Bill Overview
Title: Firearm Lockbox Protection Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill allows the General Services Administration, upon request of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to provide a secure firearms storage facility at the official duty station of each judge or justice for any firearm lawfully possessed by the judge or justice. Agencies that employ an administrative judge must provide a secure firearms facility at the principal duty station of that judge for any firearm lawfully possessed by the judge.
Sponsors: Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Target Audience
Population: Judges and justices in the U.S.
Estimated Size: 4800
- The bill applies to judges and justices in the U.S. judicial system.
- According to the U.S. Courts website, there are approximately 3,000 federal judges, including district, magistrate, bankruptcy, court of appeals, and Supreme Court justices.
- The number of administrative judges (including ALJs) is estimated to be around 1,800 across various federal agencies.
- In total, the target U.S. population directly impacted by the bill would be around 4,800 individuals, assuming all judges fall under the provisions.
- The global estimate reflects only the U.S. as the bill is specific to the U.S. Legal system.
Reasoning
- The policy targets approximately 4,800 judges across the U.S., which means that the general population is mostly unaffected directly, but broader public opinions on judicial safety and resource allocation could vary.
- The costs of implementation involve setting up secure storage facilities at the judges' locations, which may be more economically feasible for some areas than others based on existing infrastructure and space availability.
- The estimated budget may limit the extent and quality of facilities provided, potentially affecting the impact perceived by judges and any indirect effects on their performance or feelings of safety.
Simulated Interviews
Federal District Judge (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate policies that enhance security for judges, as it's becoming crucial these days.
- Having a lockbox provided at my duty station is a good show of support from the administration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Administrative Judge for a Federal Agency (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation of secure storage facilities may enhance the perception of safety, though I question its necessity in every location.
- It is important, but not a top priority compared to case backlog issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Bankruptcy Judge (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who deals with financially desperate individuals, additional security ensures peace of mind.
- This policy should be standard to ensure judges' safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Magistrate Judge (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New York has its unique challenges, and any step toward heightened security is welcome.
- The actual impact on my day-to-day role is minimal, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Appeals Court Judge (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A firearm lockbox boosts security assurance, vital given recent threats against judges.
- I feel it’s a positive measure, although its direct utility in appeals court settings may be subtle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Administrative Law Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy indicates an encouraging trend of considering judges' safety on the job.
- Implementation effects are yet to be seen here, especially with funding constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Appellate Judge (Dallas, TX)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While security is important, I’m more concerned with broader judicial independence.
- This policy feels like only a small piece in the bigger puzzle of protecting judges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal District Judge (Miami, FL)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security measures like the lockbox policy are essential, considering the threats.
- I hope it signals more comprehensive support for judge protection strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
District Court Judge (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs bolstering safety aid judges in focusing on their work effectively.
- It may be minor logistically, but major in reassurance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Magistrate Judge (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better security for judges is a move in the right direction, though funding could limit effectiveness if not managed correctly.
- I worry about uneven distribution of these resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $24000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Security installation and maintenance at federal offices.
- Coordination between multiple government agencies to ensure compliance and implementation.
- Managing future costs and upgrades to security technologies.