Hammond is looking for trouble

[Titanium_Frost]

--pruple--
Then we know hammond's mayor has some serious clout to be able to buy even the INSC.
--end purple--

what gunbunnies said makes sence.
If an oridnance/law is still on the books yet there is a higher level law that invalidates that lower one then by this ruling we can ignore the lower level one.

So since 2A is higher and we have our own Indiana 2A in our state consitution that means no ltch, no sbs, no school zone, no etc... since all of those are lower level laws and this case sets precident. Right.

Yes Iknow fat chance but that is how it can be played.

Great point! Except this ruling in Hammond's case cannot be used as case law.

 

[jedi]

Great point! Except this ruling in Hammond's case cannot be used as case law.

Why? Or when can a ruling be used as case law I guess is my real answer.

 

[Destro]

without rereading the entire thread, is it somewhere else that they must change their city ord. other than Indiana Code 35-47-11.1? I have not found where they are required to change it

 

[jedi]

without rereading the entire thread, is it somewhere else that they must change their city ord. other than Indiana Code 35-47-11.1? I have not found where they are required to change it

Are you asking where in Indiana Law it states that a polictical sub-division (PSD) must change it's ordinance to ensure they are in line with indiana law.

 

[KW730]

without rereading the entire thread, is it somewhere else that they must change their city ord. other than Indiana Code 35-47-11.1? I have not found where they are required to change it

The law is worded that anyone who may be adversely affected by a local ordinance regulating firearms has a right to a suit. Many argue that simply having a law on the books is an adverse affect seeing as many people may not know that it is invalid and thus will follow it.

 

[actaeon277]

The law is worded that anyone who may be adversely affected by a local ordinance regulating firearms has a right to a suit. Many argue that simply having a law on the books is an adverse affect seeing as many people may not know that it is invalid and thus will follow it.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the judge is interpreting it.
Mr. Relford at a trial I attended way back explained it as if Hammond was going around changing speed limit signs on the Interstate.
Hammond doesn't have the authority to do that. But it is arguing that they can, and the people should know that those signs are bogus and ignore them.

He explained it a lot better than I just did.
I thought it was a great analogy.

Judge didn't .

 

[KG1]

Seems to me the way the Judge is looking at it in this case is there is no legal standing unless the city were to try and actually enforce an nullified firearm ordinance still on the books that runs contrary to State law.

 

[MikeDVB]

Seems to me the way the Judge is looking at it in this case is there is no legal standing unless the city were to try and actually enforce an nullified firearm ordinance still on the books that runs contrary to State law.

I don't think the preemption law says that damages can be sought due to the laws being on the books, does it?

Having an invalid law enforced against you, I would think, would obviously have the possibility of a lawsuit.

 

[Destro]

Are you asking where in Indiana Law it states that a polictical sub-division (PSD) must change it's ordinance to ensure they are in line with indiana law.

yes, the way the law is written I do not see how they are not in compliance

 

[Destro]

The law is worded that anyone who may be adversely affected by a local ordinance regulating firearms has a right to a suit. Many argue that simply having a law on the books is an adverse affect seeing as many people may not know that it is invalid and thus will follow it.

I think it simply shows how far some lawyers are willing to go to shake down taxpayers

 

[MikeDVB]

I think it simply shows how far some lawyers are willing to go to shake down taxpayers

I don't see it that way - I see it as how far a local political subdivision will go to try and force laws that they cannot legally enforce on the same taxpayers.

Why would they refuse to remove them, if they were invalid and unenforceable to begin with? Surely there is some motivation/reason behind it.

Having it on the books and, as such, the possibility that an uninformed law officer would attempt to enforce them and then put those tax payers at risk is seriously irresponsible, imho.

The one putting the taxpayers at risk, is the political subdivision itself.

 

[KG1]

I don't think the preemption law says that damages can be sought due to the laws being on the books, does it?

Having an invalid law enforced against you, I would think, would obviously have the possibility of a lawsuit.

That's the point I was getting at. At least it's been established that the city is aware the ordinances in question cannot be enforced contrary to State legislation.

The Mayor and City Council can boast and crow all they want but they know that any attempt to enforce puts them in legal jeopardy.

 

[Bill B]

When Joe citizen picks up a copy of the code book, or goes to the cities web site, and looks up firearms ordinances what does he see? He sees ordinances that limit the amount of ammon he can have in his home, and where he can carry. Doesn't that have an effect on a law-abiding citizen? How is Joe citizen to know that these ordinances are invalid? Look at the situation in South Bend and magazines.
Back to the speed limit analogy. What Guy said in court was what if Hammond had "35 mph" signs up on a street and the state said "the speed limit is 45" and the city didn't take down the 35mph signs. Wouldn't that have a regulatory effect on people driving down the street?

 

[jedi]

Why would they refuse to remove them, if they were invalid and unenforceable to begin with? Surely there is some motivation/reason behind it.

Having it on the books and, as such, the possibility that an uninformed law officer would attempt to enforce them and then put those tax payers at risk is seriously irresponsible, imho.

The one putting the taxpayers at risk, is the political subdivision itself.

Because on the city side this is being pushed by the Mayor of Hammond. At the city board meeting where the city council was going to amend their ordnance to be in compliance with the state the Mayor told them that if they did he would VETO it! This was even after the legal counsel for the city and the legal counsel for the city council both spoke at the meeting that keeping the ordinance on the book could make the city be sued.

This interaction is on youtube under the city's files. I saw the video and hear it.

You need to understand that this mayor is also the Lake County Democrat president. He determines who in this county wins and loses. I think he is #2 or #3 in terms of D's with the most power IN THE STATE OF INDIANA.

No citizen and/or state legislator from Indy is going to tell him what to do.
How dare they even think they know more than he does. he will fight this until he is blue in the face. It's not costing him anything and this shows the power that he has even if he is in NWI.

 

[MikeDVB]

When Joe citizen picks up a copy of the code book, or goes to the cities web site, and looks up firearms ordinances what does he see? He sees ordinances that limit the amount of ammon he can have in his home, and where he can carry. Doesn't that have an effect on a law-abiding citizen? How is Joe citizen to know that these ordinances are invalid? Look at the situation in South Bend and magazines.
Back to the speed limit analogy. What Guy said in court was what if Hammond had "35 mph" signs up on a street and the state said "the speed limit is 45" and the city didn't take down the 35mph signs. Wouldn't that have a regulatory effect on people driving down the street?

Here is hoping that the ISC is a bit more reasonable when it comes to understanding the consequences of unenforceable ordinances being left on the books.

I think they may be afraid that it will open the door to all kinds of places being sued for out-of-date or currently unenforceable ordinances. If Hammond is sued for it and Hammond loses... I'm sure there are those that will look for any ordinance that is unenforceable and then try to sue just 'because'.

If they are going to make a ruling in the plaintiff's favor, I imagine they will likely limit the scope to firearms laws invalidated via the preemption law passed recently. Maybe the appeals court didn't want to do this, or maybe it's outside of their scope to make such a decision.

 

[cobber]

Why? Or when can a ruling be used as case law I guess is my real answer.

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum
Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.

Unpublished decisions are basically the law of the case, and cannot serve as authority in any other case. So it won't be used in Evansville.

In this case, the Firearm Owners have not designated any evidence that indicates that the legislature intended that this statute have any retrospective effect. We therefore find that the statute was meant to prevent the adoption of future ordinances that may conflict with state law and to prevent the future enforcement of statutes that were in place at the time Indiana Code section 35-47-11.1-2 was adopted.

They're saying existing laws are void as a matter of law, and that the pre-emption law only affects NEW laws. Not surprising for the Court of Appeals, of the sort one would expect in Moot Court competitions.

 

[Destro]

I don't see it that way - I see it as how far a local political subdivision will go to try and force laws that they cannot legally enforce on the same taxpayers.

Why would they refuse to remove them, if they were invalid and unenforceable to begin with? Surely there is some motivation/reason behind it.

Having it on the books and, as such, the possibility that an uninformed law officer would attempt to enforce them and then put those tax payers at risk is seriously irresponsible, imho.

The one putting the taxpayers at risk, is the political subdivision itself.

but the mayor issued an executive order that the ord. shall not be enforced? the only LEO's that could enforce the law are Hammond PD and I think it seems plausable that the department is capable of informing it's officers of same. It seems to me that the mayor issuing an EO is beyond what is required of the law

 

[Destro]

When Joe citizen picks up a copy of the code book, or goes to the cities web site, and looks up firearms ordinances what does he see? He sees ordinances that limit the amount of ammon he can have in his home, and where he can carry. Doesn't that have an effect on a law-abiding citizen? How is Joe citizen to know that these ordinances are invalid? Look at the situation in South Bend and magazines.
Back to the speed limit analogy. What Guy said in court was what if Hammond had "35 mph" signs up on a street and the state said "the speed limit is 45" and the city didn't take down the 35mph signs. Wouldn't that have a regulatory effect on people driving down the street?

and thats a super weak arguement, he filed a lawsuit based on hypothetical curcumstances and created a hypothetical victim to swindle us out of our REAL money

 

[KG1]

Unpublished decisions are basically the law of the case, and cannot serve as authority in any other case. So it won't be used in Evansville.

They're saying existing laws are void as a matter of law, and that the pre-emption law only affects NEW laws. Not surprising for the Court of Appeals, of the sort one would expect in Moot Court competitions.

It all boils down to an enforcement issue. Looks to me that's the only way to get legal standing as far as current rulings go.

Wonder how this applies to the issue of signs posted in city parks and such prohibiting firearms?

Could a sign posted on city property prohibiting firearms be construed as attempting to enforce?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

yes, the way the law is written I do not see how they are not in compliance

I think it simply shows how far some lawyers are willing to go to shake down taxpayers

Do you think it is logical to keep invalid/void/wrong/outdated/preempted laws on the books where knowlegdable people can read them and get the wrong impression?

What kind of sense does it make to be allowed to leave these laws on the books rather than simply repeal them since they are unenforceable and there is a high chance of a serious lawsuit from a damaged party?