This is horrible "journalism" with reporters not knowing the law that already exists. I've been writing them all because they're now causing people to believe it's illegal.
According to a judge in a case against the city of Hammond for pretty much the same issue the ruling stated that the outdated laws were perfectly fine to remain on the books as long as no attempt was made to enforce them.
According to a judge in a case against the city of Hammond for pretty much the same issue the ruling stated that the outdated laws were perfectly fine to remain on the books as long as no attempt was made to enforce them.
I think you're exactly right with your reasoning. Especially with those dirtbags that run Hammond.I think they (cities) want to leave them there so that people who don't know better will abide by the non-law.
A law suit by a victim who didn't carry because of the non-law might be viable.
Unless I am mistaken Hammond has refused to remove their anti-gun city ordinances. There was a Republican city councilwoman that brought it up a couple of times and was voted down. I believe their attorney was of the opinion that as long as they do not enforce them they don't incur jeopardy.
Councilman Arp should be honest about the ordinance - it's dead, unenforced, unenforceable ordinance. It sounds like he's using this as an opportunity to score points with local conservatives not smart enough to figure out reality.
Unless I am mistaken Hammond has refused to remove their anti-gun city ordinances. There was a Republican city councilwoman that brought it up a couple of times and was voted down. I believe their attorney was of the opinion that as long as they do not enforce them they don't incur jeopardy.
Are the signs in Hammond still up?
Are the signs in Hammond still up?