Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[SideArmed]

So does carrying a firearm on your hip constitute an "intentional display of said firearm?

SB 292 Section 4, still allowed for the regulation of the intentional display (open carry) at a public meeting.

So they are still within the law, prohibiting OC, so long as they don't try to ban them al together at a public meeting.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I did contact him again, & asked what constituted a "Public Meeting", and he said in the town's eyes, it is only a Town Council meeting.

As far as the Intentional Display issue, and whether "printing" might be considered, or a 'blown open coat', I think that would be something that would have to be argued between yours & theirs lawyers. Like most most issues, I think it comes down to intent...(and how good your lawyer is)

 

[Exodus]

Here they hold city meetings at the courthouse.

 

[Hammerhead]

Here they hold city meetings at the courthouse.

That only means you can't carry if there is a judge that has declared it off limits. There are courthouses in IN that carry is perfectly acceptable.

 

[24Carat]

That only means you can't carry if there is a judge that has declared it off limits. There are courthouses in IN that carry is perfectly acceptable.

Could you please post the IC that states this? I have found no IC reference to a judges position, decision or opinion being considered about carry in government buildings. It says "a courtroom". This is very dangerous personal interpretation of IC that can put our members and the General Public at risk. Why so reckless???

 

[SirRealism]

Could you please post the IC that states this? I have found no IC reference to a judges position, decision or opinion being considered about carry in government buildings. It says "a courtroom". This is very dangerous personal interpretation of IC that can put our members and the General Public at risk. Why so reckless???

My understanding of SB292 is that it allows municipalities to restrict carry in courtrooms. It doesn't make carrying in courtrooms illegal.

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.

 

[a.bentonab]

That only means you can't carry if there is a judge that has declared it off limits. There are courthouses in IN that carry is perfectly acceptable.

My understanding of SB292 is that it allows municipalities to restrict carry in courtrooms. It doesn't make carrying in courtrooms illegal.

Correct. It doesn't say a judge has to say it though. Whoever makes rules could make it against them or whoever makes local laws could make it illegal. I could certainly see that applying to mayors, town council, etc.

 

[24Carat]

Correct. It doesn't say a judge has to say it though. Whoever makes rules could make it against them or whoever makes local laws could make it illegal. I could certainly see that applying to mayors, town council, etc.

I understand and agree. On home turf this can easily be discerned but travel to another jurisdiction in the state involves ignorance and inherent risk. Me thinks I will default on the side of not carrying in buildings with the potential of having a courtroom. Either that or go in unarmed and ask if I can bring my gun in! Not so much!!

 

[Hammerhead]

Correct. It doesn't say a judge has to say it though. Whoever makes rules could make it against them or whoever makes local laws could make it illegal. I could certainly see that applying to mayors, town council, etc.

Perhaps, but judges are a persnickety bunch, and I doubt they'll allow some outside person or persons to have a say as to what happens in their courtroom.

Courthouses and courtrooms are generally a judges domain.

 

[Stschil]

Perhaps, but judges are a persnickety bunch, and I doubt they'll allow some outside person or persons to have a say as to what happens in their courtroom.

Courthouses and courtrooms are generally a judges domain.

I think the IC places the ability to restrict carry to the building that houses the courtroom, not just the courtroom itself. So, if I'm correct in that thinking, it's not the Judges' sole decision.

 

[Manan]

Will situations like this cause the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

Will situations like this put pressure on the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

 

[cobber]

Will situations like this cause the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

Will situations like this put pressure on the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

Don't be surprised to see an OC ban proposed in the next session, especially if these lawsuits succeed.

 

[Fargo]

Perhaps, but judges are a persnickety bunch, and I doubt they'll allow some outside person or persons to have a say as to what happens in their courtroom.

Courthouses and courtrooms are generally a judges domain.

While it is true that judges can mandate the county executive (commissioners) in regard to most things courtroom, it is also true that most of the enactments that I know of prohibiting firearms in courtrooms are ordinances passed by the commissioners.

Best,

Joe

 

[jeremy]

Don't be surprised to see an OC ban proposed in the next session, especially if these lawsuits succeed.

Wanna make a Wager on whether this happens...

Cause I am putting my money in on the fact that the Legislatures are to damn Lazy to do it pile...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Will situations like this cause the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

Will situations like this put pressure on the Indiana Legislature to rethink our LTCH laws?

Don't be surprised to see an OC ban proposed in the next session, especially if these lawsuits succeed.

So what do you guys recommend? That we just turn our cheek when our government fails us? What rights will they take away next that we are "guaranteed" that we are willing to let go? How about freedom of religion? Do you like that no one tells you where you can go to church? What if one day you are walking to your chosen place of worship and a cop steps in front of you and says, "We have received a complaint that this church does not have the version of the Bible that is approved, you must stop believing this way immediately."

What would you do then? Would you protest in a polite way? I think that is reasonable. What if they banished you from the building that you had EVERY right to be in? What if the law backed you up in that you could sue the offending party to make it right and let it be heard that you will not tolerate Tyranny in ANY FORM?

What would you think when people from your own congregation said maybe you should have just gone along with it and not said anything, they might take another look at our "License to Worship."?

 

[LanceRobbins24]

So what do you guys recommend? That we just turn our cheek when our government fails us? What rights will they take away next that we are "guaranteed" that we are willing to let go? How about freedom of religion? Do you like that no one tells you where you can go to church? What if one day you are walking to your chosen place of worship and a cop steps in front of you and says, "We have received a complaint that this church is not the version of the Bible that is approved, you must stop believing this way immediately."

What would you do then? Would you protest in a polite way? I think that is reasonable. What if they banished you from the building that you had EVERY right to be in? What if the law backed you up in that you could sue the offending party to make it right and let it be heard that you will not tolerate Tyranny in ANY FORM?

What would you think when people from your own congregation said maybe you should have just gone along with it and not said anything, they might take another look at our "License to Worship."?

Another positive rep inbound....+1

 

[jeremy]

So what do you guys recommend? That we just turn our cheek when our government fails us? What rights will they take away next that we are "guaranteed" that we are willing to let go? How about freedom of religion? Do you like that no one tells you where you can go to church? What if one day you are walking to your chosen place of worship and a cop steps in front of you and says, "We have received a complaint that this church does not have the version of the Bible that is approved, you must stop believing this way immediately."

What would you do then? Would you protest in a polite way? I think that is reasonable. What if they banished you from the building that you had EVERY right to be in? What if the law backed you up in that you could sue the offending party to make it right and let it be heard that you will not tolerate Tyranny in ANY FORM?

What would you think when people from your own congregation said maybe you should have just gone along with it and not said anything, they might take another look at our "License to Worship."?

I think you already have an idea of my opinion...
I will not be voicing my Opinion on this subject either...

When I do get banned, I want it to be for something truly Epic...

 

[mrortega]

I haven't seen anything lately about what's going on with this case but I hope somebody gets their butt kicked pretty soon. TF, tell 'em for me that if they mess with you they also mess with [STRIKE]mrortega[/STRIKE] Benny or Webbhobit

 

[WebHobbit]

Agreed.

Hoping for some good news soon.

 

[cobber]

So what do you guys recommend? That we just turn our cheek when our government fails us? What rights will they take away next that we are "guaranteed" that we are willing to let go?

I don't think I expressed any opinion on the OC/CC thing. It's just that so many people here seem excited by the lawsuit against Evansville. It makes me think of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or be careful what you wish for...

Getting lots of media attention and then going to court may not have the result people here seem to think it will.

The legislature could easily ban OC and simply draw the analogy to every other state that allows CC but not OC in arguing that no one's rights are being infringed, only regulated (which would be in line with Heller, right?).

Wanna make a Wager on whether this happens...

Cause I am putting my money in on the fact that the Legislatures are to damn Lazy to do it pile...

How do you explain the A infraction for tossing a burning cigarette out of a vehicle then? Some legislator was driving when somebody did this, lit cigarette landed in his car and caused some damage. He got the legislature to write a new law on that basis. True story.

Now contrast a car fire with a civil judgment against a major municipality.

I am betting someone in the legislature is going to be motivated. How far they get, who can say? As the saying goes, 'let sleeping dogs lie.'