-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Hammond is looking for trouble
- Thread starter mainjet
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Don't normally say this, but I have seen the latest in Judicial Arrogance. Forget interpreting the law, now we just MAKE the law fit.
Wonder why we even have a legislature..?
Summary judgment GRANTED to the City of Hammond?
Why? After years of law school and practice... the only thing I can say is...
Hell, if I know!!
He hung the entire decision on the fact that Hammond has a disclaimer on the front page of their website that says, this information may not be accurate blah blah blah, call us...
Guess you cant rely on what you see in the Municipal Code of Hammond on the Internet. We should all be thankful the State of Indiana doesn't have such an attitude with the IC Statutes... what a mess that would be...
Ill leave any further comments to Guy, but leave it to say, he COULD NOT have done a better job of putting the case forward... This will not end here...
Wonder why we even have a legislature..?
Summary judgment GRANTED to the City of Hammond?
Why? After years of law school and practice... the only thing I can say is...
Hell, if I know!!
He hung the entire decision on the fact that Hammond has a disclaimer on the front page of their website that says, this information may not be accurate blah blah blah, call us...
Guess you cant rely on what you see in the Municipal Code of Hammond on the Internet. We should all be thankful the State of Indiana doesn't have such an attitude with the IC Statutes... what a mess that would be...
Ill leave any further comments to Guy, but leave it to say, he COULD NOT have done a better job of putting the case forward... This will not end here...
eldirector
Grandmaster
Wait a minute.... Hammond is allowed to have illegal ordinances on the books because they claim their books aren't all that accurate?
Please tell me there is more to this.
Please tell me there is more to this.
Good old Lake County, Indiana where corruption is so blatantly visible!
I'm so proud of our county. This just goes to show that we take "Chicago style gangster politics" up one level and say f**** up State of Indiana and your laws.
So now what?
What exactly does a "summary judgement granted to City of Hammond" mean?
Hammond wins and does not have to change anything (for now).
Can this be appealed?
-Jedi
Just wow. So if that disclaimer was what he based his judgement on then how much of what information they put out on their website are we supposed to believe is accurate or not? In other words I guess they can throw any old bogus information on their website as long as they have that disclaimer.
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Well, I suppose if you want to be the test case... That might even make the papers.... no wait... the papers are in Lake County Also.
§ 132.073 DEADLY WEAPONS IN CIVIL CITY PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
(A) No person other than a duly authorized law enforcement officer shall carry or otherwise possess a deadly weapon as defined in I.C. 35-41-1-8 in any public building owned or leased by the city, or at any board or commission meeting of the city, regardless of whether the person has a state permit to carry a firearm. This prohibition shall not apply to a security officer contracted by and through the city while said security officer is on duty pursuant to contract, nor to any elected city official. (of course we only want it to apply to "YOU People". It doesnt apply to US !!)
(B) If an individual is found carrying or in possession of a deadly weapon as defined in I.C. 35-41-1-8 in a public building, the city’s Police Department is hereby authorized to confiscate the weapon and shall not return the weapon unless authorized by the Judge of the City Court.
(C) Violations of this section shall result in a fine not to exceed $2,500 per offense. Each day a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
(Prior Code, § 132.58) (Ord. 7974, passed 4-29-1997; Am. Ord. 8400, passed 12-10-2001)
NOTE: Supposedly NOT going to be enforced by DECREE and Executive Order of Da Mayor...ha yeah right!
Maybe Jedi has a nice PINK gun to take to the meeting...Hammond =
IndyBeerman
Was a real life Beerman.....
I see this being overturned because what is on Hammond's website is not official.
Website disclaimers and what is on officially on the books are two totally different things.
Website disclaimers and what is on officially on the books are two totally different things.
Last edited:
At a city council meeting? Sounds good to me, after all the Hammond ordinances are void right?
Any way to post the decision here for us to read?
Interesting.
I think I said something about this exact thing in a different very recent thread.
So that covers the internet. But they still PUBLISH the code in a book. What about that? Do the printed versions also have a disclaimer?
Well, in addition to an appeal, what other pro-active steps are being planned up there? How about ads in the local newspapers? They are begging for money, so ad space should be cheap. What about having weekly or monthly days where flyers advising people with licenses to carry handguns can carry in the parks? Pass them out on the public right-of-way just outside parks if possible.
Judge rejects suit over right to carry firearms in Hammond
This still sounds like a win in a convoluted way.
This still sounds like a win in a convoluted way.
singlestacksig
Master
so with that logic.. the city could put up "whites only" & " no jews" signs.. as long as the are not "enforced" no harm done....?
According to the judge, probably! He stated that since state law nullified all local statues that the one in place isn't enforceable and therefore the plaintiffs didn't really have "standing."
IndyBeerman
Was a real life Beerman.....
But here's where the problem stands.
You have an officer who is new on the force, wants to become a shining star and make plenty of good arrests.
He looks at the books and sees Hammond's code on the books of not allowing firearms in parks and such, and in his zealous attempt to rise to the top of his profession he makes an firearms arrest because, it's on the books, it's still Hammond City law.
So he has made an illegal arrest because the it's still on the books and therefor as citizens we fear this.
It's just common sense, it's not rocket science, the law is still on the books, it is still an enforceable law, so until it is stricken down as such, you CAN still be arrested. The charges may be dropped after being brought in, but you as a person can still fear the repercussions of several things.
singlestacksig
Master
has the ruling been published?
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
mom45Momerator -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Myrradah
- BackFromDC
- freekforge
- bowhunter_1978
- SEIndSAM
- Jowl1
- 45sRfun
- X3r0h0uR
- Blacknight179
- bulldogs42
- morve80
- Brandon
- JettaKnight
- Timjoebillybob
- Meatstick
- Averygc
- Okimeister
- mom45
- KG1
- Gabriel
- CPE1704TKS
- Doug
- AlienRayGun
- 15kiserc
- Cameramonkey
- hoglegs
- stale_ranch
- joe138
- Demoderb1989
- Middlefart
- WillH
- Judamonster
- Godbybe
- ChrisK
- indyblue
- Bigdog357
- squeals99
- Denny347
- Dirtebiker
- repeter1977
- 700 LTR 223
- wagyu52
- ancjr
- farva118
- jsn_mooney
- Lmo1131
- Hillbilly
- FredMcIntire
- Angrysauce
- jsx1043