Article Title: Weapon-free Courthouses and the Gun Locker Dilemma

• Publication year: 2003
• Pages: 06-11
• Citation: Vol. 2003 No. 06 Pg. 06-11

Utah Bar Journal Volume 6.

06-11 (2003). Article Title: Weapon-Free Courthouses and the Gun Locker Dilemma

June, 2003

Article Title: Weapon-Free Courthouses and the Gun Locker Dilemma

Author: Judge K. L. McIff

Article Type

Articles

Article

A bill to require installation of gun lockers in Utah's courthouses raised important issues for judges and lawyers. Though resolved last fall, the subject was not widely understood and has continued to surface periodically This article puts the issues in perspective and examines their historical and legal context.

Introduction

The gun locker legislation of 2002 placed Utah's courts squarely between two competing legal mandates, each having force of law. On the one hand, courts were bound by the "weapon-free" requirements of the Code of Judicial Administration ("Judicial Code") adopted pursuant to authority recognized by statute. On the other hand, courts were confronted with the newly enacted obligation to install gun lockers, the natural consequence of which would be to invite the presence of guns, especially in the older courthouses of rural Utah

I could see the problem coming as soon as the media reported the introduction of House Bill 82 early in the 2002 legislative session. My concerns were shared with staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and particularly with those charged with monitoring legislation.(fn1) As the session progressed, I was assured that the Judicial Council (the "Council") had adopted a formal position opposing the bill, that the Council's opposition had been clearly communicated in legislative circles, and then later that a fiscal note had doomed the bill to failure.(fn2) Passage of the bill during the waning hours of the session came as a complete surprise; but it was done, and the focus shifted to whether we could make it work without seriously compromising court security and integrity.

As presiding Judge in the Sixth District, I met with the trial court executive and with some of the clerks and sheriffs in the counties of Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Garfield and Kane. We discussed the realities of our circumstances in the face of the new requirement. In all but Sevier County, the district court sits in county courthouses that serve a wide variety of public uses through multiple entrances located on all sides of the buildings. Most were constructed during earlier times and are not equipped to deal with the presence of guns. As this court's general administrative order (the "Order") later stated:

"It is not feasible to install lockers at each of the multiple unmanned, unsecured entrances which range from four to six in the various courthouses. If lockers were installed at one location, they would become an open invitation for weapon holders to gain access from all the other locations through the very corridors that would bring them in contact with all participants in the judicial process. The net effect would be to create the very problem we are trying so hard to avoid."(fn3)

That was the backdrop against which I commenced a careful review of the court security statute, UCA subsection 78-7-6, and its seemingly irreconcilable progeny. In the beginning the objective was purely practical. My colleagues on the Sixth District bench were supportive. Our circumstances put us on a collision course with the new statute. We were looking for a solution to what appeared to be an impossible dilemma. The deeper my analysis, the more apparent it became that reconciling the Judicial Code with HB 82 would not be the major challenge. The gun locker requirement was conditional not mandatory. Reconciliation would not be difficult, but would it be accepted? Would it appear circumventive? Would it simply invite the legislature to amend the statute again - close the "loop hole," as it were? If this occurred, it was likely to produce an unproductive constitutional confrontation between branches of government.

Ultimately, we concluded that reconciling the statute with the Judicial Code would not be enough. If a future unwanted confrontation with the legislature were to be averted, the case had to be made that weapon-free courthouses are extremely important to the judiciary and to its core and essential functions. Thoughtful persons both within and without the judiciary had to be persuaded and on board. This necessitated a much broader exploration and a discussion about the nature of courts and their separate role in a tripartite system of state government.

The Governing Statute (UCA subsection 78-7-6)

Prior to 1996, the governing statute consisted of one simple paragraph recognizing the right of "[e]very court of record" to make rules for its own governance. The statute was amended that year to include: "The judicial council may provide, through the rules of judicial administration, for security in or about a courthouse or courtroom." UCA subsection 78-7-6 (2)(a). The '96 amendment went on to add a completely new concept The legislature provided for designation of so-called "secure areas," id.,(fn4) and imposed a felony penalty for bringing a firearm within their...