The three 14th District chancery judges have filed an appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court, asking the high court to reconsider a June 7 ruling that overturned the judges’ order to ban guns in courthouses while court is in session.
Chancery Judge Jim Davidson confirmed Friday that he, along with fellow District 14 judges Dorothy Colom and Kenneth Burns, filed the appeal on Wednesday.
“Under Rule 40 of the appellate procedure, we have to file a motion for a rehearing within 14 days of the ruling, which was (Wednesday),” Davidson said. “The rules say we can’t rehash the arguments, but we can bring up points we feel the Supreme Court missed, didn’t understand or was mistaken about. We have about 10 points we feel weren’t discussed or weren’t discussed enough. That’s what we are basing the appeal on.”
The issue emerged in June 2016 when Colom, with the concurrence of Davidson and Burns, issued an order stating that no firearms could be carried within 200 yards of a courtroom when court was in session, effectively banning guns from courthouse premises.
Rick Ward, a gun instructor from Jackson, challenged the ruling in chancery court, which ruled against him. Ward then appealed to the state Supreme Court in Ward v. Colom.
The debate focused on two issues: whether the judges’ ban on guns can extend to the entire courthouse rather than to the courtrooms, as it was prescribed when the Legislature passed it concealed carry law in 2011 (Mississippi Code Section 97-37-7); and which branch of government has the authority to set those rules.
In its June 20 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the judges’ extension of the ban beyond the courtroom was overly broad and it violated the state constitution by infringing on the Legislature’s right to determine where guns are lawfully permitted.
However, in a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Associate Justice Leslie King argued that Section 97-37-7 limited the judicial branch in the performance of its judicial function.
“Under the Mississippi Constitution, the administration of justice is solely a judicial function and obligation. That function and that obligation both extend beyond the four walls of the courtroom,” King wrote.
Davidson said he and his fellow chancery judges believe the Supreme Court’s ruling violates the constitution’s separation of powers mandate.
“When the Legislature passes a law that spills over and affects our ability to do what we are mandated to do, it violates the separation of powers,” Davidson said. “Our job is to dispense justice and ensure a safe and secure environment. Any law that affects our ability to do that is a violation. When the Legislature is allowed to do this, it makes the judiciary nothing more than an administrative body, like the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries or some other department.”
Davidson said the appeal also raises “an important legal” question concerning the language in Section 97-37-7.
“The original law was passed in 2011, but it has been amended several times since then,” Davidson said. “In the most recent amended version, the language refers to the judiciary’s authority where guns are allowed as the courthouse not the courtroom. So we feel that, based on the most current version of the law, we are within our rights to ban guns in the courthouse.”
Harrison County Sheriff Troy Peterson filed an amicus brief in support of the judges’ appeal Friday, but Lowndes County Sheriff Mike Arledge said he is steering clear of the debate.
“We’re going to do whatever the law tells us to do,” Arledge said Friday.
Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.