Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[Roadie]

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.

Determining the mode of carry wouldn't be considered "regulating" to you?

 

[Fargo]

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?

Your second "fact" is incorrect though. A felon, whether svf or not, is not a legal "proper person" and is explicitly prohibited from acquiring a handgun permit in Indiana. See IC 35-47-2-3(g).

As such, under state law a felon cannot carry a handgun in the same fashion as a non-felon because a felon cannot acquire a permit.

Additionally, carrying a handgun without a license by someone convicted of a felony within the last 15 years is an automatic C felony.

This is the huge distinction that the Chicken Little's on the news are missing about the Tomes bill.

Best,

Joe

 

[templar223]

Can someone clue me in on what an SVF is?

Congrats on the suit. Sounds like a good case and I'm looking forward to a nice settlement check without a non-disclosure agreement.

Thanks.

 

[Stschil]

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.

I'll play along.

Lets just say that TF had been approached by Zoo Officials who stated that Firearms were not permitted, or Take that thing and lock it up in your car, or something to that effect?

Perhaps, TF told them firmly, yet politely that they can pack sand, they don't have the legal authority to tell him that.

Perhaps, Zoo people, having their panties sufficiently twisted, call the PD and cry Man With A Gun?

Perhaps, PD shows up, having not been given the whole story, start in JBT mode and tell TF, conceal it or get out and TF again firmly explains they have no legal authority to instruct him in such manner. PD decided that they can bully him into by threatening force and TF becomes disturbed and his voice then raises as he continues to stand for his legal rights...

Would you now say that someone qualified under the IC as being a representive of the local political subdivision has attempted to "regulate" his actions?

Im not trying to be snarky, just showing a possible other side to this.
Also, this is purely supposition on my part. I have not discussed the details of this case with TF and know nothing more that what has been reported and linked to by Guy and the news papers.

 

[GuyRelford]

Can someone clue me in on what an SVF is?

Congrats on the suit. Sounds like a good case and I'm looking forward to a nice settlement check without a non-disclosure agreement.

Thanks.

"Serious Violent Felon"

And thank you!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Your second "fact" is incorrect though. A felon, whether svf or not, is not a legal "proper person" and is explicitly prohibited from acquiring a handgun permit in Indiana. See IC 35-47-2-3(g).

As such, under state law a felon cannot carry a handgun in the same fashion as a non-felon because a felon cannot acquire a permit.

Additionally, carrying a handgun without a license by someone convicted of a felony within the last 15 years is an automatic C felony.

This is the huge distinction that the Chicken Little's on the news are missing about the Tomes bill.

Best,

Joe

IC 35-47-2-3(g) only concerns handguns though. According to Indiana Code there is nothing that keeps a felon from owning a rifle or shotgun though. I was confused so I asked Guy(Tactical Firearms Training) and he agreed Indiana had nothing keeping a felon from owning long guns, but that is a moot point because of federal law.

 

[Fargo]

IC 35-47-2-3(g) only concerns handguns though. According to Indiana Code there is nothing that keeps a felon from owning a rifle or shotgun though. I was confused so I asked Guy(Tactical Firearms Training) and he agreed Indiana had nothing keeping a felon from owning long guns, but that is a moot point because of federal law.

You are correct; non-svf felons who were not convicted of a crime of domestic violence are not prohibited by Indiana law from owning/carrying long guns.

Nor are they prohibited from owning/carrying handguns in a fashion not requiring a permit.

However, they are absolutely prohibited from carrying a handgun in a fashion requiring a permit.

Thus, there is a big difference in their ability to carry.

Best,

Joe

 

[Bunnykid68]

They still have no legal ability to carry due to federal law though so it does not really matter, at least I don't think it does.

 

[Fargo]

They still have no legal ability to carry due to federal law though so it does not really matter, at least I don't think it does.

From a technical standpoint, no. However, if you have any experience with the difference in who/how the state's prosecute vs. who/how the feds prosecute, it is actually a very real distinction.

There are probably well over a hundred "SVF in possession of a handgun" or C felony "carrying a handgun without a license by a felon" charged filed on the state level yearly. They are not uncommon and are routinely prosecuted.

The US Attorney's office just filed three federal charges and it made front page news. Also, all 3 were on the federal radar for other much more important reasons; the gun charges are kind of media gravy.

Best,

Joe

 

[GuyRelford]

Updated news coverage about the amended complaint: Man Forced To Leave Zoo Sues Over City Law - NEWS 25 WEHT Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro

 

[mrortega]

I saw the ch 25 piece. The mayor's statement that the city just overlooked the old city code provision is an insult to the citizens of this city. Is he going to have his police department accept such an excuse when a citizen doesn't know a new law?

 

[Roadie]

I saw the ch 25 piece. The mayor's statement that the city just overlooked the old city code provision is an insult to the citizens of this city. Is he going to have his police department accept such an excuse when a citizen doesn't know a new law?

"Weinzapfel says the city was aware of the changes to Indiana code"

What a load of crap..

 

[mrortega]

"Weinzapfel says the city was aware of the changes to Indiana code"

What a load of crap..

If you think that's a load of crap you ought to see the $125 million downtown arena he and his buds jammed up our a$$es. The worst part is some of the parking is blocks away in some questionable neighborhoods. I won't go there for anything but the open house and I'll be CCing.

 

[long coat]

Updated news coverage about the amended complaint: Man Forced To Leave Zoo Sues Over City Law - NEWS 25 WEHT Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro

Can you change the complaint one more time?
So the LEOs and the zoo staff pay for it out of their own pocket, not the tax payers.

 

[finity]

Your second "fact" is incorrect though. A felon, whether svf or not, is not a legal "proper person" and is explicitly prohibited from acquiring a handgun permit in Indiana. See IC 35-47-2-3(g).

As such, under state law a felon cannot carry a handgun in the same fashion as a non-felon because a felon cannot acquire a permit.

Additionally, carrying a handgun without a license by someone convicted of a felony within the last 15 years is an automatic C felony.

This is the huge distinction that the Chicken Little's on the news are missing about the Tomes bill.

Best,

Joe

I agree.

I should have been more specific & said "non-felon WITHOUT A LTCH" because that's what I meant.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[CarmelHP]

I am very surprised at the comments of Bryan Ciyou. One would think the author of an Indiana firearms reference manual would understand our new preemption statute and an Indiana citizen's right to OC.

It sounds like a look of people who should know better went out of their way to make stupid comments. How dare that guy commit contempt-of-cop in broad daylight?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How dare that guy commit contempt-of-cop in broad daylight?

Yeah, does he think he's Kirk Freeman or something?

 

[beararms1776]

He was still permitted to carry concealed. The zoo was only asking that he cover the weapon up. Don't get me wrong and launch an assault here but out of respect for the property owners and drawing less attention from the anti's, I would have just politely concealed it and went about my buisness. It's not like they were trying to completely disarm the guy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jmiller676]

He was still permitted to carry concealed. The zoo was only asking that he cover the weapon up. Don't get me wrong and launch an assault here but out of respect for the property owners and drawing less attention from the anti's, I would have just politely concealed it and went about my buisness. It's not like they were trying to completely disarm the guy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The COPS told him to conceal it when they aren't allowed to do that by law. Then was removed because he wouldn't conceal it.
That is what I get.

 

[Stschil]

He was still permitted to carry concealed. The zoo was only asking that he cover the weapon up. Don't get me wrong and launch an assault here but out of respect for the property owners and drawing less attention from the anti's, I would have just politely concealed it and went about my buisness. It's not like they were trying to completely disarm the guy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Zoo is public property, so they didn't even have the right to ask him to conceal. Thats where the whole hullabaloo stems from.


Unless of course, he was open carrying a Starbucks Coffee cup....That's downright disrespectful and should be included as an aggravating factor in the minimum sentancing guidelines.