Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[Concerned Citizen]

Surely none of that is valid??

 

[Hoosierdood]

Hey Ladys & Gents:

Guess what some towns and cities have found out. The newly created Chapter 35-47-11-1 does not prevent political subdivisions from regulating and enforcing the prohibition or restriction of the intentional display of firearms at public meetings.

The City of Bloomington, IN., has amended their Bloomington Municipal Code Section 2.04.225 to comply with SEA 292.

http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/10086.pdf

So, much for open carry on municipal property!

Looks good to me. Bloomington is taking steps to conform to the state law. By the way, Bloomington Municipal Code does not forbid open carry on municipal property. It forbids open carry at council meetings only. You can still carry concealed at council meetings, and you can carry any way you like on municipal property. Go back and re-read the ordinance.

 

[KG1]

Hey Ladys & Gents:

Guess what some towns and cities have found out. The newly created Chapter 35-47-11-1 does not prevent political subdivisions from regulating and enforcing the prohibition or restriction of the intentional display of firearms at public meetings.

The City of Bloomington, IN., has amended their Bloomington Municipal Code Section 2.04.225 to comply with SEA 292.

http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/10086.pdf

So, much for open carry on municipal property!

wut?

 

[long coat]

Doesn't that regulate how you carry? I'm on my phone and can't read it right now.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

It also says the discharge of firearms at the Griffy Lake environs is prohibited. And the dicharge of firearms within the legal limit of Lake Lemon. That sounds like you will be fined even if you discharge your firearm in a legal case of self defense.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Just to clarify... IC 35-47-11.1 states:

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Exceptions
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.

Bloomington's municipal code states:

The intentional display of firearms is prohibited at any public meeting of the Council.

Looks to me that they are completely within the spirit of the law to prohibit open carry at public meetings of the council.

 

[ATM]

Looks good to me. Bloomington is taking steps to conform to the state law. By the way, Bloomington Municipal Code does not forbid open carry on municipal property. It forbids open carry at council meetings only. You can still carry concealed at council meetings, and you can carry any way you like on municipal property. Go back and re-read the ordinance.

That's the way I take it as well.

IC 35-47-11.1-4

Exceptions
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
...
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.

ETA: Dang, even scooped me on the clarification. Albert mocks me from your avatar.

 

[KG1]

It also says the discharge of firearms at the Griffy Lake environs is prohibited. And the dicharge of firearms within the legal limit of Lake Lemon. That sounds like you will be fined even if you discharge your firearm in a legal case of self defense.

The way it's worded only cops can. You have to escape and evade or try to survive as long as you can untill they get there.

 

[Hoosierdood]

It also says the discharge of firearms at the Griffy Lake environs is prohibited. And the dicharge of firearms within the legal limit of Lake Lemon. That sounds like you will be fined even if you discharge your firearm in a legal case of self defense.

Almost all cities have restrictions on the discharge of firearms within city limits. However, if you discharge your firearm within city limits for self defense, you cannot be fined/tried for violating that municipal code per IC 35-41-3.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

That's good news. Thanks dood.

 

[Hammerhead]

Actually, the IC only says that they can stop you from OCing at a public meeting. You're still allowed to carry. If you go to a town council meeting, you can still carry so long as the building you're in doesn't have a courtroom. You just have to cover up. It's annoying that you have to cover up, but you're still armed.

They can't use that then to say that TF OCing at the zoo was in violation of that provision because he wasn't at a public meeting.


ETA: Never mind. I came in to the last read post and didn't see the next page.

 

[critter592]

Peter cried wolf too many times too. Just sayin.

Eta: that's in reference to the joker who wants to call 911 every time they see oc. 911 doesn't like prank callers.

 

[Harry]

Hmmmmmm, It would seem to me that if you just cover it up its OK. But should you bend over and the handgun imprints on your clothing and someone sees it, a highly motivated BPD officer at the meeting will still escort you ou the door.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Hmmmmmm, It would seem to me that if you just cover it up its OK. But should you bend over and the handgun imprints on your clothing and someone sees it, a highly motivated BPD officer at the meeting will still escort you ou the door.

That may happen, but then they would be violating the law. The law specifically states the intentional display of a firearm. Accidental display is not a violation.

 

[Harry]

I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on this forum, so I always refer to the applicable statute. Bottom line, It will be a matter of interpretation in a court of law.

 

[ATM]

When I attend council meetings in Bloomington, I'll just cover up with my untucked I'M CARRYING A GUN t-shirt.

 

[Rookie]

Looks good to me. Bloomington is taking steps to conform to the state law. By the way, Bloomington Municipal Code does not forbid open carry on municipal property. It forbids open carry at council meetings only. You can still carry concealed at council meetings, and you can carry any way you like on municipal property. Go back and re-read the ordinance.

I see no exemption for LEO. Wonder if that will be enforced.

 

[Hammerhead]

I see no exemption for LEO. Wonder if that will be enforced.

"Some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell Animal Farm

 

[jgreiner]

That may happen, but then they would be violating the law. The law specifically states the intentional display of a firearm. Accidental display is not a violation.

So no form fitting muscle shirts (with my belly, that is a truly frightening image).....

 

[rhino]

So how will Bloomingulch interpret "intentionally display"?