४ डिसेंबर, २०११
"If any judge wants to pack, I think the next thing I'd put on the agenda is to have security cameras in every chamber and in the corridors."
Said Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as the Wisconsin Supreme Court addresses the question of guns in the courts.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
Wonder what her position is on some 21 year old Bailiff carrying a gun in the courthouse?
Should she (Bailiff) be disarmed as well, or should cameras be everywhere now because Bailiffs have guns?
A Judge might want a gun for self protection after threats.
Yes on Bailiffs never for Judges?
very rational
I think there are handguns behind benches in lots of states.
In our part of the country the use of entry screening and the presence of armed deputies has increased dramatically.
In our rural county in NW Pa, there was judge murdered in the courtroom in 1954. Bullet holes remain the oak woodwork. It was alleged, at least by the gunman, that said judge was "entertaining" the murderer's spouse on the side.
Spawned the book "Murder in the Courtroom".
but Abrahamson suggested in her comments at last month's meeting that justices could endanger each other if some of them started carrying guns.
"If any judge wants to pack, I think the next thing I'd put on the agenda is to have security cameras in every chamber and in the corridors," Abrahamson told the other justices.
Abrahamson seems to be saying that the judges may get into a shoot out with each other. Wisconsin needs to take a much closer look at who's sitting on their benches.
Maybe one day this spoiled bitch will actually encounter real world problems like most people.
Why do you think Taurus named their hybrid .45/.410 revolver "The Judge?" Judges were carrying it in court.
Abrahamson protests too much. She appears to be acknowledging the fact that she and her sycophants can drive sane people to distraction if not murderous rage.
This is a clear example of what the progressives desire regarding the second amendment. Is it a stretch to believe that they fear pushing an armed citizenry too far with their socialist dreams of utopia? I don't think so.
What does one have to do with the other? Honestly, I don't get it. Can someone explain?
If you're gonna have security cameras in chambers it would also be a nice touch to pipe in Spaghetti Western music.
Can I purchase a gun on Amazon?
Judges without a judicial temperament packing heat, scary indeed.
What is the Utopian dream of gun fanatics? A gun in every pocket?
"Send lawyers, guns and money..the shit has hit the fan!"
The great, Warren Zevon.
Not sure I'd trust any of them to handle a weapon safely...they're all kind of old and feeble, aren't they?
A court that packs is a polite court, mayhap.
Hmmm, I get the image of Texas, ca 1840.
save_the_rustbelt said...
I think there are handguns behind benches in lots of states.
A lot of Federal judges have been packing for a long time.
"What is the Utopian dream of gun fanatics?"
Criminals more fearful of us than we of them.
Hmmm, I get the image of Texas, ca 1840.
Just be aware, during the Wild West days, there was more gun violence in the big East Coast cities then in the Wild West cities.
The dream of us gun fanatics is the same as the speech fanatics:
Respect for the Contitution as written and designed.
Imagine if her attack on Prosser had been videotaped!
I read that the most common cause of death in Texas during the 1800s, was being dragged to death by a horse--not shooting.
As lavrenti lenin points out, the Taurus 'The Judge' is designed for exactly the sort of protection a judge might need in the courtroom.
Always good to surveil people and use as the justification the fact that they are exercising their specifically articulated constitutional rights.
Encouraging sign for freedom all around I'd say.
. . . .telling really, the instincts that some justices present in less guarded moments.
Perhaps she should consider one of these
http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=taurus+the+judge
In the progressive mind, it would seem those actual criminals are just people who haven't been reached yet by their progressive programs, their wisdom, and their good feelings about their ideas which make the programs.
Why won't those poor thugs understand how deep the feelings are?
There won't be a need for crime, for want, and lack in the gun-free utopia that awaits.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!
Progress!
"...wants to pack...." anti-second amendment rights people sure like to use that word.
Chrisnavin;
Dream on!
Abrahamson gets the nice posed picture, Roggensack gets a photo with her Patience exhausted.
I see the choke hold line being repeated. I thought that had been debunked. At some point, does it not become libel?
Stacey Keech as Bad Bob, and Paul Newman as... Judge Roy Bean
The only real attempt to question the authority of the Judge's court...
occurred the time Bad Bob came to town.
Not Dirty Bad Bob, the New Mexican...
but the original Bad Bob,
the mean one, the albino.
The notion that the judges are so emotionally unstable that they're likely to solve disputes with firearms is only slightly less alarming than the notion (as someone before me mentioned) that ubiquitous surveillance is a proper response to the exercise of constitutional rights.
If police and bailiffs aren't expected to draw their weapon every time they get a wee bit peeved, why can't a judge be expected to behave herself?
There shouldn't be a problem with a licensed citizen carrying their weapon anywhere they like, actually, since we're going to require background checks and training to get the license. Why do we assume that citizens are criminals rather than valuable sources of support for public order?
I can confirm from personal knowledge that a significant percentage of federal and state judges -- including (and sometimes especially) family law, juvenile, and civil court judges -- are packing in Texas. It is a long and mostly quiet tradition, but there have been a couple of highly publicized occasions in the last few years in which judges' personal protection weapons have been there when needed; sadly, there've also been occasions when they were needed, but not there.
FWIW, just about every judge in the country, and a large percentage of its residents, have full-time ownership of, or at least access to and control of, extremely deadly weapons: If one judge wanted to go postal on another, there'd be no easier place to do it than in the parking lot at the wheel of a motor vehicle.
In other words, this is much ado about absolutely nothing.
Why do you think Taurus named their hybrid .45/.410 revolver "The Judge?" Judges were carrying it in court.
I don't believe that for a second - it reeks of purest urban legend or Very Clever Marketing.
(Oh, yes, the guy who changed the name at Taurus certainly claims he "heard" that some judges were carrying them.
I still don't believe it's true, even if someone else made up the story and told it to him.
And if it is somehow true, those judges are fools. Which, well, I guess shouldn't surprise me much.
No matter what Taurus' marketing tries to say, it's a terrible defensive handgun, compared to pretty much any alternative. .410 shotshells are pathetic, and .45 Long Colt is obsolete.
It's a giant toy, not a viable carry gun.)
ken in sc said...I read that the most common cause of death in Texas during the 1800s, was being dragged to death by a horse--not shooting.
A bit off the topic here, but the plains Indians thought cowboys were nuts for using stirrups for that very reason. I read that tetanus also caused more deaths than shootings.
Yup. And, she and Bradley will vote for it.
What a loon Shirley Abrahamson is.
Judges have gavels. They should practice tossing them.
Then, when one goes flying, the judge can reach under the desk for another.
Where can a judge go to take throwing lessons? Same place teacher go where they learn to throw their erasers with uncanny accuracy. Even with chalk in hand. And, while facing the blackboard ... Quickly, they turn ...
Let's see... believe that EVERYONE is just waiting for the right time to go insane, plus wanting cameras watching everyone all the time... yeah, that's two of the big ones for progressive gun bigots.
There should be a uniform standard governing who gets to carry in a courthouse, and Judges should not have special rights in this respect. They should have to meet the same standard as, for instance, a Law professor, or any other citizen who also wishes to carry in court, for their own protection.
So you have this judge who apparently believes the people she works with will start shooting each other if given the opportunity. Now that's a dysfunctional work place. The you got someone like Allie who apparently thinks everyone (except possibly her) is just a carry permit away from shooting everyone. Despite all available evidence. Strange.
Sorry, "The Judge" represents one of the greatest (undeserved) triumphs of modern marketing. It's far inferior to most other choices for self-defense handguns.
Justice Abrahamson really does not like venturing outside her little bubble, does she?
Is it worth mentioning our Washington State experience again? It's legal to carry a loaded handgun almost anywhere in the state, including state government offices and the capitol building itself. This has not caused any noticeable problems that I am aware of, other than to annoy the easily-annoyed nanny-state class.
Court facilities are one of the exceptions, and it does make some sense to exclude weapons from a place where people's financial survival, freedom, and occasionally even life itself is being decided. But here again, Washington (the state) gets it right--court facilities are required to provide secure storage facilities for handguns, so that going to the courthouse doesn't "poison" your entire trip or entire day.
Everybody already does do metal-detector screening (though I'm not sure there's any state legal requirement to do so), so for the kind of risks they're guarding against (basically some hassled defendant or plaintiff losing it, or some friends-of-the-thug showing up to liberate him) it's completely adequate. The secure checkpoints aren't hard in any real sense, but unless and until Lashkar-e-Taiba sets up a branch office in Vancouver BC, I don't think we have to worry about a determined assault...
Judges without a judicial temperament packing heat, scary indeed.
Hand Wringers, unite!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा