Greenwood forbids carry altogether???

[sj kahr k40]

Many such ordinances have been otherwise preempted by state law, despite not being removed by the city.

Only laws not on the books before 1994 are preempted, laws passed before 94 are still valid.

 

[JoshuaW]

also GPD177, i have close LEO friends who have had plenty of experience with death at accidents and death notifications. so i see where your coming from and i sympathize. your department might only get $1.50 of that ticket, that wasnt my point. the city and state gets the rest, they are the ones wanting it as a revenue generator. sorry i didnt make my point clearer.

My personal thoughts are that the system is crooked. Its not wrong, its not backwards, its just off. The balance is NOT there. If the police officers who are tasked with writing tickets know that their department gets extra money (better/newer equipment, more over time, etc) they have incentive to distort the laws, and to enforcement them in an irregular and erratic manor. It destroys that clear cut "Yes you were speeding" and "No you were not speeding" to "Yes you were speeding, and I wont write you a ticket because I dont care" and another officer may go "Yes you were speeding, and I am going to write a ticket for the sake of funding" (probably more like for the sake of writing a ticket because he can). You get uneven enforcements. There is no clear winning.

Then, the courts tilt it some more. In Elkhart, along with many other places, you the "Defendant" are required to prove yourself innocent. I have been in that situation, the officer was clearly wrong, and later admitted it, but I couldnt fight it in court because it wasnt designed for me to win. The courts also tip the scale in their favor, because they receive money from it. Its good for business. It all goes to the general funds.

Now, rather than the general funds, it should go to a specific use. It should go to charity. It should go to schools. It should go to roadwork projects. There should be no connection for the officers and the courts to that end money. Then, and only then, would it be enforced in a fair environment. Someone may not get a ticket because an officer doesnt think it warrants one. Someone might get a ticket and challenge and the judge think it is not warranted. Someone might get a ticket and the prosecutor might decide it wasnt fair, and they may get to settle out for much less.

This is all my


On topic: We need to make progress to get rid of these confusing, contradicting laws. It is part of making sure EVERYONE has a fair chance at understanding the law. We shouldnt have to confer with a lawyer because we dont understand some 50 year old law that is no longer enforced. That law should simply be removed.

 

[libertybear]

I read it like this too... GTG in Greenwood

Quote:
Sec. 6-331 Use of Firearms/Shooting of Birds.
(a) No person, except a peace officer, shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun
within the City, or have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control
unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.

i think the other suitable container would apply to a holster. the code says it has to be broken down OR enclosed in a carrying case or other suitable container. i think some one is reading too fast

 

[pudly]

I read it like this too... GTG in Greenwood

Not entirely. The problem with that code is that even though you may be allowed to carry, you are not allowed to fire in self-defense. Although GPD177 casts some doubt on whether that would ever be enforced.

 

[libertybear]

Our state constitution says we can if it's in self defence I don't see it being an issue. You can't fire a firearm in most city limits but that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or property.

Not entirely. The problem with that code is that even though you may be allowed to carry, you are not allowed to fire in self-defense. Although GPD177 casts some doubt on whether that would ever be enforced.

 

[pudly]

Our state constitution says we can if it's in self defence I don't see it being an issue. You can't fire a firearm in most city limits but that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or property.

Actually, Indianapolis' ordinance has an explicit exemption for self-defense.

 

[libertybear]

Yea I agree it makes you really wonder what kind of idiots these people are.

Actually, Indianapolis' ordinance has an explicit exemption for self-defense.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Yea I agree it makes you really wonder what kind of idiots these people are.

The non-thinking kind that pass feel-good laws.

 

[JBusch8899]

Not entirely. The problem with that code is that even though you may be allowed to carry, you are not allowed to fire in self-defense. Although GPD177 casts some doubt on whether that would ever be enforced.

Self defense has been codified since the Magna Carte, and has since recognized under our system of jurisprudence, both legislative and common law.

No city ordinance can effectively remove this by mere exclusion.

 

[LawDog76]

I obey the speed limits 90% of the time, because you usualy get to where your going at the same time anyways.

Good point. We had to do a Speed and Time study in the Police Academy as part of our radar training. 10mph over the limit at a distance of 20 mile only saves you 2 minutes time. A ticket here in Allen county for 10 over the limit plus court cost, $185. Is 2 minutes of your time really worth $185? And if you do get caught and the stop goes smooth you'll end up being 10 minutes later than you planned. If you get an officer that wants to finger up your firearm, run a check on it, lecture you on his opinion of people carrying, run the numbers on your gun, ask you 100 questions and all that other crap, your probably going to be about 20 - 30 min late. If you get a jack@$$ officer that doesn't know his gun laws, you're probably going to get proned out and be about an hour late.

 

[Fargo]

If you get an officer that wants to finger up your firearm, run a check on it, lecture you on his opinion of people carrying, run the numbers on your gun, ask you 100 questions and all that other crap, your probably going to be about 20 - 30 min late. If you get a jack@$$ officer that doesn't know his gun laws, you're probably going to get proned out and be about an hour late.

If you get an officer doing the bold part, I think it is pretty safe to say he already "doesn't know his gun laws". I know of 0 legal authority for the police to run numbers on a legally carried gun. Also, there is quite a bit of law prohibiting officers from unduly prolonging a traffic stop absent evidence of illegal activity. Additionally, there is new caselaw strongly suggesting that search/seizure of a pistol after showing of a valid license is illegal without other evidence.

 

[JBusch8899]

Only laws not on the books before 1994 are preempted, laws passed before 94 are still valid.

My statement also includes relevant court opinions that possess the force of law, despite being penned after 1994. In this matter, such would in fact be preempted.

 

[pudly]

Self defense has been codified since the Magna Carte, and has since recognized under our system of jurisprudence, both legislative and common law.

No city ordinance can effectively remove this by mere exclusion.

You are correct. They can't remove the right to self defense. It is a natural right, existing as early as the first animal deciding that another would be tasty. But they can fine you for exercising it. My point was that they have an explicit code written against using a gun any reason (short of shooting pigeons ). Only $2,500 for the right to pull your gun and/or fire it. The code needs to be changed, not ignored.

 

[IndySSD]

Just as an FYI... I had a pretty entertaining chat @ the firearms desk of Deick's sporting goods last weekend with a uniformed G-Wood G-Man.

We were both commenting about the buffoon buying .22LR for his walther P22 in a fobus holster hanging off his hip with his LTCH BADGE right beside it wearing blue BDU style pants tucked into his boots and a flat black Tshirt also tucked in tight...

After we had a good chuckle we continued to talk about Mossy500's vs. Rem 870's and Full Rifle stock vs. basic pistol or pistol+folding stocks on said shotties.

I have yet to meet a Greenwood PD who wasn't amiable and reasonable.

Even the one who gave me a warning ticket (41 in a 30 after forgetting about that 300 yard stretch of 30mph zone) one night was very polite and friendly. Honestly seemed concerned only for the safety of the people living around that crappy stretch of smith valley road between Madison and Emerson. **Just to clarify... by crappy I mean as you come east/northeast you come down a significant hill into a significant curve that passes through multiple residential area entries and then curves hard left and resumes 40mph.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Just as an FYI... I had a pretty entertaining chat @ the firearms desk of Deick's sporting goods last weekend with a uniformed G-Wood G-Man.

We were both commenting about the buffoon buying .22LR for his walther P22 in a fobus holster hanging off his hip with his LTCH BADGE right beside it wearing blue BDU style pants tucked into his boots and a flat black Tshirt also tucked in tight...

After we had a good chuckle we continued to talk about Mossy500's vs. Rem 870's and Full Rifle stock vs. basic pistol or pistol+folding stocks on said shotties.

I have yet to meet a Greenwood PD who wasn't amiable and reasonable.

Even the one who gave me a warning ticket (41 in a 30 after forgetting about that 300 yard stretch of 30mph zone) one night was very polite and friendly. Honestly seemed concerned only for the safety of the people living around that crappy stretch of smith valley road between Madison and Emerson. **Just to clarify... by crappy I mean as you come east/northeast you come down a significant hill into a significant curve that passes through multiple residential area entries and then curves hard left and resumes 40mph.

that guy was TARDED ...... no tactical fanny pack? << obviously he was a poser

did he have man boobs? (man boobs are ok as long as you dont wear a badge with them )

I wouldnt have been able to contain myself! PLEASE, lets hope he doesnt belong to INGO

SafeShootingDad: why didnt you man up to your responsibility and beg for a speeding ticket rather than a warning? .......... ^^ A JOKE (just to clarify)

 

[IndySSD]

that guy was TARDED

did he have man boobs? (man boobs are ok as long as you dont wear a badge with them )

Nah, some super skinny kid that couldn't have been more than 23 or so.

Maybe he'll grow out of it.

I wouldnt have been able to contain myself! PLEASE, lets hope he doesnt belong to INGO

WoW, if he was an ingo member.... I'll be lobbying for a revocation of his INGO privileges.

SafeShootingDad: why didnt you man up to your responsibility and beg for a speeding ticket rather than a warning? .......... ^^ A JOKE (just to clarify)

Honestly I was ready to pay up because I knew I just totally blew it. I was on my way home from having taken the wife to the Johnson County fair after having worked from 2am-6pm that day and was at the fair until after 9pm..... driving home and just wasn't paying attention, just kind of on auto--pilot about 4 car lengths behind the brake lights ahead of me.

Pleasant surprise for sure not to get an actual ticket!!

 

[E5RANGER375]

yes they are expenssive.

oh, i saw a 5 year old on maury one time that had man boobs. it was sad. but if he would have had a P22 on it would have been funny

 

[IndySSD]

yes they are expenssive.

oh, i saw a 5 year old on maury one time that had man boobs. it was sad. but if he would have had a P22 on it would have been funny

You must spread some rep around before giving it to E5RANGER375 again.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are correct. They can't remove the right to self defense. It is a natural right, existing as early as the first animal deciding that another would be tasty. But they can fine you for exercising it. My point was that they have an explicit code written against using a gun any reason (short of shooting pigeons ). Only $2,500 for the right to pull your gun and/or fire it. The code needs to be changed, not ignored.

I think this might override that.

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.

 

[pudly]

I think this might override that.

It just makes my point for me. The code needs to be changed.