Today, I continue last week's discussion regarding the disparity between what Supreme Court opinions command and how they're enforced. High Court proclamations represent the end of litigation, but because they're not self-executing, implementation can be challenging.
Recently, you likely read here that Chris Corbitt, Ben Motal, and I brought a case that ended with the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling attorneys may carry guns into state courthouses. I provide en toto, as background for today's exposition, the merits portion of Supreme Court's opinion. (I made de minimis formatting changes and omitted citations, case history, and procedural issues.)
Justice Shawn Womack, delivering the opinion for all justices except Karen Baker, who dissented, wrote:
"The remaining claims must proceed on the merits of the case. The relevant language from the controlling statute is as follows: '[A] law enforcement officer, either on-duty or off-duty, officer of the court, bailiff, or other person authorized by the court is permitted to possess a handgun in the courtroom of any court or a courthouse of this state.'
"In