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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.