Posts Tagged ‘Georgia’

« Older Entries

Bills to allow more guns into courthouses advance in six states

March 18th, 2013

A litany of legislation has been introduced in the 2013 to allow more people to carry firearms into U.S. state courthouses. Today I’ll be looking at the bills that have moved or are moving in this regard.

Arizona

Current law in Arizona leaves the question of carrying of weapons to the presiding judge of the particular court, with some exceptions. One in particular is that a peace officer or retired peace officer may only carry if a) they have the presiding judge’s permission or b) they are in the court to provide court security or respond to an emergency (A.R.S. § 38-1102)

HB 2516 Effectively removes the presiding judge’s authority in this area and specifically allows peace officers acting in an official capacity and carrying official peace officer identification to carry firearms in court. A floor amendment added a proviso: a presiding judge may establish rules or policies consistent with the new law enforcement carry authorization provision “for the protection of the court”.

The bill as amended was approved by the full House on February 28 and the Senate Judiciary Committee March 11.

Georgia

I mentioned a few weeks ago the situation in Georgia; by law, firearms are not generally permitted inside the state’s courthouses and there is a specific crime of carrying in a courthouse (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b)(2)), but there are 16 categorical exceptions for people like law enforcement, certain judges, certain retired judges, prosecutors, etc.

HB 512 would effectively allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry into a courthouse UNLESS the court provided security screening at the doorway. Specifically, it provides

A license holder shall be authorized to carry a weapon in a government building or courthouse where ingress into such building or courthouse is not restricted or screened by security personnel during the hours the government building or courthouse is open for business. A person who is not a license holder and who attempts to enter a government building or courthouse with a weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who enters or attempts to enter a government building or courthouse where ingress is restricted or screened by security personnel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided, however, that a person who exits such building or courthouse or leaves such location upon his or her observation that such building or courthouse has security personnel restricting or screening ingress into such building or courthouse shall not be guilty of violating this subsection

HB 512 was met with surprise by judges, who have now come out in opposition. Despite the protest by judges, the bill was approved by the full House on March 7.

In addition to HB 512, HB 60 amends an existing categorical exemption and would allow all retired state and federal judges to carry. It was approved by the full House February 13.

Kansas

Like Georgia, Kansas provides a general prohibition and a specific crime of carrying of firearms into courthouses, with specific exception for certain judges and some others (K.S.A. § 21-6309 & 75-7c10).

HB 2055, echoing Georgia’s language, would effectively allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to enter a courthouse unless the court provides “adequate security” defined as screening at the front door.

“Adequate security measures” means the use of electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or municipal building, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of the public.

An amendment to re-establish the ban on courthouse carrying failed 60-61 on the House floor.

North Dakota

Existing law makes it a crime to carry a weapon into ”publicly owned or operated buildings”, including courthouses, with several exceptions for certain judges, law enforcement, etc. (North Dakota Code 62.1-02-05)

Like the other bills, HB 1366 would effectively allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to enter a courthouse.

Unlike the Georgia and Kansas bills, there is no exception for instances where the court provides screening at the door. Also unlike the other bills, this one would appear to allow out-of-state residents to carry in to North Dakota courthouses.

This section [prohibiting carrying into "publicly owned or operated buildings"] does not apply to…An individual possessing a valid concealed weapons license from this state or who has reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1 authorizing the individual to carry a firearm concealed…

HB 1366 was approved by the full House February 27 and has a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee March 19.

Another North Dakota bill (SB 2145) would allow all municipal court judges in the state to carry firearms into their courthouses (currently, only municipal court judges who are licensed attorneys may do so). SB 2145 was approved by the full Senate on January 23 and is set for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on March 20.

Oklahoma

Existing law (21 Okl. St. § 1277) provides a general ban on carrying firearms into a “structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public” such as a courthouse.  There are categorical exemptions for judges, law enforcement, etc.

HB 1723 as introduced expands the list of judges who may carry into a courthouse to include municipal court judges. As amended however, the bill goes farther, allowing peace officers on active duty to carry their weapons anywhere in the state and making other changes to where and when off-duty peace officers may carry. The bill, as amended, was approved by the full House March 14.

Wyoming

State law (Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-104) provides a concealed carry permit does not allow a person to carry into “any courtroom, except that nothing in this section shall preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in the courtroom”. There is no specific penalty for violation of this provision. In 2012, a local judge issued an administrative order banning all weapons from the courthouse, not just his courtroom.

HB 216, was introduced to make it a felony to carry a firearm into a courtroom, provides a presiding judge may carry a weapon into courtroom and waive the prohibition on carrying in the courtroom. The bill, however, makes no mention of carrying into a courthouse and proponents are  clear they intended the bill to continue to allow for courthouse carrying.

 

No comments »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Should current and former Georgia legislators be allowed to carry weapons into courthouses? Retired judges? Concealed carry permit holders?

February 28th, 2013

Georgia, like most states, have a general prohibition on the carrying of a weapon into a courthouse.  Unlike many states, however Georgia makes it a specific crime. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b)(2) Provides “A person shall be guilty of carrying a weapon or long gun in an unauthorized location and punished as for a misdemeanor when he or she carries a weapon or long gun while…In a courthouse”. “Courthouse” is defined as “a building occupied by judicial courts and containing rooms in which judicial proceedings are held.”

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b)(2) is, however, subject to a list of 16 categories of exemptions (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-130) including state and federal judges (including some retired judges), peace officers, members of the military, defense contractors, prosecutors, coroners, etc.

Three separate bills would, however, expand the list of people who could carry.

HB 60 amends an existing categorical exemption and would allow all retired state and federal judges to carry

State, local, and federal  judges, full-time and permanent part-time judges of municipal and city courts, and such former  judges retired from their respective offices.

It was approved by the full House 2/13/13.

HB 394 adds a 17th categorical exemption to O.C.G.A. § 16-11-130: current and former members of the General Assembly who possess a valid weapons carry license. Interestingly, while the current and former legislators would be allow to carry in the courthouses of the state, they could not carry in their chamber (“provided, however, that no member of the General Assembly shall be authorized to carry a weapon within the chamber of the House of Representatives or the chamber of the Senate.”)

HB 394 is currently pending in the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.

SB 188 would expand the areas a weapons carry license holder could carry. The effect would be to limit the prohibition on carrying of firearms to particular courtrooms, unless the court or local government provides a security checkpoint at the courthouse door.

The prohibitions contained in Code Section 16-11-127 shall not apply to license holders as defined in Code Section 16-11-125.1; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection shall authorize a license holder to carry a weapon or long gun in a jail, prison, courtroom, or beyond the security checkpoint of a courthouse

SB 188 is in the Senate Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

February 27th, 2013

I’ve had several readers ask for a synopsis of what is gong on in states to enact, modify, or end merit selection in 2013. This post is intended to respond to those queries. The latest information can always be found at the Gavel to Gavel database located here.

Details below the fold.

» Read more: Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

No comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags:

Over a dozen efforts to alter number of state supreme court justices, almost all related to “packing” the courts, in last several years

February 5th, 2013

With the activity in NC today, and similar efforts underway in SC, I thought I’d review the efforts over the last several years to alter the structure of state supreme courts, as well as how they fared.

2007/2008

Florida: a state senator introduced SB 408 in 2007 to expand the state’s Supreme Court from 7 to 15 members. The bill’s text explicitly stated the reason for the increase was to overturn the Court’s decision in 2006 that found unconstitutional the state’s use of public money for vouchers for use in Catholic schools. When the bill became public, the senator quickly withdrew it, telling the Tallahassee Democrat “Basically, a law student came up with the idea and asked me to have it drafted so he could see how it would look, but it was never supposed to be introduced.” The senator declined to identify the law student.

Georgia: media reported legislation was considered to increase from 7 to 9 the number of seats on that state’s high court. Then-Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears urged lawmakers not to alter the court, telling them “We are doing well. We are getting it done. We have the manpower we need.” Nevertheless, SR 370 was introduced, providing that there would be a justice elected from each congressional district, effectively increasing the court from 7 to 13.

Michigan: an effort to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. The Reform Michigan Government Now proposal was ostensibly to help ease the state’s budget crises by reducing the size of the state’s legislature, Supreme Court, and Court of Appeals. However, a PowerPoint presentation left on the website of a local union explained the purpose of removing 2 of the then 7 serving Supreme Court justices was to ensure Democrat-friendly redistricting rulings after the 2010 U.S. Census (the 2 justices to be removed were Republicans). The initiative was eventually killed when the state’s Supreme Court held that the initiative failed to meet certain constitutional criteria for initiatives.

South Carolina: Amendment to the state’s constitution (SB 34) to expand their Supreme Court from 5 to 7 members elected by congressional district. Another version (SB 23) simply expanded the court from 5 to 7 without mention of congressional districts.

2009/2010

Alabama: SB 507 would have reduced their Supreme Court from 9 to 7 via attrition.

Indiana:  HJR 9 would have set the number of justices at 5 (currently can be from 5 to 9), but eliminated the state’s merit selection system and replaced it with direct elections.

Iowa: After all 7 justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the state, HJR 2012 would have expanded the court to 9.

Georgia: SB 429 tied more money for the courts with an expanded Supreme Court. The bill would have added a $100 judicial operations fund fee to all civil actions with the proceeds to be deposited into the general fund of the state treasury for funding salaries of judges and the operational needs of the judicial system. The increase in funding was conditional on an increase in the Supreme Court from 7 to 9 justices and the court of appeals from 12 to 15.

Nevada: SJR 9 would have permitted, but not required, the state legislature create an intermediate appellate court consisting of 3 or more judges and sets the number at least initially at 3. If the constitutional amendment was approved and if the legislature did create an intermediate appellate court, the state’s Supreme Court would be reduced from 7 to 5 justices. The proposal was sent to the voters in 2010 and failed.

South Carolina:  2007/2008 bills to expand the state’s Supreme Court from 5 to 7 were reintroduced in 2009 as SB 63 (congressional districts) and SB 55.

2011/2012

Arizona SB 1481: expand state’s Supreme Court from 5 to 7 justices. Effort failed when the state’s chief justice personally testified the expansion was not needed, that the Supreme Court was fully functioning, and was not behind in its caseload. The main sponsor countered that “I just thought that I might give the opportunity for two additional attorneys to sit on the supreme court.”

Florida HJR 7111 (as introduced): Split the state’s 7 member supreme court into two, separate 5 member civil and criminal Supreme Courts; transfer Democratically appointed justices to criminal court.

Montana:  HB 245 would have reduced the size of the state’s supreme court from 7 to 5. The sponsor was abundantly clear of his reasoning for the reduction:

All of us want tort reform, well maybe not all of us.  I surely want it and a lot of folks I talk to want it. So how do we get tort reform? I would suggest that if we took the Supreme Court from 7 down to 5, they have a higher workload, guess who becomes our ally in tort reform? The Supreme Court.

2013/2014

North Carolina: No bill number (amendment to SB 10) would have expanded the state’s supreme court from 7 to 9 members.

South Carolina: HB 3090 would expand Supreme Court from 5 to 7 members.

No comments »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags:

Georgia bill would create a merit-selection style panel for interim vacancies; gives 18 of 23 seats to minority bar associations

January 11th, 2013

Yesterday I noted that the Virginia Senate is considering changing, but not eliminating, the power of that state’s governor with respect to some interim appointments. Georgia’s HB 30 of 2013 would take it one step further and set up a merit-selection style commission for interim appellate vacancies, but one unlike any other in the nation. (News coverage here).

Currently law allows the governor to name an interim judge to fill a vacancy (O.C.G.A. § 45-12-50), provided that the individual did not contribute to the Governor’s campaign (O.C.G.A. § 45-12-61).

Under HB 30 vacancies on the state’s appellate courts and main trial courts (State and Superior) would still be filled by the Governor, but from a list generated by a Judicial Nominating Commission made up of 23 members, 18 of whom represent minority bar associations.

5 named by the Governor

3 by the president of the Gate City Bar Association

3 by the president of the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys

3 by the president of the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association

3 by the president of the Georgia Hispanic Bar Association

3 by the president of the Stonewall Bar Association

3 by the president of the Georgia Alliance of African American Attorneys

There is no apparently minimum or maximum to the number of names the Commission could submit to the Governor; although the statute recommends at least three names it does not require it. Moreover, the names would be submitted alphabetically and not in rank order.

The bill has been prefiled in the House.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Legislatures looking to take away or get involved in supreme courts’ power over bar admission & practice

January 3rd, 2013

There’s been a particular uptick in the number of bills and resolutions through which legislatures are attempting to influence of takeover outright who is admitted to practice law in the state. Some, such as the one adopted in California in 2012, merely urge or suggest. Others, such as the two prefiled in New York and South Carolina, change the rules or take the power of the Supreme Court to set them. While few such bills are proceeding out of committee, the increased activity is notable.

2013

New York SB 808 Requires judiciary accept into bar anyone who has graduated from an accredited law school, been admitted to the bar of another state, and has completed 1 year of externship under the direction of a NYS attorney. Prefiled in Senate Judiciary Committee.

South Carolina SB 152 Provides Supreme Court may make rules regarding South Carolina Bar subject to statute. Provides constitutional provision giving Supreme Court power to regulate practice of law is subject to statute. Provides any rule requiring attorney be a member of the South Carolina Bar is superseded and of no force and effect. Prefiled in Senate Judiciary Committee.

2012

California ACR 167 Declares an applicant’s immigration status should not be the determining factor in deciding whether to approve a license to practice law, would commend Sergio C. Garcia for his hard work and success, and would also commend the State Bar of California for its efforts to admit Sergio C. Garcia to the State Bar of California. Approved by Assembly & Senate (Governor’s signature not required).

Florida HB 4055 Repeals provisions prohibiting practice of law by retired justices of state Supreme Court. Approved by full House. Died in Senate.

New Hampshire HB 1474 Prohibits requiring membership in any bar association or other professional organization as a condition for practicing law or for appointment to certain positions. Referred to interim study by full Senate 5/16/12.

New York AB 10669 Requires judiciary accept into bar anyone who has graduated from an accredited law school, been admitted to the bar of another state, and has completed 1 year of externship under the direction of a NYS attorney. Died in committee.

2011

Florida HB 7113 Repeals provisions prohibiting practice of law by retired justices of state Supreme Court. Approved by full House. Died in Senate.

Florida SB 2212 Specifically authorizes Brian Pitts to practice law in the state. Died in committee.

New York AB 2013 Allows graduates of law schools who have achieved a juris doctorate from a law school accredited by a national accrediting agency and who have passed the bar exam and been admitted to practice in another state, to sit for the bar exam in New York State. Died in committee.

Washington HB 1664 / HJR 4216 Transfers all mandatory, regulatory, licensing, and disciplinary functions of the state bar association to the state supreme court. Died in committee.

2010

Florida SB 2696 Grants legislature power over admission and practice of law. Died in committee.

Florida SB 58 Specifically authorizes Brian Pitts to practice law in the state.

New Hampshire HB 1564 Establishes the authority and procedure for the regulation of attorneys by the Supreme Court. Removes the requirement in the election or appointment of the county attorneys that the person be a member of the state bar. Rejected by full House 3/11/10.

New York AB 11339 / SB 7792 Allows graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools admitted to the bar of another state to sit for NY bar exam. Died in committee(s).

2009

Georgia HR 72 Urges the Supreme Court of Georgia to disbar or disallow admission to the bar any attorney who is convicted of altering or backdating a legal document. Died in committee.

South Carolina SB 448 (Constitutional Amendment) Removes Supreme Courts power over the admission to the practice of law and discipline of attorneys. Transfers power to such body as may be created by the General Assembly. Died in committee.

Washington HB 2216 / SB 6025 Transfers all mandatory, regulatory, licensing, and disciplinary functions of the Washington state bar association to the state supreme court. Died in committee(s).

 

1 comment »

Posted in Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Georgia Legislative Year in Review: training and qualifications for judges & clerks of court; intimidating judges & others involved in judicial proceedings

November 30th, 2012

New laws affecting the courts enacted by the Georgia legislature in 2012 include the following:

HB 351 Changes portion of fees/fines paid to the Judges of the Probate Courts Retirement Fund.

HB 534 Modifies qualifications for probate clerks in various counties and the service of probate clerks as judges of probate.

HB 541 Includes in crime of obstruction of public administration threatening or intimidating a law enforcement officer, public official, or other person relating to such persons involvement in a judicial proceeding.

HB 665 Restructures the offices of the Clerks of Superior Court.  Alters provisions with respect to appointment and succession to office of clerk. Changes provisions related to storage of paper and electronic documents. Increases bond amount at appointment to $1 million.

HB 997 Provides for the new crime of false lien statements against public officers, including all judges, or public employees, including every person employed by the judicial branch.

HB 1176 Requires judicial council adopt establish mandatory policies (rather than standards) and practices for mental health, drug court,  divisions. Requires council certify mental health and drug courts. Requires creation of electronic information system(s) to gauge performance of mental health and drug courts.

SB 50 Resorts priorities of distribution of fines, forfeitures, surcharges, additional fees, and costs in cases of partial payments into the court, so as to add certain fees for funding of local victim assistance programs into the list of priorities.

SB 351 Requires all municipal court judges receive same training.

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

October 4th, 2012

Few if any state legislatures are in session, but one of those few is Michigan and that state’s House is set to come back into session November 27 to decide the fate of a bill that would ban the use of international law by the state’s judiciary.

Under Michigan  HB 4769 and SB 701

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.

After initial bad press and rallies where the bills were introduced earlier this year the bills remained in their respective committees. However the House journal indicates a notice for a motion to discharge HB 4769 from the House Committee on Judiciary was filed by the bill’s primary sponsor September 11 and the motion made September 12. The vote on the motion was postponed until November 27, 2012.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

May 29th, 2012

There were only two pieces of activity since the May 14 update:

  • New Hampshire’s Senate approved May 16 on a voice vote its Judiciary Committee’s recommendation to send (HB 1422) to an interim study committee, effectively killing the bill for 2012.
  • In Kansas, that state’s governor signed SB 79 on May 21. News reports are here, prior blog posts detailing provisions (including an attempt to tie it to Citizens United) here and here.

With adjournments already having occurred, and with Missouri set to formal adjourn May 30 (they informally adjourned May 18), only 4 states even have the theoretically potential to advance such legislation in 2012 (barring special sessions):

  • Michigan HB 4769 / SB 701: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • North Carolina HB 640: Legislation carries over from odd-numbered to even-numbered years and the legislature is now back in session as of May 16.
  • Pennsylvania HB 2029: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • South Carolina HB 3490 / SB 444: Adjournment is June 7, however neither bill has advanced out of committee since being introduced in early 2011.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

May 14th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

With most legislatures now out of session, the last month saw little activity on legislation dealing with bans on court use of sharia/international law, but what there was was all in the last week:

May 7: Kansas’ House approves unanimously (120-0)  SB 79 as amended by the House, a statute to ban the use of foreign or international law.

May 8: New Hampshire’s Senate Judiciary Committee recommended referring that state’s version (HB 1422) to an interim summer study.

May 9: Alabama’s Senate voted to indefinitely postpone and effective kill proposed constitutional amendment SB 84.

May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.

May 11: Kansas’ Senate approved SB 79 on a 33-3 vote. Proponents went out of their way during the debate to note the word “sharia” was not included in the bill, however news reports indicate that sharia was the focus of the bill when introduced and was specifically mentioned during debate.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: