executive committee.

Lawmakers in 2011 passed a law forbidding local units of government from enacting gun restrictions beyond those adopted by the General Assembly. The law also voided all local ordinances or regulations that exceeded controls enacted by the state.

All visitors to the City-County Building must pass through metal detectors monitored by Marion County sheriff’s deputies. Rosenberg said deputies raised questions about the implications of a portion of PL 152-2011.

The law allows courthouses to continue to ban weapons. However, Indiana Code 35-47-11-1.4(5) makes an exception for common areas of courthouses or parts used by residential tenants or private businesses. The 28-story City-County Building has numerous areas that meet that description, Rosenberg said.

“Due to the configuration of courtrooms, penal facilities … and court offices throughout the building, (it) cannot be rendered safe except by the prohibition of weapons in the entire building, including common areas,” the reaffirmation reads.

“We wouldn’t be able to monitor security under the statute,” Rosenberg said after the proposal was adopted. Any effort to allow firearms in common areas but keep them out of courtrooms and penal areas “would be totally impractical,” he said.

Read past IL coverage of litigation arising from PL 152-2011.
 

 

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