2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[phatgemi]

Answers in red, above. All as of July 1, 2011, presuming Gov. Daniels does not veto it. I cannot imagine him doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

Brookville Ban on any town owned property - gone

 

[Roadie]

So when's the first OC Event in a City Park after July 1st?

 

[Bill of Rights]

So when's the first OC Event in a City Park after July 1st?

That all depends. What city?

 

[dagibson1507]

Fort Wayne?

 

[Quad]

I don't think they're ready yet to consider repeal of the LTCH requirement even for OC, let alone Constitutional carry, but I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

Wholeheartedly agree! However, I really can't see them eliminating another revenue stream, especially in this economy. But who knows? Perhaps we can convince them otherwise next year. Sure wont hurt to try!

 

[Bill of Rights]

This law does not have any effect on where state laws say you cannot carry. This law only removes the ability of smaller political subdivisions.. cities, towns, townships, library boards, counties, etc... to restrict more stringently than state law. There are exceptions to this and note that the exceptions do not require bans in those places, they only allow them. If the powers-that-be in XXX county decide to not-prohibit firearms in their courthouse, then while in XXX county, you might choose to sit in a courtroom armed. If XXX county wished, they could pass an ordinance that requires a person carrying in the courthouse to OC, and that would be allowable, for example. (I expect ATM will be moving to XXX county if that happens. )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JoshuaW]

It is my hope that the legislature will next year address the stupidity of some of our remaining gun laws, such as stamped SBSs, ballistic knives, OC without LTCH, and when a school property is not a school property. I don't think they're ready yet to consider repeal of the LTCH requirement even for OC, let alone Constitutional carry, but I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

I think SBSs, ballistic knives, and most importantly school property are all good targets for next session. I think now that we have reduced the power of local governments to restrict where we can and can not carry, we are in a good position to address locked in a secured vehicle on school property, and carry at non-school related events held at schools after hour (including property held by a school, but not being used by a school).

 

[Chance]

Fort Wayne

I think an OC event along the crime ridden river greenway would be perfect! Time to take it back.

 

[Bill B]

That all depends. What city?

St. john

 

[Markedup]

I think an OC event along the crime ridden river greenway would be perfect! Time to take it back.

"That all depends. What city?" (Bill O .R.)

Berne, right around the clock tower.
The greenway is pretty wet in places today.

Thanks

Mark

 

[philo]

Monon Victimization Zone?

 

[tv1217]

St. john

ROFL, JennyO suggested having an OC rally in the K-mart lot.

 

[jedi]

Answers in red, above. All as of July 1, 2011, presuming Gov. Daniels does not veto it. I cannot imagine him doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks BoR for the update on the "bye bye of EC/GARY/SOUTH BEND/SPEEDWAY.

Don't forget all to send thank you letters to all your reps that DID VOTE for these bills.

Also when does Jim Tomes term end? Is he going to run again? He might not be in my district that if he runs again I would like to donate to his campaign. We need more of his PRO-2A kind 4 sure!

Now can those of you who read these laws much better than the rest of us 'avg. joes' give us a footnote of what exactly SB292 does for us all?

I know it makes all the old local gun laws go bye bye. But what is this about being able to walk into all local gov. bldgs? public meetings and having to OC? where?

thanks

 

[T.Lex]

I've been reading the conference version, and letting it "incubate" (as a friend of mine likes to say).

It is A Good Thing overall. But, it is a seriously confusing bit of legislation.

I'm still pondering the exception to the exception at the bottom of section 4. It almost sounds like, with the exception of court buildings, if a municipality owns (or administers) a building, they HAVE to allow LTCH-types to carry.

That could be huge. And could seriously dilute the Irsay exception.

Edit: I will be shocked if this makes it to July 1 without being subjected to litigation of its own.

Edit 2: Here's another irony. As an employer, a municipality can (and most of them do) prevent their employees (even those with LTCH) from carrying while at their job. Usually this is part of the personnel manual/policy. So, the municipal employees will be unarmed. But, if a non-employee with an LTCH wants to go through the metal detectors carrying, they might be allowed - even if he meant to do harm. That's kinda... well... messed up, I think.

 

[Hammerhead]

That's the way it looks to me. Even with metal detectors, they have to allow LTCH holders to carry.

 

[ryknoll3]

I've been reading the conference version, and letting it "incubate" (as a friend of mine likes to say).

It is A Good Thing overall. But, it is a seriously confusing bit of legislation.

I'm still pondering the exception to the exception at the bottom of section 4. It almost sounds like, with the exception of court buildings, if a municipality owns (or administers) a building, they HAVE to allow LTCH-types to carry.

That could be huge. And could seriously dilute the Irsay exception.

Edit: I will be shocked if this makes it to July 1 without being subjected to litigation of its own.

Edit 2: Here's another irony. As an employer, a municipality can (and most of them do) prevent their employees (even those with LTCH) from carrying while at their job. Usually this is part of the personnel manual/policy. So, the municipal employees will be unarmed. But, if a non-employee with an LTCH wants to go through the metal detectors carrying, they might be allowed - even if he meant to do harm. That's kinda... well... messed up, I think.

By Irsay exception do you mean carrying at Lucas Oil? The reworking of this bill in conference committee will not affect carrying in Lucas Oil due to this provision:

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:

(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.

The Colts lease the stadium from the municipal management group (too lazy to look up their name) and have rules of conduct that govern admission (no firearms, among others). Number 10 under Sec. 4 exempts them from the law. This has nothing to do with the later section that allows LTCH holders to carry in muni. buildings even if they have metal detectors and are staffed with officers. The lessees make the rules under (10).


Another example would be if a group rented a park for an event and only event-goers were allowed to enter the park. That group could have a code of conduct rule that prohibited firearms, and it would stand, (and be enforceable by local LEO) even though under normal circumstances the municipality could not make the park off limits to firearms.

 

[T.Lex]

With all due respect, my friend, I do not think the issue is as clear as that. (Not that that is a bad thing.)

The Capital Improvement Board (CIB) "owns" Lucas Oil Stadium, and I think the Fieldhouse, and maybe the baseball park (name momentarily escapes me). That is a municipal corporation for purposes of this law, and indeed, 4(10) codifies the ability of a ticket-seller to establish rules for admission. Generally, the punishment for that, though, is removal and possibly trespass if the person comes back (or whatever other remedy set in the ticket purchase). The (B) part of that just means that the local unit (heh heh "unit") can use police to enforce the rule, I think.

But, one reading of that exception to the exceptions makes it look an LTCH holder has the right to be in the building.

They send mixed messages. The Irsay exception says the private entity can create conditions of entry (which, of course, they can). But, the exception to the exception says that units can't prohibit or restrict the possession of folks with LTCH. So, Colts personnel can make you leave, but the LEOs can't? Except that they CAN, if it is to put you on notice that you will be considered trespassing if you come back.

Just... kinda... odd.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks BoR for the update on the "bye bye of EC/GARY/SOUTH BEND/SPEEDWAY.

Don't forget all to send thank you letters to all your reps that DID VOTE for these bills.

Also when does Jim Tomes term end? Is he going to run again? He might not be in my district that if he runs again I would like to donate to his campaign. We need more of his PRO-2A kind 4 sure!

Now can those of you who read these laws much better than the rest of us 'avg. joes' give us a footnote of what exactly SB292 does for us all?

I know it makes all the old local gun laws go bye bye. But what is this about being able to walk into all local gov. bldgs? public meetings and having to OC? where?

thanks

You're welcome, Jedi! Jim is at present a "freshman Senator", meaning in his first term. He was just elected last election. Senators in Indiana serve four years in office, so his next campaign isn't for a while. We didn't hear much from him this time, but don't forget Sen. Johnny Nugent as well. Strong gun rights supporter in the Senate.

You're getting a good rundown on 292 from the lawyers. The thing about HAVING to OC was a suggestion on my part about an ordinance that would not violate this law. To my knowledge, there is no such ordinance of this type being considered or currently in place anywhere, though there may be something coming down the pike that would be of interest in at least one county. Not my story, though, so not mine to give details on.

I've been reading the conference version, and letting it "incubate" (as a friend of mine likes to say).

It is A Good Thing overall. But, it is a seriously confusing bit of legislation.

I'm still pondering the exception to the exception at the bottom of section 4. It almost sounds like, with the exception of court buildings, if a municipality owns (or administers) a building, they HAVE to allow LTCH-types to carry.

That could be huge. And could seriously dilute the Irsay exception.

Edit: I will be shocked if this makes it to July 1 without being subjected to litigation of its own.

Edit 2: Here's another irony. As an employer, a municipality can (and most of them do) prevent their employees (even those with LTCH) from carrying while at their job. Usually this is part of the personnel manual/policy. So, the municipal employees will be unarmed. But, if a non-employee with an LTCH wants to go through the metal detectors carrying, they might be allowed - even if he meant to do harm. That's kinda... well... messed up, I think.

They cannot prevent a LTCH holder from entering with his handgun because of his handgun, true. That doesn't mean they can't prevent him from entering at all. If they know (how they would know this, I have no clue) he means to do harm, there's also nothing saying an officer cannot be detailed to follow or could detain him temporarily. The likelihood of a LTCH holder doing this is incredibly small, however, and even smaller that the present law has been the only thing stopping him from doing that harm.

That's the way it looks to me. Even with metal detectors, they have to allow LTCH holders to carry.

By Irsay exception do you mean carrying at Lucas Oil? The reworking of this bill in conference committee will not affect carrying in Lucas Oil due to this provision:

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:

(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.

The Colts lease the stadium from the municipal management group (too lazy to look up their name) and have rules of conduct that govern admission (no firearms, among others). Number 10 under Sec. 4 exempts them from the law. This has nothing to do with the later section that allows LTCH holders to carry in muni. buildings even if they have metal detectors and are staffed with officers. The lessees make the rules under (10).


Another example would be if a group rented a park for an event and only event-goers were allowed to enter the park. That group could have a code of conduct rule that prohibited firearms, and it would stand, (and be enforceable by local LEO) even though under normal circumstances the municipality could not make the park off limits to firearms.

With all due respect, my friend, I do not think the issue is as clear as that. (Not that that is a bad thing.)

The Capital Improvement Board (CIB) "owns" Lucas Oil Stadium, and I think the Fieldhouse, and maybe the baseball park (name momentarily escapes me). That is a municipal corporation for purposes of this law, and indeed, 4(10) codifies the ability of a ticket-seller to establish rules for admission. Generally, the punishment for that, though, is removal and possibly trespass if the person comes back (or whatever other remedy set in the ticket purchase). The (B) part of that just means that the local unit (heh heh "unit") can use police to enforce the rule, I think.

But, one reading of that exception to the exceptions makes it look an LTCH holder has the right to be in the building.

They send mixed messages. The Irsay exception says the private entity can create conditions of entry (which, of course, they can). But, the exception to the exception says that units can't prohibit or restrict the possession of folks with LTCH. So, Colts personnel can make you leave, but the LEOs can't? Except that they CAN, if it is to put you on notice that you will be considered trespassing if you come back.

Just... kinda... odd.

By my read, the municipality/municipal corporation/whatever could use police to remove someone who was trespassing, as could the lessee. They would have to hire private security to man the entries, however, rather than have the rest of us foot the bill for having police work overtime to control their event.

Now... I've never been to any events in Indy except the 1500. I don't do Colts games or the races or any of that, so I don't know how this is presently handled, so if LEOs doing this are off the city's clock and paid privately, that's another matter. Likewise, if they presently use private security, I take no issue with it. I simply don't know what they do and don't do. I do have a concern about off duty LEOs wearing a duty uniform and using police powers while privately employed, though. Consider the "don't tase me, bro" guy: Had Kerry been "protected" by privately hired security people who had no arrest powers or immunity from prosecution, would this have ever even happened, or would they have just turned off his mic so that he left the podium peacefully?

Finally, standard disclaimers apply:
IANAL
IDPOOTV
IDSIAHIELN and
TINLA.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am a little curious about Sec. 4 under the Conference Committee's version (and prior as well, but this is the version that passed)

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
...
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.

...
(12) A unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.

The last sentence of (4) and the entirety of (12) seem to contradict each other.

This would be a nasty tactic some anti might use to shut down gun stores: build a school next door to them. There's no exemption I see that says the school has to have been there first.

Legal eagles? Any thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[4sarge]

From Jim Tomes: 2nd Amendment Patriots Meeting


I want to thank all of you for allowing me to explain the process of what a legislative bill must go through before it makes its way to the Governor's desk. SB 292, if I'm not mistaken, endured every possible hearings, committees, votes, presentations and debates in both the Senate and House that a bill might encounter. There is too much to describe in an e-mail today, but some day I may have time to explain it, it really is an interesting process.

When I spoke last night about what we all should do as gun owners after winning such a victory in getting a pro gun measure passed I hope everyone understood my purpose.

I was not looking for a "thank you" for myself. I know everyone on this mailing list and those who come to the Patriot meetings appreciate the work that was done. The reason I spoke about writing or calling a legislator to let them know we approve of the votes they make is because its important for our side to make sure they understand they have the support from our side.

Those who oppose gun rights never hesitate to voice their opposition to legislators. I know that many of you did contact legislators as SB 292 was being considered, but what we all have to do is make sure our friends and others that we know also pick up the phone or e-mail their support in as well.

I want to thank everyone who helped me on SB 505 and SB 292 and that includes a lot of people along with the senators and representatives who voted and spoke on behalf of those bills.

I would ask that if you find your legislator who supported SB 292 that you would thank them, I'm sure they'd appreciate hearing from you. The top link is senators and the bottom is representatives. I want to again thank all of you across this state who stand firm on your beliefs and are willing to defend liberty.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/PDF/Srollcal/0513.PDF.pdf

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/PDF/Hrollcal/0730.PDF.pdf

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." Castilian Days II, 1872 John Jay

Jim