Let's see if we CAN get it.Courthouses are dangerous places. If you are not a Lawman you don't get it.
A law man should be armed, especially in a court house. The subject here in this conversation is a Judge.
I think it's safe to assume, perhaps we can agree that the Judge or "a Judge" is probably a good guy without a criminal history, would that be a fair assumption? It's obvious that the Judge controls the room (legally speaking) so for our purposes, it doesn't put the Judge at much legal risk if he elects to go armed, whether or not the law allows for this.
Would we not also be able to agree that each of the lawyers in the room, or all of the lawyers in the room are on a similar plane as the Judge with regards to their clean record, free of criminal history?
Should we not then agree that the lawyers should also go armed if they might choose to do so?
At some point perhaps we should discuss the training or learned ABILITY to be armed in a high stress situation. We should be able to agree that a law man should have the training, mindset and daily practice of navigating these situations, and we should be able to agree that a law man is well versed and well trained with the firearm.
Can we agree that "a Judge" or this particular Judge fits that same description in any way?
What do we know about the training and fighting ability of a Judge or this particular Judge?
As a law man or a former law man, are you carrying a .41 Rimfire Derringer and/or a handgun not attached in some manner of a holster to your person but rather sitting somewhere (hopefully) within arm's reach in an open, unsecured briefcase?
^^this is ludicrous and while it surely does not give us all the details on the hours of fighting and firearms training this Judge or a Judge may have, it paints the picture of a Fudd.
I'm genuinely curious if any random lawyer was given the courtesy of concealed carry by this Judge or a Judge in a court room filled with violent offenders.