Some nine months ago, Clarksville, Indiana town judge Jimmie Guilfoyle banned weapons from his courtroom. While Guilfoyle was within his legal rights to do so, local gun rights supporters were livid. The ban put the entire town hall off-limits to residents packing heat. According to wdrb.com, “a special committee voted to separate the court from the rest of the building.” The town will now wall-off the courtroom at a cost of $25,000. Guilfoyle’s quote on the “compromise” is comedy gold . . .
“The result that we came to were they happy with it? I don’t believe so. Was I completely happy with it? No. Do they agree with me? No and do I agree with them? No, but if everybody’s leaving the negotiating table slightly unhappy, we probably reached the best result there was.”
Is that how Hoosiers think?
Can we build a wall around Chicago?
So long as they get to vote as their own country.
The hope of basically this, or at least their own state, is why I moved out of Cook country. I wouldn’t even look at a house in a collar county (a county touching Cook) in case they were stupid enough to go down the toilet with Chicago.
I actually like living in unincorporated Lake County.
I’m not a suburban guy myself, but the collar counties is where all the productive people and businesses moved to when Chicago tried to tax them to death.
Dupage County especially has benefited from Cook County’s philosophy of taxing people who work for a living and giving it to people who don’t.
I bet it wouldn’t even get them to stop blaming their gun problems on their neighbors.
Can we build a meteorite crater on top of it?
that would quickly lead to cannibalism…
…and set up checkpoints for people trying to LEAVE it? I’m for that.
Just like Divergent, then? Needs to have a wasteland surrounding it, along with a holographic shield barrier so that no one can find their way in or out. At least so I’m told.
HUH? Wha’?
In Texas, as part of the clarification of the revisions to the firearms laws made as a result of instituting open carry, courtrooms that occupied only a portion of a building are prohibited areas, while the rest of the building is not. The “courtroom” means the actual room in which cases are heard, the judges chambers, the jury room and any rooms used exclusively by clerks and employees of the court for official, court related business.
The cafeteria in the building housing the court and any administrative offices (for issuing drivers licenses, etc.) are not prohibited areas.
It’s “supposed” to be that way in Michigan, too. But in actual practice the 6 County buildings I’ve been in recently have deputies and metal detectors at every entrance.
Why does this author seem to be celebrating the coerced theft of funds from the citizenry? Or are we supposed to be hypocritical if the end result favors gun rights (which I would argue this really doesn’t).
Certainly not theft of funds by coercion.
The proper committee held a proper vote to make it happen.
And the free citizens of the town got their courthouse back from a cowardly judge.
(Former born & bred Hoosier here, FWIW.)
If governments want to make court buildings and the like ‘gun-free’, the *least* they should do is have a bank of those coin-op lockers outside the restricted area.
That will never happen, and the excuse given will be that someone could leave a bomb in one of the lockers.
I’d be more worried about losing my gear. As if there’s only one key to those lockers.
It already exists – that’s exactly what they do here in Washington State. We have it written into state law:
“It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon … Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge’s chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection”
“In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner’s visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner’s visit to restricted areas of the building.”
I am and born and raised Hoosier. I do not take offense to RF’s comment but I don’t really know where he’s going with it. Any good negotiation should partially satisfy each side, and make neither completely happy.
Spoken like a true RINO. Give them 90% of what they want.
OR They must are wrong as I’m obviously right. As if I was not right, I’d be compelled to change my position, plan, opinion such that I became right. So if I’m right and they are wrong, club them into submission (and they become right). Then I”M happy which is all that really matters.
IN doesn’t have vote for judge retention (removal). Cheaper than building new walls.
RINO has nothing to do with it. My guess is you’ve never engaged in any real negotiations.
“real” negotiations are what we NEVER have on the topic of gun control, and this is a perfect example. Gun owners had the ability to carry guns in an entire building, then some judge takes away the entire building, then gun owners get back half of the building. They have taken half of what we had- that is not a negotiation.
The RINO comment is aimed at people who can’t seem to understand that and will continue to piss away gun rights piecemeal, one “compromise” after another.
Beat me to it. Many years ago, after a case settled, one of the involved attorneys said, “If neither side is happy, it was probably a good deal.” This is what is something called “compromise,” something our legislators seem to have forgotten exists.
I’m confused. This news increases the area where Hoosiers may carry firearms. The current law (IC 35-47-11.1-4(5)) indicates that the entire building where the courtroom is located is off-limits to firearms. The town has decided to effectively separate the court from the town hall which means that the town hall is now open to legal carriers. The town has decided to spend their own money on this project. What part of this should gun owners object to?
Hoosier who wants to go back.. Preferably Bloomington area. There is nothing to complain about. Just a bunch of whiners and complainers who have nothing better to do with their sorry unfulfilled lives.
How about objecting to the $25,000 in over taxation they’re paying, if the government has funds aplenty to accommodate this silliness rather than just repeal the gun ban?
If Indiana law permits it (and I suspect there’s something comparable there that they could have worked with), the town should have just taken a page from the fictionalized tactics of Sheriff Buford Pusser:
You have to remember that Clarksville, IN is just across the river from Louisville, KY. I’m sure the Kentuckian mindset has poisoned the normally lucid Hoosiers in that area. That area is normally referred to as the “sunny side of the Ohio river”. 😉
I live in Indiana and work in Louisville,KY. I was also raised in KY and lived there most of my life. Trust me when I say that it’s not the “Kentuckian mindset” that is the problem. Louisville(city) is an increasingly liberal city that DOES NOT represent the greater area of the state. The Louisvillian mindset is more properly at fault here but even that is an oversimplification.
Clarksville,IN and Jeffersonville,IN which are both directly across the river from Louisville,KY have a distinctly different feel than that of the Louisville city proper. They’re both much more laid back areas full of mostly(IMO) sensible people versus the rabidly “progressive/liberal” crowd that seems to have gained clout in Louisville(Check the dictionary under “ASSCLOWN” and you’ll likely find a picture of John Yarmuth). Crossing the river into Indiana feels like leaving a “big city” and entering a “smaller town” atmosphere where the buildings are older and the streets less crowded with people.
Good grief. Couldn’t they just run a roll of toilet paper down the middle separating the two areas, like bedroom-sharing siblings everywhere do?
After all, if they insist upon speaking, thinking, and reasoning like children, then clearly they’re not ready to put away childish things.
(FYI, for you Trump fans out there, that reference comes from “One Corinthians”)
There is a simple way to do this. Step 1: Can the judge. Step 2: Replace with pro gun judge. Step 3: Everybody wins.
^^^This!
Certainly not theft of funds by coercion.
The proper committee held a proper vote to make it happen.
And the free citizens of the town got their courthouse back from a cowardly judge.
(Former born & bred Hoosier here, FWIW.)
I was just in there last week getting my Indiana carry permit, and the metal detectors are there as usual.