Before I contact the judge.....

[LR95S97]

I had the privaledge to serve as a juror today at the JP court in Harris County today.

My understanding of the law (section 46.03 (3) ) is that weapons are not allowed (with certian excpetions) in a courtroom, so I left my weapon in the car

We jurors are seated on the left side of the courtroom (before the proceedings begin), and the plaintiff attorney leans (with this back to us) up/over a wooden railing to grab some paperwork, printing a weapon in a SOB holster?!?!?!?!?

The defendent/defendent attorney did not show for the proceedings, so we where dismissed.

I purposefully was the last one out the courtroom, and asked the baliff "it is my understanding of the law that the only persons allowed to posses weapons in this building are judges and law enforcement". He responded that "anyone can carry a weapon in this building, but the courthouse in downtown Houston, with all the metal detectors and security, does not allow weapons".

Before I contact the judge, I want to confirm my interpretation of the law.

In advance, thanks for the forums' feedback......

[WildBill]

I had the privaledge to serve as a juror today at the JP court in Harris County today.

My understanding of the law (section 46.03 (3) ) is that weapons are not allowed (with certian excpetions) in a courtroom, so I left my weapon in the car

We jurors are seated on the left side of the courtroom (before the proceedings begin), and the plaintiff attorney leans (with this back to us) up/over a wooden railing to grab some paperwork, printing a weapon in a SOB holster?!?!?!?!?

The defendent/defendent attorney did not show for the proceedings, so we where dismissed.

I purposefully was the last one out the courtroom, and asked the baliff "it is my understanding of the law that the only persons allowed to posses weapons in this building are judges and law enforcement". He responded that "anyone can carry a weapon in this building, but the courthouse in downtown Houston, with all the metal detectors and security, does not allow weapons".

Before I contact the judge, I want to confirm my interpretation of the law.

In advance, thanks for the forums' feedback......

Contact the judge about what? Printing? Did you actually see anything?

[LR95S97]

'Conact the judge' is in reference to educating his staff about the conceal/carry laws.

The attorney should know it is against the law to carry in the courtroom (but that is a different subject that does not concern me)

[WildBill]

'Conact the judge' is in reference to educating his staff about the conceal/carry laws.

The attorney should know it is against the law to carry in the courtroom (but that is a different subject that does not concern me)

Thanks for your explanation.

[A-R]

First of all, I think the baliff is wrong. It is illegal (for most of us) to carry a gun in any court, even a JP.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a): (3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

But there are many caveats/exemptions that could explain why the attorney was packing. First is the exception right there in the statute - with written authorization from the court (judge). Another is that the attorney may also be a current or former law enforcement officer. Still another is that the attorney may qualify for one of the numerous other statutory exemptions found in PC 46.15

[LR95S97]

It was not overly concerned that the attorney was carrying in the courtroom, and therefore I did not feel it prudent to braoch the subject during the proceeding.

The bailiff's response did concern me, and that is why I feel (once my interpretion of the law is confirmed) that the judge needs to be made aware of the situation (so as to educate his staff).

So, is my interpretation of the law correct?

[WildBill]

It was not overly concerned that the attorney was carrying in the courtroom, and therefore I did not feel it prudent to braoch the subject during the proceeding.

The bailiff's response did concern me, and that is why I feel (once my interpretion of the law is confirmed) that the judge needs to be made aware of the situation (so as to educate his staff).

So, is my interpretation of the law correct?

I can't answer that, but I hope the judge knows the law.

[A-R]

apologies, just realized that my initial response repeated some of what your OP said (I skimmed over that part).

Anyway, yes I agree with your interpretation - baliff is wrong.

[Kythas]

There's a defense to prosecution if you're an officer of the court. I think prosecuting attorneys in criminal cases, who are typically members of the District Attorney's Office, are officers of the court.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;
(3) in any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
(4) on the premises of a racetrack; or
(5) in or into a secured area of an airport.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (a)(1)-(4) that the actor possessed a firearm while in the actual discharge of his official duties as a member of the armed forces or national guard or a guard employed by a penal institution, or an officer of the court.

[srothstein]

It was not overly concerned that the attorney was carrying in the courtroom, and therefore I did not feel it prudent to braoch the subject during the proceeding.

The bailiff's response did concern me, and that is why I feel (once my interpretion of the law is confirmed) that the judge needs to be made aware of the situation (so as to educate his staff).

So, is my interpretation of the law correct?

Your interpretation of the law is correct, but there is a caveat that might make the bailiff also correct. As a general rule, judges get to rule their courtrooms pretty much as they want to. If the judge has written a rule saying gusn are okay in his court, then both your general interpretation and the bailiff's specific case may be correct.

[SlickTX]

By the definition provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Garland (1866) all attorneys are "officers of the court". So the attorney you saw did enjoy an exemption.

[WildBill]

This is an interesting discussion. I thought that I remembered one of the lawyers on this forum stating that he had to disarm before going into court. I agree with Steve that the judge can establish rules for his own court so that may be the case in the OP.

[Teamless]

I agree with Steve that the judge can establish rules for his own court so that may be the case in the OP.

I trust what Steve has to say, but also, how does the law say I cannot carry in a building that houses a courtroom, and then I can carry in the courtroom. How does a person get from the door to the courtroom?
What if the person is walking out of the courtroom into the cafeteria, can they legally carry there?

I just dont like the idea of a law saying "x" and then someone being able to "make up their own rules"

[Hoi Polloi]

Why would you contact a judge to tell him that his bailiff is giving invalid legal advice? Who cares? If you want accurate legal advice, don't ask a bailiff.

[RiverCity.45]

Please note that a "defense to prosecution" does not equal an exemption from a law. It is something that can be used as a defense in a trial, but there is no guarantee that the defense strategy will be successful.