Can you carry when a school is not a school?

[linkinpark9812]

Okay, since I was thinking about this earlier today and it just happens to fall in the same type of category. I assume I know the answer, but I would still like to see other opinions.

Would a church be off limits everyday if they had a daycare on the property? Let's say it's called a daycare although it's nothing more than a babysitting service due to lack of credentials to show it is truly a daycare?

This part seems to stand out:

(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;

12-17.2 deals with "Child care programs" and 31-27 deals with "child services"

However, this seems interesting:

IC 31-27-2-7
Child caring institutions and group homes operated by churches and religious ministries Sec. 7. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), the department shall exempt from licensure a child caring institution and a group home operated by a church or religious ministry that is a religious organization exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (as defined in IC 6-3-1-11) and that does not:
(1) accept for care:
(A) a child who is a delinquent child under IC 31-37-1-1 or IC 31-37-2-1; or
(B) a child who is a child in need of services under IC 31-34-1-1 through IC 31-34-1-9; or
(2) operate a residential facility that provides child care on a twenty-four (24) hour basis for profit. (b) The department shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to govern the inspection of a child caring institution and a group home operated by a church or religious ministry with regard to sanitation.
(c) The fire prevention and building safety commission shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to govern the inspection of a child caring institution and a group home operated by a church or religious ministry under this section. The rules must provide standards for fire alarms and fire drills.
(d) A child caring institution and a group home operated by a church or religious ministry under this section shall comply with the rules established by the department and the fire prevention and building safety commission under this section.
As added by P.L.145-2006, SEC.273.

Does this exempt the licensing requirement? If it does, it may not be considered school property.

However, there is also this:

(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:
(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.
(ii) A special education preschool program.
(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.

Not sure if that would be covered under that.
I would see if they have a license from the state. If they do, it's a definite NO. But if not, it seems that it would be OK, unless that "D" part above applies to them. IANAL though.
You don't need to carry anyways. It will be safer because it is a gun free zone.

My .

 

[xanderphillips]

What if you are carrying legally at a sporting event that allows carrying. You paid to get in. This facility has a no re-admission policy so you would have to buy another ticket if you leave (to stow your gun). Unbeknownst to you a school has scheduled a field trip to this location and kids and teachers sit right down next to you. Are you legally obligated to leave because of IC 35-47-9-2 (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function? A field trip in my non-legal mind would be a 'school function'. Thoughts? How about requiring the field trip to leave, because THEY are causing an illegal situation to occur? (You were there first, and legally there up until the time they arrived!!)

 

[linkinpark9812]

What if you are carrying legally at a sporting event that allows carrying. You paid to get in. This facility has a no re-admission policy so you would have to buy another ticket if you leave (to stow your gun). Unbeknownst to you a school has scheduled a field trip to this location and kids and teachers sit right down next to you. Are you legally obligated to leave because of IC 35-47-9-2 (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function? A field trip in my non-legal mind would be a 'school function'. Thoughts? How about requiring the field trip to leave, because THEY are causing an illegal situation to occur? (You were there first, and legally there up until the time they arrived!!)

You know, that is interesting. I can't find anything in the state law that defines "school function". I would want to say that a school function is when the place is SPECIFICALLY used for a school function, such as a high school baseball game at the park. But then again, that is open to the public too, just like any place where you would go on a field trip.

 

[jaybird_123]

The way schools are today, I think teachers and other school employees should be able to carry.

 

[linkinpark9812]

The way schools are today, I think teachers and other school employees should be able to carry.

TECHNICALLY, I think they can. But this exemption is written weird.

(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.

So a person employed or authorized by a school to as as a security guard, perform/participate in a school function or any other activity authorized by the school. I don't know if a school function or activity is considered "normal class time", though IANAL.

Of course, even if this exemption could be applied that way, school policy probably says otherwise.

On a side note this should be changed :

(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE](B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.[/STRIKE]

It would make all theses questions much easier.

 

[xanderphillips]

I've often wondered about the school function part of that law. Seems a bit 'loose' in definition.

 

[long coat]

There is no case law on it, yet. The way it reads you can be busted for eating someplace when a bus pulls in.

There my be case law soon for the employed part, but he also had weed on him....

 

[linkinpark9812]

There is no case law on it, yet. The way it reads you can be busted for eating someplace when a bus pulls in.

There my be case law soon for the employed part, but he also had weed on him....

Honestly though, it would be hard to charge you with that. You were at a place that is meant for the normal public, not a school setting. Especially if it was a field trip, say if the school kids were on the other side of the zoo, etc. How were you supposed to know? I guess a persistent DA could try though.

 

[jedi]

First on the unlicensed day care at the church that has no school on their property.

Here is a thread where GUY from TFT (Site Support and resident INGO ATTY guru who teaches: Comprenhisive Indiana Firearms Laws) gives us a warning. I have taken his course and his personal opinion (since there is no test case) is he steers clear of those areas when he carries.

A church with any type of educational program for children could be considered a "school"
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...0-no_gun_at_church_anymore-3.html#post1695802

What if you are carrying legally at a sporting event that allows carrying. You paid to get in. This facility has a no re-admission policy so you would have to buy another ticket if you leave (to stow your gun). Unbeknownst to you a school has scheduled a field trip to this location and kids and teachers sit right down next to you. Are you legally obligated to leave because of IC 35-47-9-2 (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function? A field trip in my non-legal mind would be a 'school function'. Thoughts? How about requiring the field trip to leave, because THEY are causing an illegal situation to occur? (You were there first, and legally there up until the time they arrived!!)

You know, that is interesting. I can't find anything in the state law that defines "school function". I would want to say that a school function is when the place is SPECIFICALLY used for a school function, such as a high school baseball game at the park. But then again, that is open to the public too, just like any place where you would go on a field trip.

There is no case law on it, yet. The way it reads you can be busted for eating someplace when a bus pulls in.

^This!
There is no "test cast" yet on what is a "school function". When the law was written its intent was to cover "proms/dances off school property". So Indy HS has their prom at The Hilton in downtown as oppose to in the gym. Well the law makers wanted to make The Hilton "gun free" for the kids/staff while the dance was going on. Same concept for when the kids go on a field trip to the zoo. They wanted to ensure they (kids/staff) remained "gun-free".

Problem with the way the text is written is you have a "rolling gun-free zone" and what occurs to John Public Doe when he happens to be at a public place that just "magically" becomes "gun-free" due to the "rolling" aspect of the law.

ATTYs have gone back and forth on this since we have no case law. & the best advise I heard is the following.

If you (public) are in some way associated with the school event (ie. parent who is attending even if you go to the zoo in your own perosnal vehcile) then you are part of the "rolling gun-free zone".

If you are not associated with the event but a reasonable person would know that a school would be at the event (ie. The zoo during the week when school is in session and you see school busses all lined up at the zoo) then it's a 50/50 that you are breaking the law. Test case will determine this one and no one knows for sure which way it will go.

If you are not associated with the event and a reasonable person would not know that a school would be at the event (ie. You & your family are in at the Cabela's food court eating when a school bus on a wed during school hours pulls into the lot). No reasonable person would expect a school function there! Your chances of the "rolling gun free zone" theory was much better of it not sticking.

-Jedi

 

[linkinpark9812]

First on the unlicensed day care at the church that has no school on their property.

Here is a thread where GUY from TFT (Site Support and resident INGO ATTY guru who teaches: Comprenhisive Indiana Firearms Laws) gives us a warning. I have taken his course and his personal opinion (since there is no test case) is he steers clear of those areas when he carries.

A church with any type of educational program for children could be considered a "school"
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...0-no_gun_at_church_anymore-3.html#post1695802







^This!
There is no "test cast" yet on what is a "school function". When the law was written its intent was to cover "proms/dances off school property". So Indy HS has their prom at The Hilton in downtown as oppose to in the gym. Well the law makers wanted to make The Hilton "gun free" for the kids/staff while the dance was going on. Same concept for when the kids go on a field trip to the zoo. They wanted to ensure they (kids/staff) remained "gun-free".

Problem with the way the text is written is you have a "rolling gun-free zone" and what occurs to John Public Doe when he happens to be at a public place that just "magically" becomes "gun-free" due to the "rolling" aspect of the law.

ATTYs have gone back and forth on this since we have no case law. & the best advise I heard is the following.

If you (public) are in some way associated with the school event (ie. parent who is attending even if you go to the zoo in your own perosnal vehcile) then you are part of the "rolling gun-free zone".

If you are not associated with the event but a reasonable person would know that a school would be at the event (ie. The zoo during the week when school is in session and you see school busses all lined up at the zoo) then it's a 50/50 that you are breaking the law. Test case will determine this one and no one knows for sure which way it will go.

If you are not associated with the event and a reasonable person would not know that a school would be at the event (ie. You & your family are in at the Cabela's food court eating when a school bus on a wed during school hours pulls into the lot). No reasonable person would expect a school function there! Your chances of the "rolling gun free zone" theory was much better of it not sticking.

-Jedi

Wow, I want to be apart of a rolling gun free zone! It sounds very safe! No guns anywhere I go!!

But in all seriousness, I guess play it safe and don't take a gun to the zoo with your family, especially during the week, because there will probably be a school there. What sucks is you can't technically just leave it in your car cause it is still the property of the school.......... You would have to leave.

Again, this would make it so much easier.

(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; [STRIKE]and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.[/STRIKE]

 

[jedi]

Wow, I want to be apart of a rolling gun free zone! It sounds very safe! No guns anywhere I go!!

But in all seriousness, I guess play it safe and don't take a gun to the zoo with your family, especially during the week, because there will probably be a school there. What sucks is you can't technically just leave it in your car cause it is still the property of the school.......... You would have to leave.

Again, this would make it so much easier.

Agree but your little reps down south are NOT ready for that yet!
There was talk on INGO that it would be better to try and pass/re-word the law to say something to the effect of.


Person with an LTCH can be on private school property when school is not in session.

For example a property that has a chruch and private school (ie. most catholic schools). Right now you can't be in the church armed. With that proposal you could.

Or for example being in the rented hall on the school property for a private party (typically the weekends or in the evenings) when the school is not in session.

Yes a very small baby step but one that those down south could swallow before then in a few years going with any school property with an LTCH and then later one no LTCH needed when on school property.

Saldy it's baby steps with does down south. But alas that topic has not been able to move past INGO as i don't think our "star QB" (Jim Jones/Jim Tomes/of I forget his name but Bill or Rights now who it is the senator who passed all those pro-2a bills last year) knows or has considered this one yet. We need some more "stars" to get this one going.

Sadly you and I live in an area where no such star will exisit.

 

[xanderphillips]

I really don't understand some of the 'legal here, but not here, legal here unless xyz crap. Is someone that is LTCH somehow magically more likely to lose their marbles and start randomly shooting people because they are on school property or in the presence of a field trip? WTH? From all the violent crimes that occur on college campuses I'd say that 's a stronger case to argue FOR LTCH than 'out on the golf course' etc... How many ladies have been attacked by drunken frat boys trying to rape them on the golf course?!?!

 

[linkinpark9812]

Agree but your little reps down south are NOT ready for that yet!
There was talk on INGO that it would be better to try and pass/re-word the law to say something to the effect of.


Person with an LTCH can be on private school property when school is not in session.

For example a property that has a chruch and private school (ie. most catholic schools). Right now you can't be in the church armed. With that proposal you could.

Or for example being in the rented hall on the school property for a private party (typically the weekends or in the evenings) when the school is not in session.

Yes a very small baby step but one that those down south could swallow before then in a few years going with any school property with an LTCH and then later one no LTCH needed when on school property.

Saldy it's baby steps with does down south. But alas that topic has not been able to move past INGO as i don't think our "star QB" (Jim Jones/Jim Tomes/of I forget his name but Bill or Rights now who it is the senator who passed all those pro-2a bills last year) knows or has considered this one yet. We need some more "stars" to get this one going.

Sadly you and I live in an area where no such star will exisit.

Well if they want to make baby steps, I think the first should be about what exactly is school property. Honestly, if they want to make an exemption, it should be "DESIGNATED" for a school event. So a prom at a hall would be designated because it is meant for the school. However a field trip is not, because that whole place is not designated for the school event. When I went on physics day for an event, Six flags was just for that, so I would consider that designated as well (even though it was IL).

From there, they should allow you to store your firearm securely in your vehicle on ANY school property, even the parking lot. That way, it allows us to go into the school to drop/pick up a kid without breaking the law.

And then slowly from there, hopefully we can become like Utah, which i believe allows carry on school property. But due to all of those shootings we hear about there with people with their LTCH, it may be hard to convince our state.

 

[jedi]

Linkinpark9812 I personally am NOT in favor of the baby steps. We have a majority in the house of Rs and a SUPER MAJORITY of Rs in the Senate + an R Governor. WTF are we taking baby steps. Throw a freaking long pass NOW!!!!

 

[linkinpark9812]

Linkinpark9812 I personally am NOT in favor of the baby steps. We have a majority in the house of Rs and a SUPER MAJORITY of Rs in the Senate + an R Governor. WTF are we taking baby steps. Throw a freaking long pass NOW!!!!

No I fully agree in my previous posts! I was just responding to someone else that thinks that the baby steps would be the way to go.

Like I said for like the fourth time, if we could just do this:

(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; [STRIKE]and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.[/STRIKE]

That would be great. It is one of the exemptions for carrying a firearm on school property. I believe it would end this whole thread all together.

Whether this is possible right away or in baby steps, is up to us and our state.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Jedi, you refer to Sen. Jim Tomes.

Why are we taking baby steps? I'll tell you why: Paranoia.

SB 180 would have been the minimal step of making carry on school property a Class A misdemeanor and allowed a person to lock a gun in his/her vehicle so long as the gun was lawfully possessed and the person was not a student in the school.

That's it. Nothing about just recognizing the LTCH as marking someone a member of the group of folks who can carry there lawfully. Nothing about Constitutional Carry. Nothing that would have been controversial in the least.

The Senator who was in charge of the committee to which the bill was assigned is a long-term Republican senator whose lowest rating from NRA-PVF is an A rating. He is retiring this term, so he has no re-election concerns... and yet, he refused to bring that bill (or the accompanying one about state property, or the one that would have decriminalized the short-barrel shotgun in IN code.

No one wants to be remembered as the person who "made it possible" for a nutball to shoot up a school.

We have GOT to start educating the politicians. Sooner > Later.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

...No one wants to be remembered as the person who "made it possible" for a nutball to shoot up a school...

Probably true.

Maybe we could find one who would like to be remembered as the person who "made it possible" to actually stop a nutball shooting up a school.

Ahh, someday...

IC 35-47-9
Repealed

IC 35-47-9-0.1
Repealed

IC 35-47-9-1
Repealed

IC 35-47-9-2
Repealed

 

[jedi]

Jedi, you refer to Sen. Jim Tomes.

Why are we taking baby steps? I'll tell you why: Paranoia.

SB 180 would have been the minimal step of making carry on school property a Class A misdemeanor and allowed a person to lock a gun in his/her vehicle so long as the gun was lawfully possessed and the person was not a student in the school.

That's it. Nothing about just recognizing the LTCH as marking someone a member of the group of folks who can carry there lawfully. Nothing about Constitutional Carry. Nothing that would have been controversial in the least.

The Senator who was in charge of the committee to which the bill was assigned is a long-term Republican senator whose lowest rating from NRA-PVF is an A rating. He is retiring this term, so he has no re-election concerns... and yet, he refused to bring that bill (or the accompanying one about state property, or the one that would have decriminalized the short-barrel shotgun in IN code.

No one wants to be remembered as the person who "made it possible" for a nutball to shoot up a school.

We have GOT to start educating the politicians. Sooner > Later.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks BoR for the senator's name. I can not for the life of me remember it!



So SB180 and the others (SB shot gun) have died in his committee then?
I have not been able to keep up this year with the bills like last year.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks BoR for the senator's name. I can not for the life of me remember it!



So SB180 and the others (SB shot gun) have died in his committee then?
I have not been able to keep up this year with the bills like last year.

Memory trick: The good Senator is presumably well-read. This would mean he owns many books. A synonym for "book" is "tome".

Yes, SB 180, 181, and 377 will be dead on 2/1. Technically, they're dead now, because the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Bray will not be meeting again to hear it, let alone vote on it or send it for Second or Third Readings.

Please do note that Sen. Tomes does not have anything to do with that committee. I am certain that if he chaired it, they would have been heard and quickly passed, given the makeup of the Senate and the members of that committee. The Judiciary committee was chaired this year by retiring Sen. Richard Bray.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

Memory trick: The good Senator is presumably well-read. This would mean he owns many books. A synonym for "book" is "tome".

Yes, SB 180, 181, and 377 will be dead on 2/1. Technically, they're dead now, because the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Bray will not be meeting again to hear it, let alone vote on it or send it for Second or Third Readings.

Please do note that Sen. Tomes does not have anything to do with that committee. I am certain that if he chaired it, they would have been heard and quickly passed, given the makeup of the Senate and the members of that committee. The Judiciary committee was chaired this year by retiring Sen. Richard Bray.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks Bill.
So why did our star senator not start them in a committee he has/own/is part of? I take it there were not his to start with right?