Sarasota sheriff's petition to allow CCWs into court facilities (statewide)

[Unregistered]

Background:

• Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight, a former FHP major, abruptly withdrew all deputies from Sarasota's Clerk of Court building, stating that CCW permit holders may legally carry guns into all court facilities that don't have courtrooms or judges chambers in them.
• The chief judge of the 12th judicial circuit ordered Knight to reinstate deputies into courthouse facilities.
• Sheriff Tom Knight refused to obey the judge.
• In lieu of arresting Knight, the judge sent the issue to the appeals court for a pending statewide decision.

Follow-up article:

Author: Lee Williams

Snip: Chief Judge Charles Williams asked Florida's Second District Court of Appeal to rule on whether Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight is legally required to reinstate deputies at security checkpoints in the Sarasota Clerk of Court building, along with other checkpoints in other judicial facilities that do not have courtrooms in them.

Knight responded by asking the appeals court to quash the judge's orders.

The case centers around:

• What legally constitutes a courthouse and court facilities.
• The exemptions section (4) in Florida law 790.33
• The Sarasota sheriff’s legal obligation in screening for guns in court facilities

The impact of the pending appeals court decision will affect courts and sheriffs statewide.

LINKS:

Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight's explanation for refusing to obey the judge's orders:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ertiorari.html

Chief judges response to Knight's contempt of court:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Petition.html

Full story:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...apons-petition

[Unregistered]

Hey Jack wagon,

You conveniently left out that:
Florida Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, started all this whe he "tried to enter the “Sarasota Historic Courthouse” on Main Street with a concealed weapon." And "later complained to Knight in an email an hour after the encounter."

What dumb azz goes into a court house with a gun, with or without a ccw. Guns don't belong in courthouse.

[Unregistered]

The Sheriff is correct. Under FS 790.06(12)(b)4. and 5., the only place related to a courthouse where a permit holder cannot carry a gun is in a courthouse or courtroom. Here is the exact wording of the law:
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;

A "Clerk of Court" building is neither a courthouse nor a courtroom. If the "Sarasota Historic Courthouse" is not a functioning courthouse (and everything I've read says it is not), then there is no legal prohibition based on the law's courthouse/courtroom language. That would be similar to calling the historic capitol building in Tallahassee a capitol for legal purposes. Someone in government inventing a new legal prohibition outside what the legislature has established would violate 790.33.

790.33 deals with people in government circumventing the firearm law. The Sheriff is again correct in that his employees could be liable for prohibiting lawful possession where there is no statutory basis to do so.

Here's 790.06:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0790.06.html

[Unregistered]

The Sheriff is correct. Under FS 790.06(12)(b)4. and 5., the only place related to a courthouse where a permit holder cannot carry a gun is in a courthouse or courtroom. Here is the exact wording of the law:
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;

A "Clerk of Court" building is neither a courthouse nor a courtroom. If the "Sarasota Historic Courthouse" is not a functioning courthouse (and everything I've read says it is not), then there is no legal prohibition based on the law's courthouse/courtroom language. That would be similar to calling the historic capitol building in Tallahassee a capitol for legal purposes. Someone in government inventing a new legal prohibition outside what the legislature has established would violate 790.33.

790.33 deals with people in government circumventing the firearm law. The Sheriff is again correct in that his employees could be liable for prohibiting lawful possession where there is no statutory basis to do so.

Here's 790.06:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0790.06.html

The EXCEPTION in 790.33 gives the judge the authority to:
- define the scope or perimeter of courthouse facilities and
- prohibit CCW firearms from entering all courthouse facilities.

You can read it by clicking here and then scrolling down to: "(4)(d) EXCEPTIONS"

A court or judge can hear and resolve any case or controversy or issue an order on a matter within the jurisdiction of that court or judge.

The chief judge has full jurisdiction of the entire 12th Judicial Circuit in southwest Florida (covering multiple counties). The current Sarasota sheriff (Tom Knight) is lucky the judge decided not to arrest him and put him in the Sarasota jail for "contempt of court." Instead of arresting Knight, the judge was gracious enough to send the case up to the appeals court for evaluation. The next step is for the appeals court to rule against Knight. It will happen.

It's interesting that Tom Knight "stood up" to Venice police officers and was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct while at a Venice bar. He made a poor decision then -- and he's making a poor decision now by "standing up" to the chief judge. Ah and lest we forget, his brother (Chris Knight) was kicked out of FHP for falsification of official documents (amongst other things) and was then arrested for domestic battery. Those Knight brothers are quite a pair!

[Unregistered]

The Sheriff is correct. Under FS 790.06(12)(b)4. and 5., the only place related to a courthouse where a permit holder cannot carry a gun is in a courthouse or courtroom. Here is the exact wording of the law:
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;

A "Clerk of Court" building is neither a courthouse nor a courtroom. If the "Sarasota Historic Courthouse" is not a functioning courthouse (and everything I've read says it is not), then there is no legal prohibition based on the law's courthouse/courtroom language. That would be similar to calling the historic capitol building in Tallahassee a capitol for legal purposes. Someone in government inventing a new legal prohibition outside what the legislature has established would violate 790.33.

790.33 deals with people in government circumventing the firearm law. The Sheriff is again correct in that his employees could be liable for prohibiting lawful possession where there is no statutory basis to do so.

Here's 790.06:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0790.06.html

Wrong.

The chief judge can legally prohibit guns from entering court facilities where judicial operations are occurring. Florida statute 790.33 allows this (look at section 4 under EXCEPTIONS). In this instance, the chief judge determined that the scope of courthouse operations includes prohibiting guns from entering:
(a) courtrooms
(b) court facilities where judicial operations are occurring e.g. in the Sarasota Clerk of Court building, etc.

[Unregistered]

Florida Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, started all this whe he "tried to enter the “Sarasota Historic Courthouse” on Main Street with a concealed weapon." And "later complained to Knight in an email an hour after the encounter."

What dumb azz goes into a court house with a gun, with or without a ccw. Guns don't belong in courthouse.

This concern's a freshman senator's individual opinion of a law, which he proposes to the Florida legislature, but the proposal does not make it through the committee... hence, the proposal to allow guns into court facilities will not be voted on by either senate or house. And .... at what point does Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight start feeling sheepish that he over-reacted to a freshman senator or was strutting his proposal?

Florida has disallowed CCW guns into court facilities for many decades. And now Sheriff Tom Knight "suddenly discovers" that Florida has been doing it all wrong all along? That's asinine.

[Unregistered]

Wrong.

The chief judge can legally prohibit guns from entering court facilities where judicial operations are occurring. Florida statute 790.33 allows this (look at section 4 under EXCEPTIONS). In this instance, the chief judge determined that the scope of courthouse operations includes prohibiting guns from entering:
(a) courtrooms
(b) court facilities where judicial operations are occurring e.g. in the Sarasota Clerk of Court building, etc.

Thanks for the opinion and the added non-statutory language of "facilities where judicial operations are occurring". The issue does not involve courthouses or courtrooms. From what has been reported, there are still deputies on duty there. The issue involves the building where the clerk of court is located:

Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight, a former FHP major, abruptly withdrew all deputies from Sarasota's Clerk of Court building, stating that CCW permit holders may legally carry guns into all court facilities that don't have courtrooms or judges chambers in them.

As with many laws, you cannot look at just one since they are interrelated. Here is what the actual law says in subsection (4)(d) of FS 790.33, you are referencing (4)(d):
(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not prohibit:
(d) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of that court or judge;

Under this, a court can hear and resolve any case or controversy, issue an opinion or order so long as it is within the jurisdiction of that court or judge. The controversy here involves permit holders under 790.06 (this is the second law that must be considered here) in a building other than a courthouse or courtroom. The applicable law is as stated above in the prior post. A judge has jurisdiction to determine lawful gun possession in "Any courthouse" (790.06(12)(b)4.) or "Any courtroom..." (790.06(12)(b)5.) I'll note that neither "courthouse" nor "courtroom" are defined in Chapter 790. The only statute in 790 where they appear is 790.06. Absent a legal definition, a courthouse is a building where there is a courtroom. One of the news stories said the Sheriff complained about the court "overreaching". After reading the laws and news stories, I agree.
To get a better understanding of the Sarasota situation, we have to learn if there are indeed two separate buildings in question or just one. Does the clerk of court have their office in the courthouse, or are they in a different building? I've never been there, so I Google mapped it. According to published information, the courthouse itself is located on the NW corner of Ringling and Washington with an address of 2002 Ringling Bv., while the clerk of court building is on the other side of Washington at the SE corner of Main & Washington. The clerk's address is 2000 Main Street. They are in fact two separate buildings.

The judge lacks jurisdiction for other buildings or areas. The phrase "court facilities where judicial operations are occurring" is legal fiction. It neither appears in the statute nor can it be reasonably inferred.

Link to statute:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0790.33.html

One other thing- I looked him up, and on top of his legislative experience, Sen. Steube has a law degree and lists his profession as attorney. He's apparently a well-educated man that has a greater knowledge of the law than many people, so it's not like he is some uneducated backwoods gun nut.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for the opinion and the added non-statutory language of "facilities where judicial operations are occurring". The issue does not involve courthouses or courtrooms. From what has been reported, there are still deputies on duty there. The issue involves the building where the clerk of court is located:


As with many laws, you cannot look at just one since they are interrelated. Here is what the actual law says in subsection (4)(d) of FS 790.33, you are referencing (4)(d):
(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not prohibit:
(d) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of that court or judge;

Under this, a court can hear and resolve any case or controversy, issue an opinion or order so long as it is within the jurisdiction of that court or judge. The controversy here involves permit holders under 790.06 (this is the second law that must be considered here) in a building other than a courthouse or courtroom. The applicable law is as stated above in the prior post. A judge has jurisdiction to determine lawful gun possession in "Any courthouse" (790.06(12)(b)4.) or "Any courtroom..." (790.06(12)(b)5.) I'll note that neither "courthouse" nor "courtroom" are defined in Chapter 790. The only statute in 790 where they appear is 790.06. Absent a legal definition, a courthouse is a building where there is a courtroom. One of the news stories said the Sheriff complained about the court "overreaching". After reading the laws and news stories, I agree.
To get a better understanding of the Sarasota situation, we have to learn if there are indeed two separate buildings in question or just one. Does the clerk of court have their office in the courthouse, or are they in a different building? I've never been there, so I Google mapped it. According to published information, the courthouse itself is located on the NW corner of Ringling and Washington with an address of 2002 Ringling Bv., while the clerk of court building is on the other side of Washington at the SE corner of Main & Washington. The clerk's address is 2000 Main Street. They are in fact two separate buildings.

The judge lacks jurisdiction for other buildings or areas. The phrase "court facilities where judicial operations are occurring" is legal fiction. It neither appears in the statute nor can it be reasonably inferred.

Link to statute:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0790.33.html

One other thing- I looked him up, and on top of his legislative experience, Sen. Steube has a law degree and lists his profession as attorney. He's apparently a well-educated man that has a greater knowledge of the law than many people, so it's not like he is some uneducated backwoods gun nut.

Knight and Steube's idea of allowing citizens to bring weapons into court buildings is stupid. It's actually REALLY stupid. Seriously. Knight and Steube lost all credibility on this issue. The appeals court will rule against Knight and Steube and you. Bring on the appeals court ruling!!!! The sooner, the better. LOL OMG

[Unregistered]

One other thing- I looked him up, and on top of his legislative experience, Sen. Steube has a law degree and lists his profession as attorney. He's apparently a well-educated man that has a greater knowledge of the law than many people, so it's not like he is some backwoods gun nut.

Steube may want to get a refund from whatever law school he graduated from. Knight and Steube's idea of allowing citizens to bring weapons into court buildings is stupid. It's actually REALLY stupid. Seriously. Knight and Steube lost all credibility on this issue. The appeals court will rule against Knight and Steube and you. Bring on the appeals court ruling!!!! The sooner, the better. LOL OMG

[Unregistered]

Steube may want to get a refund from whatever law school he graduated from. Knight and Steube's idea of allowing citizens to bring weapons into court buildings is stupid. It's actually REALLY stupid. Seriously. Knight and Steube lost all credibility on this issue. The appeals court will rule against Knight and Steube and you. Bring on the appeals court ruling!!!! The sooner, the better. LOL OMG

It would likewise be great if the taxpayers could get a refund on the taxes they wasted on your public education, at least as far as reading comprehension goes.

First, it's not the Sheriff's idea, it is a state law with roots in our constitution.

Second, guns in a court building are still not the issue. Guns in a separate clerk of court building are the issue. Can a judge require a gun ban at the tax collector's office in a different building if court fines are paid there? The answer is no because it is not a courthouse or courtroom. The judge's jurisdiction here is limited by the statute in 790.06.

Is it really stupid to be able to lawfully possess a firearm just because it is a government building? Look up how many criminal incidents take place via permitted gun carry. They are few and far between. Nearly every criminal use of a gun involves someone illegally possessing the gun.

The appeals court may incorrectly rule against Sheriff Knight, however Sen. Steube and I are not part of the suit. Losing credibility with the uneducated is not a great loss IMO.