According to a study by The National Law Journal, an increasing number of states are… According to a study by The National Law Journal, an increasing number of states are allowing judges to bring their own guns into the courtroom.

Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas are just three of several states that passed this legislation following instances of violence in the courtroom.

The idea of the legislation is to allow judges to “take responsibility for [their] own safety,” according to Cynthia Stevens Kent, a Texas judge in the 114th District Court.

While advocates of the legislation will argue that judges have a personal responsibility to defend themselves, “courtroom security guard” should not be part of a judge’s job description.

First of all, there are already bailiffs in the courtroom who are trained to maintain security and to use firearms. And if the problem is a lack of security in the courtroom, then we should hire more bailiffs and increase security funding, not put guns in the hands of court officials.

It is unclear whether these judges even receive official training on how and when exactly to utilize a firearm. Just because judges are trusted to interpret the law does not mean that they are equipped with the best judgment of when to shoot. If an angry suspect threatens a judge with a weapon, what is to stop the judge from firing back?

There have already been reports of judges abusing their right to have guns in court. Just this month, a Florida judge was ordered to accept mentoring after warning a defense attorney that he was “locked and loaded.”

Furthermore, allowing judges to bring concealed firearms into the courtroom defeats the purpose of the position they hold. The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to enforce it. By allowing members of the court to open fire in a courtroom, we are merging the roles of judges and police officers – a distinction that was created for a reason. Just as police officers cannot issue themselves warrants, judges cannot expect to take on the function of officers.

It is also unclear how effective this legislation would even be. If a person in the courtroom attempts some sort of violent action against a judge, the judge would be firing back at a crowd, not a lone target. It is not logistically safe and could create chaos in the courtroom.

If the safety of the judge is the main priority, it would be a much more effective strategy to encourage judges to wear bulletproof vests.

Several states have even allowed other members of the courtroom to carry guns, including district attorneys and other designated officials. What’s next – the jury? Witnesses?

By putting more and more guns in the courtroom, we are just increasing the likelihood of violence, not adding to safety.

The administration of courtroom security should remain in the hands of the officials that are trained to protect the court. By allowing multiple members of the courtroom to possess firearms, we are only feeding into the problem, not fixing it.