Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[donnie1581]

You're doing a great job AJG357. I just got through reading it all.

So many people not thinking through their positions on the issue...critical thinking skills are very rare, so sad. .

I believe this is due to a lack of education. That's the first thing that was hammered into my brain when I started college, critical thinking!

All those comments make my head hurt! I think I'm going to go buy a drop leg holster and wear it everywhere.

 

[24Carat]

Funniest thing. I just heard from a guy whose cousin's wife is on a cleaning crew at one of the television stations that everyone is expecting 20 to 30 people to open carry at the Evansville Zoo this coming Saturday! Hmmmmmmm . . . . .go figure !!

 

[donnie1581]

Funniest thing. I just heard from a guy whose cousin's wife is on a cleaning crew at one of the television stations that everyone is expecting 20 to 30 people to open carry at the Evansville Zoo this coming Saturday! Hmmmmmmm . . . . .go figure !!

I wish I could go.

 

[finity]

Some of the crap posted in the comments is downright frightening.



Then JackBurton posts the actual code defining "proper person" and that same moron posts:

Umm...well...technically the person is correct. There is no IN law that states that a generic "felon" can't own/possess a gun. That prohibition PER IN STATE LAW is only for "serious violent felons", which crimes are specifically defined by law.

The only restriction per IN law as far as a generic "felon" is concerned is that it is illegal for someone to sell or otherwise transfer possession of a handgun or assault weapon to the felon.

It also looks like it's legal per IN STATE LAW to sell or give a generic "felon" a rifle or shotgun.

The "proper person" language is only used in regard to handgun licensing, which has nothing to do with long guns or with handguns carried on your property - and now someone else's property with their permission.

All of the prohibitions on "possession" by any felon are FEDERAL laws.

AFAIK...

 

[Shelly1582]

Umm...well...technically the person is correct. There is no IN law that states that a generic "felon" can't own/possess a gun. That prohibition PER IN STATE LAW is only for "serious violent felons", which crimes are specifically defined by law.

The only restriction per IN law as far as a generic "felon" is concerned is that it is illegal for someone to sell or otherwise transfer possession of a handgun or assault weapon to the felon.

It also looks like it's legal per IN STATE LAW to sell or give a generic "felon" a rifle or shotgun.

The "proper person" language is only used in regard to handgun licensing, which has nothing to do with long guns or with handguns carried on your property - and now someone else's property with their permission.

All of the prohibitions on "possession" by any felon are FEDERAL laws.

AFAIK...

But if it is already covered by federal law, why should we create an unnecessary state law?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Mr. Relford, your comments please (if you can The city acknowledges that Ben was carrying legally, even when OCing, so they know they can't defend against the charge of violating the new state law. They will try to contend that he was escorted out because he was causing a disturbance and not for anything related to his carrying. That being the case they will have to rely on EPD officer testimony that he was causing said disturbance against any witnesses that Ben can bring forward to dispute that. That being said can you defeat that line of reasoning by contending that the police provoked him by acting illegally and therefore there would have been no alleged disturbance if not for the PO's action? If the court decides that EPD's action was lawful because of the "disturbance" what does that do to the main purpose of the suit which is to get justice for plaintiff and an injunction against further illegal action against lawful weapon carriers.
Lastly what determines whether there will be a bench or jury trial?

What Guy can't say here (but I can guess, and that's all this is, is a guess) is that had the officers not harassed his client, there would have been no disturbance. The officers were called because of an illegal prohibition of lawfully carried firearms. Had they not tried to enforce an illegal ordinance, rule, or policy, and instead told the zoo management that TF was acting within the law, there would have been no disturbance.

In addition, "disorderly conduct" is an easy crime to charge (though it wasn't in this case; )

IC 35-45-1-3
Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor....

"Disrupting a lawful assembly of persons" is a very subjectively determined charge... People being scared could be called a disruption, after all, but when the officers could have prevented it, I have to wonder if "entrapment" is being considered.

IC 35-41-3-9
Entrapment
Sec. 9. (a) It is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and
(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.

Umm...well...technically the person is correct. There is no IN law that states that a generic "felon" can't own/possess a gun. That prohibition PER IN STATE LAW is only for "serious violent felons", which crimes are specifically defined by law.

The only restriction per IN law as far as a generic "felon" is concerned is that it is illegal for someone to sell or otherwise transfer possession of a handgun or assault weapon to the felon.

It also looks like it's legal per IN STATE LAW to sell or give a generic "felon" a rifle or shotgun.

The "proper person" language is only used in regard to handgun licensing, which has nothing to do with long guns or with handguns carried on your property - and now someone else's property with their permission.

All of the prohibitions on "possession" by any felon are FEDERAL laws.

AFAIK...

I have not verified the laws to which Finity refers, but based on his posting history, I have little doubt that he is correct. The point that's being glossed over by the is that in comparison to the "violent" felons, it ain't the "Martha Stewart felons" they need to worry about being armed for their own defense.

Note that I don't agree that we need to worry about anyone, felon or not, who possesses the gun solely for defensive purposes.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Umm...well...technically the person is correct. There is no IN law that states that a generic "felon" can't own/possess a gun. That prohibition PER IN STATE LAW is only for "serious violent felons", which crimes are specifically defined by law.

The only restriction per IN law as far as a generic "felon" is concerned is that it is illegal for someone to sell or otherwise transfer possession of a handgun or assault weapon to the felon.

It also looks like it's legal per IN STATE LAW to sell or give a generic "felon" a rifle or shotgun.

The "proper person" language is only used in regard to handgun licensing, which has nothing to do with long guns or with handguns carried on your property - and now someone else's property with their permission.

All of the prohibitions on "possession" by any felon are FEDERAL laws.

AFAIK...

So, then would you say that he person is correct when he says:

The Jim Tomes laws are terrible. It allows felons to carry guns period. I have posted the links and proven my point.

EDIT:
My point to him was that a "Proper Person" cannot obtain a handgun permit, therefore they cannot carry a handgun. Was I wrong?

 

[sbcman]

BTW, if he has any more interactions with the EPD he'll probably get an invitation to the FOP Christmas party

Hilarious! Perhaps he should also be the speaker at the event

What Guy can't say here (but I can guess, and that's all this is, is a guess) is that had the officers not harassed his client, there would have been no disturbance. The officers were called because of an illegal prohibition of lawfully carried firearms. Had they not tried to enforce an illegal ordinance, rule, or policy, and instead told the zoo management that TF was acting within the law, there would have been no disturbance.

 

[Stschil]

So, then would you say that he person is correct when he says:



EDIT:
My point to him was that a "Proper Person" cannot obtain a handgun permit, therefore they cannot carry a handgun. Was I wrong?

You're still on the right side of the issue, Roadie. The Preemption Law did not change that one bit. The Transportation Law only made it possible for lawful owners to legally have their handgun in a few different places now without an LTCH. Nothing, as you well know, in the changes to the IC made it legal for felons to own and/or carry firearms anywhere.

Tell the idiot that just because he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, doesnt mean he's a gun law expert.

 

[24Carat]

WOW . . . . .

I just got my first Rep from a really nice guy who would love to join Saturdays party but until this situation is resolved he needs to stand down. Two thumbs up buddy! Buy ya a beer later !!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Please tell me Senator Tomes' comments were taken out of context.

Someone has talked to the Senator, his comments were taken out of context of course. Will ask him myself Saturday night.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Here is the latest post on courier and press website

in response to ironman:
I'm betting it is. This gentleman (?) was asked to simply conceal the weapon , he refused got loud and abusive (according to individuals I know were there), got into a "defensive" stance and gave a threat to police. It scared many of the parents and chidren there enough that they were grabbing the kids and leaving and or hiding. I believe in the 2nd amendment rights and also carry ,BUT I don't flaunt it , it is concealed at all times. I hope the lawsuit fails because this individual is making in my opinion every "law abiding " person look bad.
​

 

[finity]

So, then would you say that he person is correct when he says:



EDIT:
My point to him was that a "Proper Person" cannot obtain a handgun permit, therefore they cannot carry a handgun. Was I wrong?

I know this sounds weasely but the answer is "sort of".

A person is "carrying" when it is on his person (& by IN law in his vehicle), so he is "carrying" when he has it out & about on his own property or on the property of another with their permission or in a vehicle, unloaded, secured in a case & inaccessible.

Since IN law doesn't prevent a non-SVF from owning a gun & you don't need a LTCH to carry in those places/manners to carry a handgun or at all in the case of long guns then yes IN law does allow a non-SVF to "carry".

BUT that still doesn't mean that it's legal because it's still illegal for that non-SVF to even POSSESS a gun under federal law.

To answer the first question, though - NO, the Tomes laws are NOT terrible. As a matter of fact they are just fine. They don't go quite far enough but they are a huge step in the right direction.

He is incorrect in as much as he is under the impression that the Tomes laws changed much where non-SVF's were concerned. It only changed the rules for them only as much as it changed the rules for those non-felons (better known as "law-abiding") without a LTCH.

 

[mrortega]

Hilarious! Perhaps he should also be the speaker at the event

Great idea. He could give a slide presentation on different types of OC holsters

 

[finity]

But if it is already covered by federal law, why should we create an unnecessary state law?

I never said we should...

I'm simply addressing the misperception that many people have (including myself until recently) that state law makes it illegal for a non-SVF to own a gun.

As to the "unecessary"-ness of a law, I think that the law prohibiting any freed felon from possessing a gun is also unecessary.

 

[Shelly1582]

I never said we should...

I'm simply addressing the misperception that many people have (including myself until recently) that state law makes it illegal for a non-SVF to own a gun.

As to the "unecessary"-ness of a law, I think that the law prohibiting any freed felon from possessing a gun is also unecessary.

I just meant it would be redundant to mimic the federal law on a state level. I am learning more everyday and trying to make sure my understanding is correct. Thank you.

 

[finity]

The Preemption Law did not change that one bit.

Correct

The Transportation Law only made it possible for lawful owners to legally have their handgun in a few different places now without an LTCH.

And where does it specify that only "lawful" owners can carry in those few places without a license?

And if it did then what is the definition of "lawful"? Since there is no IN state law against a non-SVF possessing a gun then they are, by definition, "lawful" owners.

Nothing, as you well know, in the changes to the IC made it legal for felons to own and/or carry firearms anywhere.

You're right because as far as STATE law is concerned they always could at least to the extent that a non-felon could as well.

THIS IS ONLY CONSIDERING STATE LAW. FEDERAL LAWS MAKE THIS ARGUMENT MOOT.

But if your calling people "idiots" for correctly (mostly) stating IN law then you need to take the ACTUAL LAW into consideration, not what you think it is or should be.

He's not an idiot; he's mostly correct - at least where felon possession at the state level is concerned.

 

[GuyRelford]

FYI: I filed a First Amended Complaint today to include the fact that the city has failed to repeal Evansville Municipal Code 2.45.070(C)(18), an ordinance that prohibits possession of firearms on city park property, in direct conflict with Ind. Code 35-47-11.1-2.

I'll post a copy of the First Amended Complaint on my web site as soon as I get home from Evansville tonight.

Guy

 

[Stschil]

Correct




And where does it specify that only "lawful" owners can carry in those few places without a license?

And if it did then what is the definition of "lawful"? Since there is no IN state law against a non-SVF possessing a gun then they are, by definition, "lawful" owners.



You're right because as far as STATE law is concerned they always could at least to the extent that a non-felon could as well.

THIS IS ONLY CONSIDERING STATE LAW. FEDERAL LAWS MAKE THIS ARGUMENT MOOT.

But if your calling people "idiots" for correctly (mostly) stating IN law then you need to take the ACTUAL LAW into consideration, not what you think it is or should be.

He's not an idiot; he's mostly correct - at least where felon possession at the state level is concerned.

The person's quote, according to Roadie was something to the effect of 'Jim Tommes new law is terrible. It allows felons to own (or carry) guns now period'.

I responed that Nothing in the new changes made it lawful for felons to own guns. My using the term lawful owner was not a quote from the code, nor was it made to look as such. However, when I used it, it was taking into account that per Federal law, Felons are not permitted to own firearms.

I feel you are splitting hairs here, Sir. If the person in question fails to take the Federal restriction into consideration, or refuses to acknowledge it, by making such a statement as 'It allows felons to own guns', he is, IMO an idiot. He has consummed the Media's koolaid and is dutifully spouting the party line.

 

[mrortega]

Funniest thing. I just heard from a guy whose cousin's wife is on a cleaning crew at one of the television stations that everyone is expecting 20 to 30 people to open carry at the Evansville Zoo this coming Saturday! Hmmmmmmm . . . . .go figure !!

I really hope that doesn't happen. All debate about OC vs CC aside we have to remember that we have a tenuous majority in the state legislature and those numbers could change in the next election. Sen. Tomes won with a vote count of 15,254 to 14,248. My House rep, Wendy McNamara, beat her Democrat opponent by a razor thin 9,377 to 9,369 count. You want to stir up some s***? How about a large event of open carriers at the zoo with a lot of people freaking out and the zoo loosing revenue? How long do you think it will take to turn this into a political issue and jeaprodize OC? Let's be cool. Yes, we have the right to OC but it can be lost. Chest beating and bravado might be tempting but let's do this the right way. Let's exercise our right sensibly. The people of Evansville (at least the ones who can read) now know that openly carrying a side arm is legal. When they start seeing a few more people carrying they will be more likely to think less of it as a threat. Be cool, y'all.