|
Post by anotherfed on Oct 14, 2014 19:47:36 GMT -5
Federal courthouses don't let the public carry weapons, pocket knives, camera phones, batteries, etc. More relaxed in other fed buildings, but even employees are restricted on some items.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 14, 2014 20:11:41 GMT -5
Hahahahahahaha. You all are RELENTLESS. And I greatly appreciate it! There is no shame in deciding this isn't the gig for you. I am just trying to make sure everybody has considered all the possible issues they could confront. I won't speak for Gary though. Thank you Gaidin. Unlike you, I think there is no shame in deciding this isn't the gig for you. I am just trying to make sure everybody has considered all the possible issues they could confront.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 14, 2014 20:22:41 GMT -5
Federal courthouses don't let the public carry weapons, pocket knives, camera phones, batteries, etc. More relaxed in other fed buildings, but even employees are restricted on some items. As already noted earlier in this thread, Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years. I don't believe there's a clear exemption for ALJs in 18 U.S.C. 930 to bring their personal weapons to their office, state concealed permit or not. I doubt anyone would be silly enough to put their freedom and career on the line to be a test case. I got a CC permit and I never felt the urge to put my career or freedom on the line out of some random fear of a Navy Yard redux scenario. Is such a scenario possible? Sure, anything is possible, just like little aliens can land on Earth tomorrow morning. But is it likely? Probably as likely as you or I winning the Mega Million. However, if you want to test the law and let us know how you fare in the federal disciplinary/criminal system, please go right ahead. Just don't blame anyone else if you end up suffering the consequences of your own foolishness. Moreover, the hearing office is quite well secured with multiple electronic locks and armed guards. There is no real need to bring your own weapon there other than an acute case of paranoid. As for outside of the office, there are a lot of excellent books out there offering advice on personal security and privacy, and I recommend you do your due diligence if you really care about it. If you want to turn your house into Fort Knox and bunker up on your own time, just remember to follow your local law. Lastly, I have been an ALJ for quite a while now. While I have heard of ALJs receiving threats on an occasional basis, I have never heard of any ALJ actually getting physically harmed by a claimant outside the hearing office as far as I can recall. While I don't want to make light of the newer ALJs' safety concerns, I don't believe our job is anywhere near as dangerous as family law attorneys, prosecutors, and public defenders. (see e.g. Lawyering could be a dangerous job) At the end of the day, do what you believe it's necessary to protect yourself and your family within legal parameters, but don't let irrational fear and paranoid paralyze your life.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Oct 14, 2014 20:27:53 GMT -5
Omg! Gaidin and Gary will be the ones in matching Hawaiian shirts at training...
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 14, 2014 20:33:48 GMT -5
Omg! Gaidin and Gary will be the ones in matching Hawaiian shirts at training... Man I hope so!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 14, 2014 20:36:32 GMT -5
Omg! Gaidin and Gary will be the ones in matching Hawaiian shirts at training... I don't own a Hawaiian shirt, but if it will get me to training I am fully prepared to buy one, coordinated with Gaidin's of course.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 14, 2014 20:37:53 GMT -5
18 USC Sec. 930 applies--unless you're a cop or like type, its illegal, except if its allowed under law. Query if you can pack concealed under State law can you then legally pack in a federal building? Thoughts? No. I believe federal buildings are subject to federal law and exempt from state law, aren't they? I'm sure others, like robg, are much more versed in the nuances than I. I don't believe concealed handgun licenses allow people in their state to carry guns into bars, schools, state courts, etc., either. I wish this were universally true. www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/georgia-gun-law_n_5548804.html
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 14, 2014 20:38:46 GMT -5
Omg! Gaidin and Gary will be the ones in matching Hawaiian shirts at training... I don't own a Hawaiian shirt, but if it will get me to training I am fully prepared to buy one, coordinated with Gaidin's of course. Gary if it will get us in I will buy the first set and you buy the Don Ho CD.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 14, 2014 20:48:34 GMT -5
I don't own a Hawaiian shirt, but if it will get me to training I am fully prepared to buy one, coordinated with Gaidin's of course. Gary if it will get us in I will buy the first set and you buy the Don Ho CD. If that's what it takes, I'm in.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Oct 14, 2014 20:53:19 GMT -5
but don't let irrational fear and paranoid paralyze your life. My new role model:
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 14, 2014 21:07:01 GMT -5
Gaidin, the crime rate has plummeted in Kennesaw over the past 25 years since a law requiring gun ownership of every homeowner.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 14, 2014 21:16:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 14, 2014 21:40:16 GMT -5
But, would you break into a home knowing only every other home had a gun? Of course that's 2 to 1 odds, probably better than getting a Judge position.. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 14, 2014 21:44:05 GMT -5
But, would you break into a home knowing only every other home had a gun? Of course that's 2 to 1 odds, probably better than getting a Judge position.. Just saying. Excellent point. If I ever start a one-man burglary wave I'll do it in another town.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 14, 2014 21:58:56 GMT -5
Perhaps they would break into such a house so they could get free guns? Most break-ins occur when no one is home. They (burglars) are usually pretty selective when it comes to the possibility of facing someone in a house, gun or no gun.
It's an interesting case study for sure, but it's not as if Kennesaw had a big crime problem prior to the law's enactment.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 15, 2014 12:36:31 GMT -5
My ALJ class had this same debate when we were new. When it comes down to it, anyone with half a brain and a firearm could take any of us out EASILY. There's really not much you can do to prevent it, and statistically even non-lethal attacks happen extremely rarely. You should always keep an eye out when walking to your car at the end of the day no matter what the job. Here's what would probably be the best piece of advice; DON'T PISS PEOPLE OFF IN YOUR HEARINGS IF YOU CAN AVOID IT!!! If you have baseline social skills you can ask the questions that need to be asked wihtout getting into it with the claimant. If you catch them in an inconsistency, you don't have to call them out in the hearing. Save it for the decision. If most of the claimant's problems are the result of poor life choices, don't lecture them about their mistakes. Just point out the absence of medical evidence of a significant impairment. There are numerous jobs out there where you can be in a similar position to an SSA ALJ, in that you will have personal contact with a customer, and make a decision that will either help or hurt them. 99.9% of them will not come after you for it if you don't make it personal. Most people are only going to go off the handle because of a personal matter/relationship, drugs/alcohol, or in the commission of another crime. Your psycho coworkers are a bigger threat than the claimants
|
|
|
Post by almostheaven on Oct 15, 2014 13:00:17 GMT -5
I attended a CLE presentation by a former federal Marshall and the main take-away was common sense BUT from the realization of being a potential target -- such as setting up your hearing room so you are closest to the door rather than wanting to present a power position from the head of the table opposite from where participants enter the room. I don't know if that is practical or possible in all hearing rooms.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 15, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5
My ALJ class had this same debate when we were new. When it comes down to it, anyone with half a brain and a firearm could take any of us out EASILY. There's really not much you can do to prevent it, and statistically even non-lethal attacks happen extremely rarely. You should always keep an eye out when walking to your car at the end of the day no matter what the job. Here's what would probably be the best piece of advice; DON'T PISS PEOPLE OFF IN YOUR HEARINGS IF YOU CAN AVOID IT!!! If you have baseline social skills you can ask the questions that need to be asked wihtout getting into it with the claimant. If you catch them in an inconsistency, you don't have to call them out in the hearing. Save it for the decision. If most of the claimant's problems are the result of poor life choices, don't lecture them about their mistakes. Just point out the absence of medical evidence of a significant impairment. There are numerous jobs out there where you can be in a similar position to an SSA ALJ, in that you will have personal contact with a customer, and make a decision that will either help or hurt them. 99.9% of them will not come after you for it if you don't make it personal. Most people are only going to go off the handle because of a personal matter/relationship, drugs/alcohol, or in the commission of another crime. Your psycho coworkers are a bigger threat than the claimants This translates very well with me. When I was working as an RN we used to always say that bedside manner prevented most lawsuits. Same thing here, treat people well, if they like you no matter what the outcome they will be less likely to want to harm you. Kind of a weird defensive medicine practice but it works. People who love their doctors are less likely to sue them even if they are terrible practitioners. There are always exceptions of course. But for the most part, this principal is true. You don't want to be a jerk to the guy in a hearing who is an undiagnosed (or diagnosed for that matter) malignant narcissist. Treat everyone well and decrease your chances of bad outcomes later. You know.... live the Golden Rule! And on a different note, I find it apropos to watch Contagion tonight. Scary things going on in Texas with Ebola. Stay safe people.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 15, 2014 15:58:42 GMT -5
Valkyrie, I must have missed something in training. I was told that it is our job to address inconsistencies during the hearing and give the claimant a chance to address it...
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Oct 15, 2014 19:38:59 GMT -5
I think Valkyrie makes a good point. Be polite. Put the court in courteous. Be patient. Be gentle. Many of the claimants, be they "disabled" or not, have had a rough ride. Many suffer from mental illness(es). No need to add tribulation to their trial. As for giving them an opportunity to explain inconsistencies, yes: you can simply refer them to the record. "The medical file says that you have had some challenges with alcohol. Would you please tell me more about that?" "Counsel, did you wish to address the evidence at Exhibit 10F?" (I.e., a CE suggesting poor effort, or a CDI.) Rational claimants (and reps) won't fault you for asking them about the evidence in the file if you actually listen to the answers. As for the irrational ones, well, do your best to avoid unforced errors, keep your eyes open and your wits about you. In the hearing, hear. In your opinion, opine.
|
|