Guns, Courts, and Civil Liberties
By Kari Hainey

My father, a district court judge for the Northeast Central Judicial District of North Dakota, was shot in his courtroom in May 1992. As my father presided over a child support hearing, the respondent became enraged, pulled out a .357 magnum pistol, and aimed at my father's head at point-blank range. Fortunately, my father stood quickly and the bullet entered his abdomen. Unfortunately, the bullet caused extensive damage, shredding his digestive tract and nicking his spinal column. It was days before we knew whether he would live. Words still cannot express how grateful we are that he did. Words also cannot express the anger and frustration that we still experience, as my father continues to suffer serious physical consequences from the shooting.

This attack was one of what seemed to be a rash of courtroom incidents. It was one of two courtroom shootings in the United States that day. Near St. Louis, a man attending a divorce hearing pulled two pistols from his briefcase and shot his estranged wife and two attorneys. He then rushed out and shot a court bailiff and a security guard. Weeks before, a man had stabbed his estranged girlfriend 19 times in a courthouse in Milwaukee. Less than two months later, a spectator in a Texas courtroom randomly opened fire, killing a prosecutor and seriously wounding two judges.

Things have changed in North Dakota since my father's shooting. Now when you enter the courthouse, you must go through a magnetometer and police officers search your bags. Of course, these measures limit the civil liberties of individuals. However, the local government has determined that the alternative consequences are too great.

Minnesota Conceal & Carry

The Minnesota Legislature disagrees. It recently enacted the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 to provide individuals "the inherent right ... to self-protection through the lawful use of self-defense." 2003 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 28 (S.F. 842). To effectuate its purpose, the statute severely restricts local government power. Not only does it now require sheriffs to issue permits to all applicants who meet the statutory criteria, it also prohibits local governments from restricting handgun possession on public property -- including courthouses and other judicial complexes.1

Of course, the enactment has caused a flurry of controversy. As a response to the new law -- and in apparent disregard of it -- many local government entities are banning guns from government buildings. For example, before the legislation was enacted, the city of Duluth passed an ordinance banning handguns from city-owned buildings even if the gun owner had a permit. The Hennepin County Board has banned guns from 130 county buildings, including libraries and the Hennepin County Medical Center. The Ramsey County Board approved an interim measure to keep guns and other dangerous weapons from all county property, and is expected to vote on a more permanent measure in July.

The Minnesota judiciary is also reacting to the new law, although with less controversy. Through their judicial authority to maintain order and safety in courtrooms, courts are banning guns in courtrooms. Chief Justice Blatz issued an order on June 2 prohibiting guns from the offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The order bars weapons from the Minnesota Judicial Center in Saint Paul. It also prohibits firearms in rooms at the Capitol and other facilities where official court business is held.

The Star Tribune reports that district court judges have similarly banned firearms in courthouse complexes. Thirty-six counties throughout Minnesota are said to have promulgated bans excluding weapons from court buildings, although the bans vary from county to county. For example, Chief Judge J. Thomas Mott has directed that individuals entering the city hall-county courthouse complex in downtown Saint Paul must remove their guns. In the 4th Judicial District, Chief Judge Kevin Burke banned all guns from the Hennepin County Government Center. In the 1st District, however, Chief Judge Richard Spicer opted not extend his ban to administration buildings in Dakota County.

Public Reaction

Public reaction to the bans has caused even more controversy. It appears that both proponents and opponents of the new legislation are eager for a judicial challenge. Supporters of the law contend that the orders exceed judicial authority. Although none dispute that judges can control what people bring into a court hearing, the proponents argue that judicial authority does not extend to other areas of the courthouse and adjoining county offices. However, the advocates appear unlikely to challenge the courtroom bans, reasoning that the same judges who issued the orders will be hearing the cases.

The more likely challenge is one to a ban passed by a local government entity. According an article in the Pioneer Press, Blue Earth County officials, already faced with the threat of legal action, have removed signs that stated guns were banned from county buildings.

As a practical matter, a key question is whether the new law will have any impact on safety and security in public areas, including courtrooms. It is doubtful that either the law or the responsive bans would affect someone bent on using a gun in a courtroom or public facility. After all, anyone planning to commit murder is not likely to be concerned about having a handgun permit. At least, the man who shot my father was not.

NOTES
1. While the statute requires gun owners to notify the sheriff before bringing their weapons into a state courthouse, it does not require the sheriff's permission to do so.

KARI HAINEY is an associate at Halleland Lewis Nilan Sipkins & Johnson, P.A., and practices in the areas of labor and employment law and intellectual property litigation. Her father, Lawrence E. Jahnke, still presides as a North Dakota district court judge.