IndyBeerman nope u r worng. This is LAKE County IN we make up laws as we see fit, don't have to obey State Law and if you don't like it too bad.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Hammond is looking for trouble
- Thread starter mainjet
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
IndyBeerman nope u r worng. This is LAKE County IN we make up laws as we see fit, don't have to obey State Law and if you don't like it too bad.
You have that in purple, but that is exactly the way mayor mccheese feels about it.IndyBeerman nope u r worng. This is LAKE County IN we make up laws as we see fit, don't have to obey State Law and if you don't like it too bad.
Well if I was the current mayor writing on INGO it would NOT have been purple. But since I'm writing that it is purple.
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Here is the Ruling of the Court... I have added some spaces etc for Readability only.
Please dont pick on formating errors. Cut and Paste can only do so much...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF INDIANA LAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR CIVIL COURT -
COUNTY OF LAKE ROOM 7
2293 NORTH MAIN ST.
SITTING AT CROWN POINT, IN
Samuel G Dykstra vs. City of Hammond, Indiana
CAUSE NO. 45D1 1-11 08-PL-00086
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA
The parties in this case have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions, along with the City of Hammond's motion to strike certain evidentiary designations by the plaintiffs, have been briefed and a hearing was held on February 29, 2012. The plaintiffs were represented by Atty. Guy A. Relford. The City of Hammond was represented by Attys. David C. Jensen, Brian Dehem, John M. McCrum, Kevin C. Smith, Adam J. Sedia, and Shana D. Levinson. The State of Indiana appeared by Dep. Atty. Gen. Adam Clay. After hearing arguments, the Court took the motions under advisement. The Court now finds that the material facts are not in dispute and that the City of Hammond is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The undisputed material facts are as follows. before July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond had
enacted certain ordinances relating to firearms within the city limits. Those ordinances were Ordinance Nos. 93.020 through .030; 99.28(A); 92.03; and 132.073.
In 2011, the Indiana General Assembly enacted and the Governor signed into law new legislation in a chapter now codified as Indiana Code 35-47-11.1-1, et seq., which went into effect on July 1, 2011. Section 2 of the statute provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate: (1)firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2)the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3)commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. I.C. 35-47-11.1-2.
The chapter also declares any existing or future ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. enacted in
(contravention of Sec. 2 to be void:
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1)enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2)that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter; is void.
I.C. 35-47-11.1-3.
It is therefore undisputed that before June 30, 2011 the City of Hammond enacted the various ordinances regarding firearms referred to above, and that as of July 1, 2011 those ordinances were void. The City of Hammond has not claimed that any of the ordinances referred to were not voided by the statute. Given the clear language of the Section 3, nothing further needed to be done by the City of Hammond to nullify those ordinances, as the Indiana Legislature had already spoken on the matter.
It is also undisputed that the Mayor of the City of Hammond issued executive orders after July 1, 2011 pertaining to firearms regulation in the city. On September 7th the Mayor issued Executive
Order 11-03 directing that neither the police department nor any city employees were to enforce Ordinance No. 132.073. On September 21st, the Mayor issued Executive Order 11-04 ordering that neither the police department nor any city employees were to enforce any code or ordinance that was in violation or conflict with either federal or state law.
It is also undisputed that after July 1, 2011 the Hammond Common Council took no action regarding firearms or the prior ordinances. The corporation counsel for the city advised the chief of police to
not enforce the voided ordinances. The chief of police advised the members of the police department to not enforce the voided ordinances. There is no evidence that the City of Hammond has taken any actions to enforce the ordinances that were declared void by I.C. 35-47-11.1-3.
Plaintiffs filed this suit against the City of Hammond on August 3, 2011. Plaintiff Bahus is a resident of the city and possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun issued by the Indiana State Police under I.C. 35-47-2-3. Plaintiff Dykstra resides in Highland, Indiana and attends college in the City of Hammond. Mr. Dykstra also possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun issued by the Indiana State Police under I.C. 35-47-2-3.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit for damages on August 3, 2011. The suit is brought under Section 5 of the new chapter regarding firearms ordinances and regulations. The new section provides as follows:
Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
(1)declarative and injunctive relief; and
(2)actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation.
I.C. 35-47-11.1-5.
The outcome of this litigation depends upon the language of the statute and its plain meaning.[1] To determine whether the plaintiffs can prevail in this suit, a close examination of Section 5 of the statute is required. The statute states: "[a] person adversely affected" "by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced" "by a political subdivision that violates this chapter" "may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction."/d.
Section 2 of the statute defines how a political subdivision might violate the chapter: "Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories." I.C. 35-47*11.1-2. Section 2 of the statute therefore prohibits political subdivisions from regulating firearms, ammunition and accessories in any manner after July 1, 2011.
The City of Hammond ordinances regulating firearms, ammunition, and accessories were all voided by I.C. 35-47-11.1-3 effective July 1, 2011. As of that date and since, the City of Hammond has had no ordinances in violation of the chapter because they had been invalidated by act of the legislature. Plaintiffs argue that the City of Hammond continues to regulate firearms because the ordinances are posted on a website published by the American Legal Publishing Corporation. Plaintiffs cite the following address:
[FONT="]http://www.amlegal.corninxt/gateway.d11/Indiana/hammond_inicityofhammondindianacodeofordinances?fn=altmain-nf.htm$f=templates$3.0&vid=amlegal:hammond_in[/FONT]
The opening page of the website, however, contains the following disclaimer:
Disclaimer:
This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken.
For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588.
Members of the public are thus forewarned that the information on the website may not accurately reflect the current status of ordinances in the City of Hammond. Since July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond has not adopted or enforced any ordinances in violation of LC. 35-47-11.1-2. Since July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond has not regulated firearms, ammunition or accessories in contravention of the statute. The plaintiffs have no claim under the statute and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Hammond is granted. Plaintiffs shall take nothing by way of their complaint against the City of Hammond and summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of the City of Hammond and against the plaintiffs. Costs vs. plaintiffs.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2012.
Distribution:
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Guy A. Relford
Attorneys for Defendant
David C. Jensen/Brian Dehem/John M. McCrum
Kevin C. Smith/Adam J. Sedia/ Shana D. Levinson Adam Clay
[1 ]The City of Hammond's motion to strike the Tomes affidavit and the IACT memo is granted. Sen. Tomes' intentions regarding the statute do not necessarily reflect the intentions of the general assembly in enacting the statute, and his intentions do not appear in the version of the statute as passed. It would certainly have been much easier to recognize legislative intent as indicated by Sen. Tomes had Sec. 3 of the statute required political subdivisions to repeal any pre-existing ordinances, rules, etc. The TACT memo is inadmissible opinion on a legal issue that is central to this case. Ind. Evid. Rule 704(b).
Judge Jeffery J Dywan
Super. Ct. Civ. Div. - Crown Pt. - Room 7 - D1 1
Please dont pick on formating errors. Cut and Paste can only do so much...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF INDIANA LAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR CIVIL COURT -
COUNTY OF LAKE ROOM 7
2293 NORTH MAIN ST.
SITTING AT CROWN POINT, IN
Samuel G Dykstra vs. City of Hammond, Indiana
CAUSE NO. 45D1 1-11 08-PL-00086
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA
The parties in this case have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions, along with the City of Hammond's motion to strike certain evidentiary designations by the plaintiffs, have been briefed and a hearing was held on February 29, 2012. The plaintiffs were represented by Atty. Guy A. Relford. The City of Hammond was represented by Attys. David C. Jensen, Brian Dehem, John M. McCrum, Kevin C. Smith, Adam J. Sedia, and Shana D. Levinson. The State of Indiana appeared by Dep. Atty. Gen. Adam Clay. After hearing arguments, the Court took the motions under advisement. The Court now finds that the material facts are not in dispute and that the City of Hammond is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The undisputed material facts are as follows. before July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond had
enacted certain ordinances relating to firearms within the city limits. Those ordinances were Ordinance Nos. 93.020 through .030; 99.28(A); 92.03; and 132.073.
In 2011, the Indiana General Assembly enacted and the Governor signed into law new legislation in a chapter now codified as Indiana Code 35-47-11.1-1, et seq., which went into effect on July 1, 2011. Section 2 of the statute provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate: (1)firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2)the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3)commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. I.C. 35-47-11.1-2.
The chapter also declares any existing or future ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. enacted in
(contravention of Sec. 2 to be void:
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1)enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2)that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter; is void.
I.C. 35-47-11.1-3.
It is therefore undisputed that before June 30, 2011 the City of Hammond enacted the various ordinances regarding firearms referred to above, and that as of July 1, 2011 those ordinances were void. The City of Hammond has not claimed that any of the ordinances referred to were not voided by the statute. Given the clear language of the Section 3, nothing further needed to be done by the City of Hammond to nullify those ordinances, as the Indiana Legislature had already spoken on the matter.
It is also undisputed that the Mayor of the City of Hammond issued executive orders after July 1, 2011 pertaining to firearms regulation in the city. On September 7th the Mayor issued Executive
Order 11-03 directing that neither the police department nor any city employees were to enforce Ordinance No. 132.073. On September 21st, the Mayor issued Executive Order 11-04 ordering that neither the police department nor any city employees were to enforce any code or ordinance that was in violation or conflict with either federal or state law.
It is also undisputed that after July 1, 2011 the Hammond Common Council took no action regarding firearms or the prior ordinances. The corporation counsel for the city advised the chief of police to
not enforce the voided ordinances. The chief of police advised the members of the police department to not enforce the voided ordinances. There is no evidence that the City of Hammond has taken any actions to enforce the ordinances that were declared void by I.C. 35-47-11.1-3.
Plaintiffs filed this suit against the City of Hammond on August 3, 2011. Plaintiff Bahus is a resident of the city and possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun issued by the Indiana State Police under I.C. 35-47-2-3. Plaintiff Dykstra resides in Highland, Indiana and attends college in the City of Hammond. Mr. Dykstra also possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun issued by the Indiana State Police under I.C. 35-47-2-3.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit for damages on August 3, 2011. The suit is brought under Section 5 of the new chapter regarding firearms ordinances and regulations. The new section provides as follows:
Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
(1)declarative and injunctive relief; and
(2)actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation.
I.C. 35-47-11.1-5.
The outcome of this litigation depends upon the language of the statute and its plain meaning.[1] To determine whether the plaintiffs can prevail in this suit, a close examination of Section 5 of the statute is required. The statute states: "[a] person adversely affected" "by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced" "by a political subdivision that violates this chapter" "may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction."/d.
Section 2 of the statute defines how a political subdivision might violate the chapter: "Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories." I.C. 35-47*11.1-2. Section 2 of the statute therefore prohibits political subdivisions from regulating firearms, ammunition and accessories in any manner after July 1, 2011.
The City of Hammond ordinances regulating firearms, ammunition, and accessories were all voided by I.C. 35-47-11.1-3 effective July 1, 2011. As of that date and since, the City of Hammond has had no ordinances in violation of the chapter because they had been invalidated by act of the legislature. Plaintiffs argue that the City of Hammond continues to regulate firearms because the ordinances are posted on a website published by the American Legal Publishing Corporation. Plaintiffs cite the following address:
[FONT="]http://www.amlegal.corninxt/gateway.d11/Indiana/hammond_inicityofhammondindianacodeofordinances?fn=altmain-nf.htm$f=templates$3.0&vid=amlegal:hammond_in[/FONT]
The opening page of the website, however, contains the following disclaimer:
Disclaimer:
This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken.
For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588.
Members of the public are thus forewarned that the information on the website may not accurately reflect the current status of ordinances in the City of Hammond. Since July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond has not adopted or enforced any ordinances in violation of LC. 35-47-11.1-2. Since July 1, 2011, the City of Hammond has not regulated firearms, ammunition or accessories in contravention of the statute. The plaintiffs have no claim under the statute and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Hammond is granted. Plaintiffs shall take nothing by way of their complaint against the City of Hammond and summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of the City of Hammond and against the plaintiffs. Costs vs. plaintiffs.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2012.
Distribution:
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Guy A. Relford
Attorneys for Defendant
David C. Jensen/Brian Dehem/John M. McCrum
Kevin C. Smith/Adam J. Sedia/ Shana D. Levinson Adam Clay
[1 ]The City of Hammond's motion to strike the Tomes affidavit and the IACT memo is granted. Sen. Tomes' intentions regarding the statute do not necessarily reflect the intentions of the general assembly in enacting the statute, and his intentions do not appear in the version of the statute as passed. It would certainly have been much easier to recognize legislative intent as indicated by Sen. Tomes had Sec. 3 of the statute required political subdivisions to repeal any pre-existing ordinances, rules, etc. The TACT memo is inadmissible opinion on a legal issue that is central to this case. Ind. Evid. Rule 704(b).
Judge Jeffery J Dywan
Super. Ct. Civ. Div. - Crown Pt. - Room 7 - D1 1
You know reading that does make sence. In essence on 01 JUL 2011 all laws "under the state level" dealing with firearms became void. & since Hammond has not made any new ordiances after 01 JUL 2011 I can see how they have not violated the law.
-Jedi
-Jedi
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
You know reading that does make sence. In essence on 01 JUL 2011 all laws "under the state level" dealing with firearms became void. & since Hammond has not made any new ordiances after 01 JUL 2011 I can see how they have not violated the law.
-Jedi
I can only assume you forgot the Purple color...
No why would I forget the pruple on that comment?
My true LAKE COUNTY colors are indeed showing are they not? As the judge said the oridnance are null and void per what those in Indy did. As is typically NWI doesn't get a say and Indy just does things. So since Indy said it's all void there is nothing more for us to do. Besides his majesty already told all his men to not enforce the void ordiance since the state says they are void.
Should I continue with the LAKE COUNTY logic...
Notice the lack of purple.
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
In that case, (and in LAKE logic speak then) Every ordinance that was EVER put on the books neither has to be amended or repealed as it is "already voided or modified" by some later ordinance...
We have a process in law called Shepardizing, (old school meaning you actually went to the books! ala prior to West Pub. and computers) where if you were going to quote a precedent or a previous case, you had to verify that is was still "Good Law".
To say that just because it is nullified because of an Executive Order and because it is a Nullity, is frankly absurd...
If this was applied to the State or Federal Statutes it would be impossible to EVER tell what was valid precedent or not. Just look at the number of times IC has been REPEALED to make the current law more accessible and easier to understand.
Beleive me I grew up in Lake County (Gary and Hobart). I understand the inferiority complex and the "we dont care what is said inside the (465) beltway...
We have a process in law called Shepardizing, (old school meaning you actually went to the books! ala prior to West Pub. and computers) where if you were going to quote a precedent or a previous case, you had to verify that is was still "Good Law".
To say that just because it is nullified because of an Executive Order and because it is a Nullity, is frankly absurd...
If this was applied to the State or Federal Statutes it would be impossible to EVER tell what was valid precedent or not. Just look at the number of times IC has been REPEALED to make the current law more accessible and easier to understand.
Beleive me I grew up in Lake County (Gary and Hobart). I understand the inferiority complex and the "we dont care what is said inside the (465) beltway...
eldirector
Grandmaster
Thanks for posting.
Was the original suit really just based on the online version of their legal code? Surely not.
Was the original suit really just based on the online version of their legal code? Surely not.
Wow, that's interesting.
True, but you can be arrested for a lot of thinks that you shouldn't be and you have legal recourse. I think just having this still on the books rises to intimidation. A person who isn't well versed on the new state law or that this statute in Hammond is without teeth would probably disarm where they don't need to. And that may be the intention. I certainly hope this is appealed and found to be totally illegal in all aspects. But in the present ruling the judge is not technically wrong.
The way I read the disclaimer is; if the ordinances here are wrong, they will be corrected when the website is edited next. And what about the printed copy? Are the ordinances in question omitted? This is not about what a website says, it's about the LAW.
Exactly. A person has to show how they are adversely affected. (I assume intimidation doesn't count if no real harm is caused.) Now if either plaintiff had been arrested they would definitely have standing and they likely would have been able to collect for actual damages as well as punitive ones. (I'm a retired mechanical contractor and this is so much fun discussing this case as if I have any real legal training.
I could throw in a couple of Caveat Emptors or Ipso Factos to impress y'all even more. )
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Dont forget Res Judicata and res ipso Locquitor. A couple Malum rea would be good on an Italian salad... with a side of pro se's and doh si Do's !!!& that is why we have ATTYs and carry them in our pocket just like we carry a cop around to defend ourselves.
QFT!
Nothing to see here... Nothing to see here...
That was me! Me!! Me!!! You always have to follow the money.
-Jedi
I do not think he can right now since he might appeal this decision as such it's an on going case for him so he needs to keep his cards close to his vest. It's best not to give the other side any more ammo.
