Magesterial Courts

[Statkowski]

I recently wrote to a local magistrate judge inquiring about firearms storage facilities at the magisterial court level. This was my letter to the judge :

Dear Judge Xxxx,

18 Pa.C.S. §913a prohibits the carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons into a court facility. Further, §913d requires that notice of §913a be prominently posted at the entrance of such a court facility. Such a posting exists at Magisterial District Court 00-0-00.

18 Pa.C.S. §913e requires that court facilities make available “lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law.”

When I recently asked the kind and gentle ladies staffing your court’s front office as to the existence of such storage facilities to, they reacted as deer caught in headlights. They were unaware of such storage facilities, and were likewise unaware of the requirement for such.

I find it difficult to believe that Section 913 of the Crimes Code applies to the Court (re: subsection “a”), but at the same time Section 913 of the Crimes Code does not apply to the Court (re: subsection “e”).
• If Magisterial District Court 00-0-00 of Xxxxx County meets the definitions of a “court facility” as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §913f, then it would seem to me, a mere layman, that storage facilities for firearms would be required (remember, approximately 0,000 Xxxxx County residents possess licenses to carry concealed firearms).
• If, however, Magisterial District Court 00-0-00 of Xxxxx County does not meet the definitions of a “court facility” as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §913f, then the posted sign is in error and its warning has no lawful authority.

Some enlightenment on the matter would be appreciated at your convenience. A copy of 18 Pa.C.S. §913 is attached.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Most respectfully yours,

Less than a week later I received his response, as follows:

Dear Mr. Statkowski,

You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of Title 18, the Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 913, subsection (A). However, your interpretation of sub-section (E) is incorrect. Sub-section (E) does apply to any Court.

I understand you spoke with my office staff, who were unaware of the requirements under Section 913. The simple reason for this is that in my thirteen years as District Judge of Magisterial District 00-0-00, no lay person has attempted to or brought to Court a firearm or other dangerous weapon, so they would be unaware of sub-section (E). I cannot fathom any reason why any lay person would feel the need to bring a firearm or other dangerous weapon to any court facility located within the Commonwealth, unless it was for a devious purpose.

I think you would agree with me that if this situation would arise, I would not want my office staff to be handling any firearms or other dangerous weapons. This situation would be entirely my responsibility that they would bring to my attention.

You will note that in Section 913, it states "lockers or similar facilities". District Court 00-0-00 does not have lockers, but I can provide similar facilities located within my office for the safe keeping of any firearms or other dangerous weapons a person feels he/she needed to bring to Court.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recognized within the past 2-3 years the security problems throughout the Commonwealth at the District Court level. To their credit they have up-graded District Court Facilities with 24 hour surveillance cameras, partitions between public and office staff, etc.

I can ensure you that if a situation concerning Section 913 arises in District Court 00-0-00, it will be handled properly and professionally by myself. So, the posted sign at the entrance to District Court 00-0-00 is legal and lawful.

I thank you for your concern, Mr. Statkowski, and hope I have enlightened you in this matter and if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Initially, I was confused as to how the learned judge could state that §913(a) applies to people entering court facilities, but §913(e) did not apply to such courts. 18 Pa. C.S. §913 clearly applied to court facilities, and then it struck me – the requirement establishing storage lockers is not placed on the court, but rather on the county government. Consider what §913(e) states: “Each county shall make available … lockers or similar facilities … for the temporary checking of firearms …” Note the county is required to make available, not the court. So, a letter to my county commissioners is now warranted.

I was then somewhat upset by the judge’s use of the term “lay person” to refer to a citizen of Pennsylvania, but I then realized that I had opened that particular door in referring to myself as a “mere layman.” Open mouth, insert foot.

The babbling about not understanding why anyone would “need” to carry a firearm I’ll attribute to the judge’s isolation from reality in this essentially crime-free county, coupled with the fact that nobody has ever carried a firearm to his facility in thirteen years. On the bright side, however, the judge did state that he’d provide any necessary storage if the need ever arose.

All in all, the magistrate judge did respond in a timely manner, essentially answered all my questions, and did not appear hostile to those of us who might choose to exercise their rights.

Comments from anyone on any other magisterial courts?

[Rule10b5]

A few comments:

First, excellent letter. No attacking, no being difficult. Just polite, respectful, and inquiring.

Second, I think he misunderstood your characterization of 913(e). He wasn't unsure about (e) applying -- he thought you were. I think he took your statement "I find it difficult to believe that Section 913 of the Crimes Code applies to the Court (re: subsection “a”), but at the same time Section 913 of the Crimes Code does not apply to the Court (re: subsection “e”)" to mean that you were suggesting that (e) didn't apply (because you were raising the possibility under (f)) that his building/office wasn't a court facility within the meaning of 913. He conflated the two, and that's where I think the misunderstanding came from. Remember, he's a district judge -- when you suggest that he may not be working in a court facility (regardless of how well intentioned you are) you're almost suggesting he's not a "real" judge. Most DJs are really, really sensitive about this.

Third, the reference to lay person wasn't directed at you because you used the term. He used the term because you aren't a lawyer, judge, or cop (I'm a lay person to my doctor when we're talking medicine, and he's a lay person when we're talking law). What he was saying was that he hasn't met anyone who wasn't a cop or lawyer who wanted to carry a gun in court. He's not going to have a problem with the cop (as a matter of pure law) and he's not going to give a damn about a lawyer carrying unless he's an anti-gun nazi. The municipal courts are this way even in Philadelphia (or they were, I haven't been there in forever). Right after I got out of law school about 7 years ago, I made the mistake of going into muni court for some pro bono case and starting to walk through the metal detector. I'm (obviously) in a suit and carrying a briefcase. All of a sudden I hear "WAIT!" and almost get body checked by one of the deputies working the machine. I step back, and give him a puzzled look. He says "You're a lawyer, right?" I say "Yeah, what's up?" -- I'm baffled at this point. He looks at me, laughs, and says "Didn't they tell you?" I say "Tell me what?" He says "Lawyers DON'T go through the metal detectors. Period. They don't." I give him a classic first-year lawyer "WTF?" look and he says "Christ, kid, have you seen the scumbags around here? Don't you know it's dangerous?" I blink, giggle like an idiot, thank him, and head into court.

Fourth, he sounds like a hell of a guy. Any judge who essentially says he doesn't think it's necessary, but still offers to keep your gun in his office for you gets my vote.

[Statkowski]

"First, excellent letter. No attacking, no being difficult. Just polite, respectful, and inquiring. "

Not a problem. I'll probably write him a short thank-you note. I find that being polite, respectful and inquiring gets a lot more than being argumentative. I am an inquisitive fellow, sometimes being inquisitive just for the purpose of inquisitive. In this case, however, the Magesterial Court was in a brand new building and I was curious about firearms storage (not that I plan on visiting the place).

Next step is to inquire about same to the County Commissioners (participated in a dinner with them recently, and they know who I am). Will post their response.