Hammond is looking for trouble

[jgreiner]

I dunno...I think it's just Lake and Porter County in NWI...and even then I rarely get north of US 30

don't exclude West Lafayette........it's pretty liberal here too.

 

[Ericpwp]

BHammond never even made a claim that the ordinances were legal, or supposed to be there. There whole arguement seems to be they can't change them, because that would be regulating. And that since they are void, they don't have to do a thing.

[FONT=&quot]Wouldn’t repealing the ordinances that regulate firearms and ammunition be “deregulation”? [/FONT]

 

[s&wluvr]

Very nice summary, Actaeon. Thank you and rep to you. Do you know what the next step is or where this is going from here?

 

[Scutter01]

I'm having trouble understanding why they're spending time and money arguing against removing a law that they've testified having no intention of enforcing. What are they hoping to accomplish? Forget what they're doing right now. Figure out what their end-game is.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I'm having trouble understanding why they're spending time and money arguing against removing a law that they've testified having no intention of enforcing. What are they hoping to accomplish? Forget what they're doing right now. Figure out what their end-game is.

Very good point Scutter! If they have stated that their code is void, and that it cannot and will not be enforced, then why would they hire 3 different law firms to defend them against a lawsuit? Why do they want it to be kept on the books so badly? Why are they spending so much taxpayer money to defend a dead law? It doesn't make sense.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Very good point Scutter! If they have stated that their code is void, and that it cannot and will not be enforced, then why would they hire 3 different law firms to defend them against a lawsuit? Why do they want it to be kept on the books so badly? Why are they spending so much taxpayer money to defend a dead law? It doesn't make sense.

They have admitted that it is an invalid law. They (I think...) just want to keep it on the books so that in a future administration change or just waiting until the storm blows over they can still claim to regulate this area, even though the State says it is illegal. This is nothing more than McDermott trying to maintain his illegal ordinance in SPITE of what the State says they have to do.

There is very little to stand on other than, they jus don't wanna...

Looking forward to seeing what the Judge comes up with in the ruling. Will advise as soon as something becomes known.

 

[Ericpwp]

I'm having trouble understanding why they're spending time and money arguing against removing a law that they've testified having no intention of enforcing. What are they hoping to accomplish? Forget what they're doing right now. Figure out what their end-game is.

Very good point Scutter! If they have stated that their code is void, and that it cannot and will not be enforced, then why would they hire 3 different law firms to defend them against a lawsuit? Why do they want it to be kept on the books so badly? Why are they spending so much taxpayer money to defend a dead law? It doesn't make sense.

They want to keep it on the books so it can be enforced at a later date. They must be hoping for "change" in the legislator.

I would like to see how much the mayor's "principals" are costing the tax payers. And by "principals" I mean his stubborn, hard-headed, I call the shots, Mayor Daley's my hero, ego.

 

[jedi]

I'm having trouble understanding why they're spending time and money arguing against removing a law that they've testified having no intention of enforcing. What are they hoping to accomplish? Forget what they're doing right now. Figure out what their end-game is.

Very good point Scutter! If they have stated that their code is void, and that it cannot and will not be enforced, then why would they hire 3 different law firms to defend them against a lawsuit? Why do they want it to be kept on the books so badly? Why are they spending so much taxpayer money to defend a dead law? It doesn't make sense.

You 2 above are not from here & thus I will give you a simple 101 lesson. Near the beginning of this thread was/is a youtube link to the Hammond City Council talking about the new law and how their ordinance are in violation. The city council atty told the city council that they can be sued if they do not remove those ordinance. The mayor tells the council that if they try to change them he will veto it. The city atty (different person/position that the city council atty) also states that the city can be sued. Again the mayor says he will veto it. The board's sole R (at the time) asked to have the proposal change done and it is shot down by a voice vote.

Fast forward to the court date and we know learn that 3 SEPARATE law offices are representing the city. Why? If you die digger you will find most likely find that all 3 law firms has at one point or another given to the mayor for his campaign. He is now repaying them for it.

This mayor is the HEAD of the D Party in NWI. He is as corrupt as they come and very powerful in terms of what he can get away with both in Hammond and in Lake county. Mind you he is no former Mayor Pastrick (Mayor of East Chicago that ruled with an iron fist and never got caught, probably the last of the political machines in the mid-west).

They want to keep it on the books so it can be enforced at a later date. They must be hoping for "change" in the legislator.

Nope see above.

I would like to see how much the mayor's "principals" are costing the tax payers. And by "principals" I mean his stubborn, hard-headed, I call the shots, Mayor Daley's my hero, ego.

^This!

How dare the STATE Rs in corrupt, back-water redneck Indy tell the Mayor of Hammond, the HEAD of the D political party in NWI that he has to change his city's laws. NOBODY TELLS HIM WHAT TO DO. NOBODY!!!

That is his attitude and he will drag the city into court until a judge slaps the <<beep>> out of him and even then he will still drag it even further before it gets changed.

After all even if the judge says they have to change it, the mayor does not have the power to change it. The city council must first.

This is Indiana's mini DC in terms of DC not listening to what the supreme court told them to do.

-Jedi

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

No thanks! I would rather go to Netwon County before I go to Porter County. You guys are only slightly better than us but you are still at the bottom of the barrel as well.

-Jedi

stay out, fool!

 

[Bill B]

McDermott is also vice-chair for the state D party...it's all about politics for him, and that Indy is always picking on poor old Lake County.

 

[jedi]

stay out, fool!

I'm going to have to have my thugs rough u up u know. How dare you insult the PINKfather!

BTW I see you are "in NWI" why have you not joined the NWI INGO group?
INGunOwners - Northwest Indiana

Perhaps we will see you at the MEET & SHOOT coming up on the 24th.
See the group for more info or my links in my sig.

 

[jedi]

McDermott is also vice-chair for the state D party...it's all about politics for him, and that Indy is always picking on poor old Lake County.

Oh now this I did not know. Was that also Patrick's old seat. Hum that does explain even more now.

 

[Scutter01]

Fast forward to the court date and we know learn that 3 SEPARATE law offices are representing the city. Why? If you die digger you will find most likely find that all 3 law firms has at one point or another given to the mayor for his campaign. He is now repaying them for it.

I wise man once told me to always follow the money. ALWAYS follow the money.

 

[jedi]

I wise man once told me to always follow the money. ALWAYS follow the money.

& now that you know we must get rid of you as you know too much.
Please do not resist the men in the black vans coming to your house.
It's for your own good.

 

[Scutter01]

& now that you know we must get rid of you as you know too much.
Please do not resist the men in the black vans coming to your house.
It's for your own good.

Pfft. I've been down that road. They hired me.

 

[ATM]

I wise man once told me to always follow the money. ALWAYS follow the money.

A wise man shouldn't have to repeat himself. SHOULDN'T have to repeat himself.

 

[Hayseed_40]

A wise man shouldn't have to repeat himself. SHOULDN'T have to repeat himself.

A wise man doesn't repeat himself

 

[Scutter01]

A wise man shouldn't have to repeat himself. SHOULDN'T have to repeat himself.

I don't think I appreciate you making fun of his obvious speech impediment, you insensitive clod!

 

[Bill of Rights]

A wise man doesn't repeat himself

Sorry, what was that? I missed what you said...

 

[Hayseed_40]

Sorry, what was that? I missed what you said...

I said, hey wait a minute..