Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[J_Wales]

Today, the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford filed a lawsuit against the City of Evansville and the Evansville Department of Parks and Recreation for violating Ind. Code 35-47-11.1-2, which generally prohibits the regulation of "firearms" and/or the "carrying . . . of firearms" by a unit of local governement. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Benjamin A. Magenheimer, who was forcibly removed from the Mesker Park Zoo & Botanical Garden in Evansville simply for carrying a firearm, despite the fact that he possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun.

To view the Press Release issued by my office, please visit Press Releases.

Guy

Thank you for taking this case. It does a body good to see somebody with the backbone to stand up for Liberty and individual rights.

 

[GuyRelford]

Most on this board know that I am an advocate of OC. You would be hard pressed to find someone who is more pro-OC than I (with the exception of ATM, who happens to be a god among OC'ers). However, I don't think that an OC event at the park would be prudent at this time. They have been hit hard right now with the lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of TF. Their heads are spinning as to what they can do here. Holding an OC event at the zoo would be like rubbing salt into a wound right now.

I am a big proponent for activism. But activism should be done for the purpose of making a change. The zoo has been advised that their actions were unlawful, and they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I say let the lawsuit take its natural course and allow the legal system to work for us. Kicking them while they are down will do nothing to help our case.

I humbly suggest that you continue your plans for an OC event, but that you schedule it for an alternate location. If I were closer to you, I would gladly join in. It's your decision, but you really should consider your actions carefully.

I would never ask anyone to refrain from exercising their rights or communicating their opinions, but I emphatically agree with these comments.

Guy

 

[finity]

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.

If someones factual mistatement of the law is the standard for calling someone an "idiot" or "moron" then I think we could call about 90% of the people on this board "idiots" & "morons", including me.

You can say I'm splitting hairs but a fact is a fact.

Fact: it is not illegal under state law for a non-SVF to own a gun.

Fact: it is not illegal under state law for that non-SVF to "carry" that gun in the same places that a "law-abiing" person can too.

Fact: it is impossible for STATE prosecutors to prosecute the "crime" of a felon "carrying" a gun where it is legal for others to also carry since there is no STATE law against a non-SVF felon possessing a gun.

OTOH, FACT: The Tomes laws did nothing to change those facts. They just made it lawful AT THE STATE LEVEL for non-SVF felons to carry their guns in more places right along with everyone else. I'm not saying that was intentional or that it's a reason to say the law "is terrible" or a reason to not support the new law. It's simply a FACT.

FACT: that non-SVF can still be prosecuted by federal prosecutors under federal law for possessing a gun.

The more FACTS we know & acknowledge, the easier it is to engage in an intelligent conversation without the need to call people names.

Lastly, I'm not sure which "party" you're talking about. Is it the "gun-owner party"? That's the only "party" that I can see that the person admits to being in.

So are all of the people who say that it's illegal for someone to have a gun in their vehicle in IL, NO MATTER WHAT, idiots just because they have misread the law or were otherwise misinformed? Which "party line" are they then spouting?

 

[Stschil]

If someones factual mistatement of the law is the standard for calling someone an "idiot" or "moron" then I think we could call about 90% of the people on this board "idiots" & "morons", including me.

If said person continues to maintain that his version is fact in the face of evidence to the contrary, then he is. Mistatements happen, I've been guilty of them myself, but when shown where I erred, I man up and admit it. In most cases thanking the person who shared the information.

You can say I'm splitting hairs but a fact is a fact.

Fact: it is not illegal under state law for a non-SVF to own a gun.

Fact: it is not illegal under state law for that non-SVF to "carry" that gun in the same places that a "law-abiing" person can too.

Fact: it is impossible for STATE prosecutors to prosecute the "crime" of a felon "carrying" a gun where it is legal for others to also carry since there is no STATE law against a non-SVF felon possessing a gun.

OTOH, FACT: The Tomes laws did nothing to change those facts. They just made it lawful AT THE STATE LEVEL for non-SVF felons (who cannot, by Federal Law own firearms) to carry their (illegaly possessed) guns in more places right along with everyone else. I'm not saying that was intentional or that it's a reason to say the law "is terrible" or a reason to not support the new law. It's simply a FACT.

FACT: that non-SVF can still be prosecuted by federal prosecutors under federal law for possessing a gun.

The more FACTS we know & acknowledge, the easier it is to engage in an intelligent conversation without the need to call people names.

Lastly, I'm not sure which "party" you're talking about. Is it the "gun-owner party"? That's the only "party" that I can see that the person admits to being in.

So are all of the people who say that it's illegal for someone to have a gun in their vehicle in IL, NO MATTER WHAT, idiots just because they have misread the law or were otherwise misinformed? Which "party line" are they then spouting?

The party line is the one of the lib media, which touted the "OMG Felons are now allowed to carry handguns all over the state" line all over the place just prior to and after the changes introduced by Sen Tommes took effect. The media did not choose to advise it's listening/reading public that these law did, and could do, nothing to negate the Federal Restriction or change it in any way.

The fact that felons legally cannot own firearms per federal law is a key element in the arguement that for some reason continues to be removed and/or ignored.

I sense that we are on the same sheet of music, just playing different parts.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I thought this would be a good place to add this link.

Letter from Tomes about all of this.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...defense/170100-letter_from_sen_jim_tomes.html

 

[IndyIN]

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?

My opinion is that you will never get action based on this. The City will say that the officers suggested that he cover it, they didn't require it. And that that the individual became disruptive, which led to him being led out. This happens everyday with disruptive patrons in public/private places. There may be a few witnesses that say he wasn't, they will have many that say he was.

Going to be a touch road to prove that it didn't happen exactly as described in the paper, unless there is a recording. No charges were filed so the burden to prove is on Guy, not on the City. While I think there was really more behind the officer's actions, it's going to be difficult to show/prove it.

My

 

[indytechnerd]

My opinion is that you will never get action based on this. The City will say that the officers suggested that he cover it, they didn't require it. And that that the individual became disruptive, which led to him being led out. This happens everyday with disruptive patrons in public/private places. There may be a few witnesses that say he wasn't, they will have many that say he was.

Going to be a touch road to prove that it didn't happen exactly as described in the paper, unless there is a recording. No charges were filed so the burden to prove is on Guy, not on the City. While I think there was really more behind the officer's actions, it's going to be difficult to show/prove it.

My

Problem is, asking or 'suggesting' he cover it violates the law. If the city says the officers suggested it, case closed...

Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.

They can ask for his LTCH, inform him that folks don't like OC, and pretty much go pound sand beyond that.

 

[finity]

The new law says that local subdivisions cannot regulate firearms which includes the manner in which they are carried.

The fact (if you can call it that) that the police are saying the reason for his ejection was because of the "disturbance" he was causing shouldn't even be an issue in this case. The ejection was a completely seperate issue from the demand/request/etc for TF to conceal his gun - even though it followed as a direct result of the demand.

The police (& by extension the city of Evansville) violated the new law JUST by the fact that they told him to cover it up in the first place. The fact that is what they did is not even in question. They admitted it on numerous occasions.

Contrary to what many would like you to believe the police can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) "ask" you to do anything they want UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

If a cop "asks" your wife for sex on a traffic stop and then, when she gets offended & "causes a disturbance" because of that request, the police arrest her for her "disturbance" I don't think anyone would be OK with that. Why should this be any different?

 

[long coat]

My opinion is that you will never get action based on this. The City will say that the officers suggested that he cover it, they didn't require it. And that that the individual became disruptive, which led to him being led out. This happens everyday with disruptive patrons in public/private places. There may be a few witnesses that say he wasn't, they will have many that say he was.

Going to be a touch road to prove that it didn't happen exactly as described in the paper, unless there is a recording. No charges were filed so the burden to prove is on Guy, not on the City. While I think there was really more behind the officer's actions, it's going to be difficult to show/prove it.

My

He said they have cameras, so they may have it on tape.

 

[GuyRelford]

Here's an updated article that deals with the First Amended Complaint that I filed yesterday: Lawsuit amended to challenge Evansville's gun ordinance » Evansville Courier & Press

You can see the new Complaint at www.global-lit.com/Press_Releases.html.

Guy

 

[redbaron]

I find it funny that this article now states there were 4 officers when the original article stated there were two!! I love the Courier-Press reporting!!

 

[mrortega]

I find it funny that this article now states there were 4 officers when the original article stated there were two!! I love the Courier-Press reporting!!

I've heard it two ways: (1) Two officers approached TF and were joined by two more; (2) four responded.

 

[goinggreyfast]

Here's an updated article that deals with the First Amended Complaint that I filed yesterday: Lawsuit amended to challenge Evansville's gun ordinance » Evansville Courier & Press

You can see the new Complaint at www.global-lit.com/Press_Releases.html.

Guy

Just read the article, but it was the comments below that toasted my biscuit. "And the beat goes on..." Ignorant sheeple...

 

[SirRealism]

Just read the article, but it was the comments below that toasted my biscuit. "And the beat goes on..." Ignorant sheeple...

Yeah, the comments on Facebook and all the news sites have been driving me nuts. I didn't look at that article yet, but I'm sure they're similar. The most frustrating thing is that people are calling anyone who carries a "jerk", etc. And, naturally, they're saying that this whole thing was planned in order to "get paid".

They truly don't get it that normal people carry on a daily basis. And that's one of the reasons I OC so much. I really want people to see gun ownership and personal protection as a normal part of life.

I often have my personal voice recorder running for hours on end if I'm carrying. If I have a negative encounter with LE, I'm sure that people would say that my intention was to entrap a cop. It couldn't be further from the truth... I want no interactions with cops at all. But if I do, I want to be prepared.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

“I guess we will have people wearing six shooters to bars now and staring each other down,” Jones said. “You can be sure there are going to be unintended consequences to this law.”

Got to love the red herrings.

Pardon me, counselor, but people could wear six shooter into bars before SB292. It had nothing to do with bars.

 

[rhino]

Got to love the red herrings.

Pardon me, counselor, but people could wear six shooter into bars before SB292. It had nothing to do with bars.

Facts, logic, and the truth can never stop someone from getting their message to The People!

 

[GuyRelford]

I just did a Skype interview for News25 - I assume for the 6:00 news.

 

[mrortega]

I just did a Skype interview for News25 - I assume for the 6:00 news.

Thanks for the tip, Guy. That gives me the only reason to watch.

 

[IndyIN]

Problem is, asking or 'suggesting' he cover it violates the law. If the city says the officers suggested it, case closed...


They can ask for his LTCH, inform him that folks don't like OC, and pretty much go pound sand beyond that.

Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.

So I'll admit that I'm no expert, I'm just playing devils advocate here.A key could be the definition of regulate.

Websters defines it as
: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>

So it would seem that the intent could be that political subdivision can't enact their own rules concerning the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories. The argument might be made that the PD wasn't regulating, based on this definition of regulate. Essentially they would say they have no local rule (provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy) they were enforcing, thus they were not regulating anything.

I don't know the case law, so there might already be clarification regarding any type of suggestions being made. Context of the suggestion would seem to be important (e.g. I suggest you do this if you don't want trouble vs. hey you might just cover it up until people settle down.) I don't see where the 2nd example is prohibited. It would be easy to argue that it's non of their business, but violating law maybe different.


Just presenting another view point, it will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[IndyIN]

If a cop "asks" your wife for sex on a traffic stop and then, when she gets offended & "causes a disturbance" because of that request, the police arrest her for her "disturbance" I don't think anyone would be OK with that. Why should this be any different?

I get your example, but it differs from this actual scenario in a couple ways.

They didn't ask him to violate a law, and in my other reply I think they will argue that they were not violating any law based on the suggestion (again... just playing devils advocate). Also, no one was arrested. I don't get to cause a disturbance because someone else did something wrong. I'm not suggesting that the person really did cause a disturbance, just arguing that side.