Calling all INGO lawyers, lawdogs, and armchair quarterbacks - is this legal?

[HeadlessRoland]

Milltown, Indiana - here's one of the titles of city ordinances...

Town of Milltown Indiana Ordinances, Title Six: Health, Peace, Safety, and Sanitation

Here's the very serious Titanium_Frost-style rub, in case in you're too busy or TL; DR -

Discharging of firearms within city limits prohibited except for government, et. al. privileged classes and landed gentry; if you're a shooting sports competitor you need a bond of $100,000. Violators face a fine of $150 AND/OR forfeiture of firearm(s) discharged. The latter part of this clearly seems to me to be not only an abridgment of our entire nation's traditions, but also a clear infringement upon and circumvention of the Second Amendment of our national Constitution as well as Article I, Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. It's obviously not legal to require forfeiture of arms - nor would I expect any sane American to do so.

Additionally, don't State regulations pre-empt precisely this style of ordinance?

I would really appreciate the input from our resident lawdogs and even our plethora of armchair QBs. How can Milltown get away with having this ordinance on the books?

 

[PRasko]

Preemption covers ownership, not discharging of your firearm.

With that being said, Indianas Castle law protects you from civil or criminal liability while in your home or car, in a self defense scenario.

As for confiscation if you do discharge your weapon, I don't know.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sounds like a ridiculous law, but I don't see how it is relevant to the 2nd Amendment

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Sounds like a ridiculous law, but I don't see how it is relevant to the 2nd Amendment

Violation of a local ordinance can result in forfeiture of firearms in the absence of a misdemeanor or felony having been committed?

 

[TaunTaun]

In a defense shooting, LE will probably collect the weapon for evidence anyhow. If you are shooting inside city limits in your back yard....

 

[HeadlessRoland]

In a defense shooting, LE will probably collect the weapon for evidence anyhow. If you are shooting inside city limits in your back yard....

I'm not talking about what-ifs here. I'm talking about a political sub-division of the State of Indiana enshrining in local ordinance the ability to confiscate arms from those who have committed neither misdemeanor or felony. How is this possible?

I'd give a cup of coffee to have Kirk or Guy or Hough chime in on this, because I do not understand how this is possible.

 

[jkaetz]

I think he just wants to know if it's legal/what force of law is behind a city ordinance. We all know that discharging a firearm in our back yards is generally frowned upon and that a SD situation will usually end up with you surrendering said firearm.

 

[HoughMade]

I do not believe the forfeiture part will fly.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I think he just wants to know if it's legal/what force of law is behind a city ordinance. We all know that discharging a firearm in our back yards is generally frowned upon and that a SD situation will usually end up with you surrendering said firearm.

I suppose that this is precisely what I'm asking/wondering. How possible?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Violation of a local ordinance can result in forfeiture of firearms in tihe absence of a misdemeanor or felony having been committed?

The "and/or" can account for the addition of criminal recklessness.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I do not believe the forfeiture part will fly.

Thank you for being the first lawdog to chime in. May I ask as to why/why not or your reasoning? My understanding is the fact that since any violation of ordinance would be an infraction and not a misdemeanor or felony and thus the due process clause kicks in, making confiscation impossible. Thus my confusion. But I am not a lawdog and admit that I could be wrong or confused or stupid or possibly all of the above. I just do not get it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The "and/or" can account for the addition of criminal recklessness.

But wouldn't that be a different charge, the misdemeanor or felony (I don't know which 'criminal recklessness' qualifies) being an entirely distinct if related offense and thus not subsequent to the authority of the ordinance at all? If the fact pattern might include both an ordinance violation and the criminal recklessness above, for instance, how does local ordinance authority derive the power to confiscate property on its own without triggering the 'life, liberty or property' due process clause or without relying on superior State or national law? How can, I guess in my round-about way of asking, local ordinance be more strict than State or national law particularly as the local might conflict with the State or national?

 

[HoughMade]

Thank you for being the first lawdog to chime in. May I ask as to why/why not or your reasoning? My understanding is the fact that since any violation of ordinance would be an infraction and not a misdemeanor or felony and thus the due process clause kick in making confiscation impossible. Thus my confusion. But I am not a lawdog and admit that I could be wrong or confused or stupid or possibly all of the above. I just do not get it.

My reasoning is that state law preempts ANY local ordinance that affects the "ownership or possession" of a firearm. All this talk about "criminal recklessness" is all fine and dandy, but that's a state statute, not a local ordinance. Of course, state statutes that affect the ownership or possession of firearms can still be enforced, but a "political subdivision" can not enact its own punishment for an ordinance violation that affects the ownership or possession of a firearm. That's preempted.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

My reasoning is that state law preempts ANY local ordinance that affects the "ownership or possession" of a firearm. All this talk about "criminal recklessness" is all fine and dandy, but that's a state statute, not a local ordinance. Of course, state statutes that affect the ownership or possession of firearms can still be enforced, but a "political subdivision" can not enact its own punishment for an ordinance violation that affects the ownership or possession of a firearm. That's preempted.

That makes a lot of sense to me and was sort of my reasoning or thoughts on it. Which is why this confuses me. Thank you for your input, this helps put things in perspective.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I have family in Milltown, IN and practically grew up there. It is a very small town and I would not be surprised if some of their laws on the books are in need of an update.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I have family in Milltown, IN and practically grew up there. It is a very small town and I would not be surprised if some of their laws on the books are in need of an update.

That's the thing, the ordinance was revised or put on the books in 1996, if I'm reading it correctly. Not exactly one of those old weird from-the-1800s laws. But it is a small town, upon research, and I just wonder if maybe the town council doesn't understand that they can't pass or uphold an ordinance that says what this particular ordinance says.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

That's the thing, the ordinance was revised or put on the books in 1996, if I'm reading it correctly. Not exactly one of those old weird from-the-1800s laws. But it is a small town, upon research, and I just wonder if maybe the town council doesn't understand that they can't pass or uphold an ordinance that says what this particular ordinance says.

It may be so. When I say small town, I mean they have one food market and they're stuck in the eighties. No knock on 80's folks, but Duran Duran is still their go-to music Their one claim to fame is home of Cave Country Canoes in a shop right next to the blue river by the dam.

Don't get me wrong, I love the people and their small town life, but most of their laws probably don't go through much scrutiny.They didn't have any active police force until 6 years ago. Now they have 2 or 3 officers total with a volunteer fire Dept.

 

[Mark 1911]

They have to get the guns for the "privileged classes and landed gentry" from somewhere, after all.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

They have to get the guns for the "privileged classes and landed gentry" from somewhere, after all.

What else to call it when government exempts itself from its own decrees except the establishment of a different class?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The ordinance prohibiting discharge would likely be found lawful. I am . . . distressed at the sanction which includes forfeiture, 6.50.040(2).

I believe it overbroad, a taking AND preempted by state statute.