I don't like double standards, especially in matters of law.

We're supposed to be equal before the law, and that means anyone getting preferential treatment simply because of who they are flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers stood for.

Yes, I understand not everyone faces the same threats to life and limb, but since anyone can face those threats, dictating that the rules only apply to most people and not all is still going to be an issue.

And a new bill in Florida does pretty much that.

Florida state Sen. Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) filed a bill Friday in the Legislature that would permit a judge or magistrate to carry a concealed weapon or firearm.

Specifically, under SB 548, a judge or magistrate would be allowed to carry a weapon or firearm into any courthouse in the circuit in which they are presiding.

The bill also would allow a judge or magistrate to carry a weapon or firearm in areas to include Legislative meetings, polling places, county government meetings, public school district meetings, elementary or secondary schools, college or university, and athletic events.

Moreover, the legislation would cover any place where concealed carry is permitted under federal law. However, a person may not conceal carry a handgun or weapon into a police or sheriff station, highway patrol station, or detention facility including a prison or jail.

The article mentions the Las Vegas judge who was attacked in the courtroom as some kind of justification for this, and I get it.

I mean, I think judges should be able to carry concealed in court. Where I have a problem is that I think others should be able to carry concealed in court as well.

My problem isn't with armed judges, but with the idea that judges should be the exception to the concealed carry prohibition rather than just ending the prohibition.

This creates a double standard, where some animals are more equal than others, simply because they fill a particular role deemed as "important."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly for me.

First, there are armed law enforcement officers throughout the courthouse. If I'm supposed to trust my life to them, then the judge can too. Especially since both of us face threats outside of the courthouse, particularly from the door to our means of transportation or home. If we're driving, we might have the gun secured in our vehicle, but anyone taking public transportation is screwed until they get home.

Meanwhile, the judge--who often has a law enforcement officer in the courtroom--gets special treatment?

I'm sorry, but no. You're not going to get me on board with that. That's especially true since this isn't even really a case of opening the door a bit and then using it to leverage the door open the rest of the way. Judges are always going to be considered somehow above reproach, so this won't even be an effective wedge in removing the restrictions on the right to bear arms in courthouses.

Of course, lawmakers tend to think of themselves as just as important, so don't be surprised if my arguments fall on deaf ears in the Sunshine State.