Attorney gets caught with Concealed Carry

B

Blondie

New member
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110406/met_6001917.shtml

Does anyone remember this down in Florida, or what eventually happened? I wonder if they (meaning the state prosecutors) cut the attorney any slack because he was a member of the bar. My reading of the story makes me think that the security guard/cops were all too happy to nab an attorney doing something illegal, being that they have to sit there all day and deal with lawyers.

What do you guys think? My only problem with this is that the lawyer didn't properly have a concealed carry license. However, I beleive judges can have concealed carry in courts (regardless if they have a permit), which then brings up the issue as to why a judge can have a concealed firearm, but an attorney cannot?

Blondie
 
I beleive judges can have concealed carry in courts (regardless if they have a permit), which then brings up the issue as to why a judge can have a concealed firearm, but an attorney cannot?
Click to expand...

You are correct... Judges are allowed to carry in court and do not require a carry permit. Attorneys are still normal citizens and are not allowed to carry in court houses. Besides, the attorney was carrying without a carry permit. The attorney cannot claim ignorance of the law either.

The security officer was DOING THEIR JOB!!! If the attorney went on a shooting rampage, it would have been the security officer's neck on the line. Had the lawyer had a carry permit, it might not have been such a big deal. He broke the law and must face the consequences.
 
Because links go down

Last modified Sat., November 04, 2006 - 01:31 AM
Originally created Saturday, November 4, 2006


Lawyer faces concealed weapon charge


Courthouse security found loaded .9mm in Lake City attorney's briefcase.


By DAVID C.L. BAUER, The Times-Union


A Lake City lawyer faces a felony weapons charge after Baker County authorities said he carried a loaded 9mm handgun into the county courthouse when he arrived for a domestic violence injunction hearing.


The weapon was discovered Wednesday as his briefcase went through an X-ray machine, Sheriff Joey Dobson said Friday.

More crime and public safety coverage
Crime Around You: An occasional series on Jacksonville's homicide rate
"Our security and our machine did their jobs," Dobson said.

Because attorney Foye Buchannon Walker said he did not have a concealed carry permit for the weapon, the Sheriff's Office has asked the State Attorney's Office to pursue a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, which is a third-degree felony.

A person who has a concealed carry permit can still be charged for taking a handgun into a courthouse, but it is typically a misdemeanor permit violation.

Walker entered the courthouse just before 1 p.m. Wednesday.

"I asked him to place the briefcase on the conveyor belt [and] he advised me he was an attorney," Officer Robert Brannan Jr. said in his report. "I ran the briefcase through the X-ray machine and at that time he advised me that he only had legal stuff in the case."

Brannan took possession of the briefcase when he saw the contents.

The handgun, a Ruger P89, had a fully loaded clip, but there was not a bullet in the chamber, authorities said.

Walker "tried to appear it was surprising to him," Dobson said. "He said he had cleared out his desk and forgot to take it out."

Sgt. Charles Ross, who is in charge of courthouse security, said the attorney said he carried the weapon because of threats against him in Columbia County.

Ross said the attorney kept asking authorities to give him a break because he was a lawyer.

"He, more than anyone else, should know better," Dobson said. "This is a serious matter."

Authorities noted in their report there are at least two signs warning people not to carry weapons inside and that they will be arrested if they do so.

No one returned a message left late Friday afternoon on a voice mail at the phone number Walker provided to authorities.

david.bauer@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4182
Click to expand...

NukemJim
 
Judges are allowed to carry in court and do not require a carry permit. Attorneys are still normal citizens and are not allowed to carry in court houses.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the distinction. To lift an example from your post, what if a judge, or for that matter, one of the security guards went on a shooting rampage?

I don't think there is a high risk of judges or guards going on a rampage, but I also do not think there is any higher risk that an attorney (who has gone through many background checks in order to get licensed) would either. Another issue is whether the attorney has properly trained/practiced with the firearm to justify his or her carrying in court, but that same issue arises with the notion that a judge can carry concealed.

Blondie
 
Last edited:
Lawyers do not get 'cut slack' by virtue of being lawyers and indeed are treated more harshly because they are taken by Courts to know the law.

More subjectively I think every cop who has ever lost a case because of the work of a Defence Attorney wants to a lawyer trophy.
 
There ought to be a law against lawyers. They are what is wrong with the world today. They do a pretty good job of protecting us against restaurants that do not print ' CAUTION< THIS COFFEE MAY BE HOT!" or LAWNMOWER Manufacturers that do not put " Caution , this lawnmower will cut your hands or feet if you put them under the mower while the motor is running."

gee thanks.

They are also the reason we pay so much for Health insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance, and the reason there aren't enough doctors around... Because they keep putting them out of business.

Maybe we can find some way of using lawyers for oil or something.. maybe knock a nickel off the cost of a gallon of gas.
 
There ought to be a law against lawyers. They are what is wrong with the world today.
Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but do you realize that lawyers protect your rights and those of gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and shooting ranges?

Further, not all lawyers do personal injury cases, and in fact, it is juries that decide to award millions to a person for doing something dumb like spill coffee on themselves, and certain judges enter judgment on such dumb verdicts. While the system isn't perfect, it is the best in the world.

If lawyers were illegal, then who would bring a case to the Supreme Court to protect your rights to be armed to the teeth?

Blondie
 
well, since handguns are banned there, that might be a problem. I know there are a few good lawyers.. most are crooked as a dogs back leg, i know .. I fix a lot of their airplanes. I have to deal with them on a regular basis. I was just meaning to say about the topic and lawyers, I have no sympathy for them. Most politicians were lawyers.. Look at Hillary, and Obama, I don't know if he is a lawyer... but he studied law.. obviously not enough though.
 
I don't think there is a high risk of judges or guards going on a rampage, but I also do not think there is any higher risk that an attorney (who has gone through many background checks in order to get licensed) would either.
Click to expand...

Lawyers get very in very close physical proximity to criminal defendants (especially the defense lawyers). Judges and security normally keep a distance or barrier.
 
The handgun, a Ruger P89, had a fully loaded clip
Click to expand...

Clips are found in things like M1 Garands; magazines in handguns.

and Obama, I don't know if he is a lawyer... but he studied law.. obviously not enough though.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he studied just enough.

I'm very tempted to bring out the multitudes of lawyer jokes I know... thread veer? But seriously, like the cop said - a lawyer, of all people, should know better. Even Jim Webb knew not to carry - he gave it to his intern lackey.
 
I think of lawyers as the typical necessary evil, kinda like car salesmen. You have to have them around but more than likely wouldn't drink w/ them. I just fundamentally have issue w/ someone who lies for a living and actually gets paid for it. As far as the "that's what's wrong with our country" comment. We gripe about the government and then elect lawyers to go to Washington to represent us. Kind of the old self fulfilling prophecy there isn't it? You get what you pay for.
elkman
 
I just fundamentally have issue w/ someone who lies for a living and actually gets paid for it.
Click to expand...

Actually, the legal profession is the only one I know of in which you are prohibited from lying. The liars are what are called "clients", are usually non-lawyers and lie without any coaching. Every day, lots of people appear before me from every walk of life and profession imaginable and lie to me after I've sworn them in. Have you ever lied I wonder? If you'd like to live without lawyers I hear that the PRC, Cuba, North Korea, and Libya have vacancies. Enjoy your stay. The average IQ of the U.S. would be the better for it.
 
How 'bout a state's attorney, carrying/driving while drunk?

Enough with the lawyer bashing - for heaven's sake, any one of us gets jammed up, who do we call first? And we're damned glad for the help.

But I saw this yesterday, and can't help playing topper! :p

Here's a Maryland State's attorney, a permit holder in non-issue Maryland, arrested for DUI - then the added charge of carrying while drunk. At least Mr. Ruark appears to be standing up to take his lumps.

Wicomico State's Attorney Faces New Charge

Davis R. Ruark mug shot taken after his arrest (Photo: Ocean City Police Department)


Wicomico County State's Attorney Davis Ruark is shown Monday in Annapolis. (Photo: WBOC)

02/26/2008 7:25 AM ET; Updated 11:35 AM ET

OCEAN CITY, Md.- Wicomico State's Attorney Davis R. Ruark is facing a new charge for carrying a loaded gun in his vehicle on the night he was arrested for DUI.

Ocean City police arrested Ruark, 52, on Friday night and charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol. Police say his blood alcohol level was above Maryland's legal limit of .08 but would not specify by how much. Ruark himself confirmed to WBOC on Monday that his BAC was .15, nearly twice the legal level.

Investigators say someone called 911 around 9:40 p.m. and reported a car was driving erratically and speeding on eastbound Route 90. The caller supplied police with a description and tag number of the car.

Police stopped the car just off of 94th Street and Coastal Highway. Police say officers arrested Ruark after he failed several field sobriety tests. Police also said he flunked a breathalyzer test administered to him.

According to police, the vehicle Ruark was driving was registered to the Wicomico County Government.

On Monday, Ocean City Police Chief Bernadette DiPino said that at the time of the traffic stop, Ruark told officers that there was a loaded handgun in the car. At that point officers seized the gun described as a Glock, .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

During the investigation, officers noted the criminal law violation regarding transporting a handgun while intoxicated had been repealed in 2003. Officers contacted Worcester County State's Attorney Joel Todd, to determine if this act was still a violation.

Todd re-contacted police on Monday and advised officers that the violation was now in the Maryland Public Safety Article, Section 5-314. This statute is a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of one year in jail or a maximum $1,000 fine or both. This statue prohibits a permit holder from wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun while the person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The Ocean City Police Department says a criminal summons was issued Tuesday and forwarded to the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office for service. Ruark was expected to be served either sometime later Tuesday or Wednesday.

After learning he would be facing a new charge related to the handgun, Ruark told WBOC on Monday, "There was a handgun in the car. It was there for personal protection. Whether or not there's anything more that comes out of that I do not know."

Meantime, Ruark said he believes his arrest will have meaningful and lasting effects on his office and himself.

"If anything, I'm more pro-prosecution, having had the experience myself because yes, there are many lives out there in danger," he said. "And if anyone recognizes that, it's someone who's been through that process before."

Ruark said he has no plans to resign. Instead he said he plans to take off about 30 to 40 days beginning later this week.

At a press conference held a day after his DUI arrest, Ruark asked for forgiveness from the citizens and said, "I have devoted my entire professional career to enforcing the law and last night I am the one who broke the law."

He said he hopes he can regain almost 21 years of trust from the public. Ruark said that until his case is over, he will not personally prosecute any cases dealing with alcohol, drugs or driving charges. He said instead that other attorneys in his office will handle those.

"I am human," Ruark said. "We are all human and we are subject to make mistakes and when you make a mistake you learn from it and you don't do it again. And this will never happen again."
Click to expand...

http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?s=7914361&ClientType=Printable
 
don't understand the distinction. To lift an example from your post, what if a judge, or for that matter, one of the security guards went on a shooting rampage?

I don't think there is a high risk of judges or guards going on a rampage, but I also do not think there is any higher risk that an attorney (who has gone through many background checks in order to get licensed) would either. Another issue is whether the attorney has properly trained/practiced with the firearm to justify his or her carrying in court, but that same issue arises with the notion that a judge can carry concealed.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the distinction? Do you have any idea why judges and district attorneys don't have to have a concealed weapons license? How about l.e. officers? Why do you suppose that is? You don't see a distinction between lawyers, judges, and district attorneys? Does it not occur to you that judges and district attorneys can carry concealed in court, because their state's legislature decided that they could and stated so through appropriate legislation?

Understand now? :cool:
 
You don't understand the distinction? Do you have any idea why judges and district attorneys don't have to have a concealed weapons license? How about l.e. officers? Why do you suppose that is? You don't see a distinction between lawyers, judges, and district attorneys? Does it not occur to you that judges and district attorneys can carry concealed in court, because their state's legislature decided that they could and stated so through appropriate legislation?
Click to expand...

That circular statement did not explain any distinction between lawyers, judges, and district attorneys. In fact, it further confirmed that there is no distinction in that (as you may be surprised to learn) district attorneys are lawyers and judges are ex lawyers. They all had to pass the same background check.

The statement regarding the state legislature/law begs my question, which is what is the difference? How can society deem certain individuals qualified to have concealed carry and others not when they all pass the same background checks?

Also, wouldn't the fact that there may be additional concealed weapons deter someone from going on a rampage in a courthouse? In other words, if someone is going to go on a rampage, their first target may be their first threat, i.e. all leos present. However, if there are others packing, that would be a great deterent. Actually, this is my whole problem with any "gun free" zone.

Blondie
 
You are correct... Judges are allowed to carry in court and do not require a carry permit. Attorneys are still normal citizens and are not allowed to carry in court houses.
Click to expand...
Somehow --that statement seems to sum up everything that's wrong with the USA.....
I know it wasn't intended to, but it sure seems to.

IMNSHO - things in this country would be a whole lot better if everyone in a courtroom except the judge was armed...
 
To Blondie's point, it's "you" who put nonsensical disclaimers on products and give total clowns outrageous awards - most of those results are consequences of jury trials. Everyone's the jury, right?

That said, there are an awful lot of spoiled degenerates floating around in the profession. And LEOs, and often judges, love to bust their balls. Many of them deserve it, but not all.
 
I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this, but...lawyers are "Officers of the court", and it doesn't matter if they are prosecutors or defense lawyers. In some courts, lawyers are placed as "pro tem" judges, and are commonly called "referees".

My next-door neighbor is now a Superior Court Judge, but when he was a prosecuting attorney, he handled many high profile criminal gang cases. Due to his prosecutorial duties, the director of prosecutors approached the local Chief of Police for a "blanket" approval for CCW permits for all of the prosecuting attorneys. That COP did, in fact, give approval, but also demanded that all prosecutors go through a CCW course. I later found out that all of the Judges who carried had attended CCW courses. On their CCW permits are the words "Officer of the court" imprinted on the face of the permits.

By the way, not ALL attorneys are scumbags! Besides my next-door neighbor, I have 2 relatives (in-law nephews) who are lawyers. All 3 are PRO-gun conservatives! I also know a personal injury ("ambulance chaser") attorney who is a member of the "Christian Cowboys Association", and he is a "regular" at cowboy shooting events.
 
I didnt know lawyers had to pass a "backround check". Ive arrested quite a few in my day for some pretty heinous stuff. Guess what? They are still lawyers. Including the one that drives drunk and on a suspended license on what seems like a daily basis. And,he never goes to jail. Why? Because judges are ex lawyers. Love the judicial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top