Hammond is looking for trouble

[Titanium_Frost]

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

If you see a "No Firearms" sign that was illegal, but you didn't realize it because you think, 'why would there be an illegal sign (or law on the books)' and you obeyed it without a cop writing you a ticket for it, are you not an affected party because you are not exercising rights you have available since there was a sign/law stating otherwise?

 

[cobber]

Do you think it is logical to keep invalid/void/wrong/outdated/preempted laws on the books where knowlegdable people can read them and get the wrong impression?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

Like having a sign in the bus station, "Whites Only". Of course everybody knows it's not legal, so that's okay. Thus spoke the Court.

 

[finity]

Would it make any difference if someone claimed to have read the city code, not carried where could have otherwise, & because of not carrying was injured due to not bing able to effectively defend themselves from an assault?

Would that scenario fall under the "adversely affects" category?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Would it make any difference if someone claimed to have read the city code, not carried where could have otherwise, & because of not carrying was injured due to not bing able to effectively defend themselves from an assault?

Would that scenario fall under the "adversely affects" category?

Having read the lawsuit from Bill B's wife and another party there in Hammond I believe this is exactly what they are saying, but I should let Bill clarify or post the original lawsuit if he has a copy. It is not on Guy's website any longer.

 

[finity]

Having read the lawsuit from Bill B's wife and another party there in Hammond I believe this is exactly what they are saying, but I should let Bill clarify or post the original lawsuit if he has a copy. It is not on Guy's website any longer.

What I'm saying is that someone ACTUALLY has to be injured (assault, etc) & the reason for them not not carrying (hence inhibited from using effective self-defense) was that they read the city code which said they couldn't (even though supposedly everyone else knows that the city law is null & void).

My understanding is that in this suit they were claiming they were simply affected by the law only because it was still on the books but suffered no actual injury - either by legal (LEO interaction) or illegal (criminal) means.

Would an ACTUAL injury be enough to meet the requirements of the IC or does it strictly have to be only enforcement by LEO? It would be hard to prove but if it was provable would it be enough to have standing?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

My understanding is "injury" in a legal sense is what the Preemption Law is referring to. Otherwise the argument could be made that ANY injury (physical) would have the recourse of a lawsuit against the political subdivision.

I think the court was looking for someone that was actually accosted by Agents of the City while on City owned and managed property and had their rights violated by said Agents.

 

[Bill B]

Simple enough, let's have a carry night at the next city council meeting.

 

[Bill B]

Would it make any difference if someone claimed to have read the city code, not carried where could have otherwise, & because of not carrying was injured due to not bing able to effectively defend themselves from an assault?

Would that scenario fall under the "adversely affects" category?

Having read the lawsuit from Bill B's wife and another party there in Hammond I believe this is exactly what they are saying, but I should let Bill clarify or post the original lawsuit if he has a copy. It is not on Guy's website any longer.

Eggsactly....

 

[HoughMade]

I'm late to the party, but the decision says that the Hammond Ordinances are void. In fact, it says that about 3 different ways. Ok then.

As a lifetime gun owner and a 15 year lawyer, while I understand the point the plaintiffs were trying to make, but void is void. Feel free to simply follow the state law in Hammond and ignore the VOID ordinances.

 

[stephen87]

My understanding is "injury" in a legal sense is what the Preemption Law is referring to. Otherwise the argument could be made that ANY injury (physical) would have the recourse of a lawsuit against the political subdivision.

I think the court was looking for someone that was actually accosted by Agents of the City while on City owned and managed property and had their rights violated by said Agents.

Hmm.... I think I know one of these guys.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm late to the party, but the decision says that the Hammond Ordinances are void. Ok then.

As a lifetime gun owner and a 15 year lawyer, while I understand the point the plaintiffs were trying to make, but void is void. Feel free to simply follow the state law in Hammond and ignore the VOID ordinances.

Are we just supposed to wait for ignorant cops to throw people out of city property to sue their asses?

 

[HoughMade]

Yes. No injury, no cause of action.

Th statute allows a cause of action for ordinances adopted in violation of state law or enforced o the detriment of citizens. It sounds to me like the real beef is with the legislature which did no provide for a cause of action for maintaining void ordinances on the books.

...and what makes you think these ordinances are being enforced?

 

[jedi]

Simple enough, let's have a carry night at the next city council meeting.

when is the next one? and Where?
To bad the 'hot' councilwoman is not there anymore.

I'm late to the party, but the decision says that the Hammond Ordinances are void. In fact, it says that about 3 different ways. Ok then.

As a lifetime gun owner and a 15 year lawyer, while I understand the point the plaintiffs were trying to make, but void is void. Feel free to simply follow the state law in Hammond and ignore the VOID ordinances.

I wonder if this was at the City Park would you be advocating the same thing. After all state law I'm sure has done away with any local ordinance on this matter?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Yes. No injury, no cause of action.

Th statute allows a cause of action for ordinances adopted in violation of state law or enforced o the detriment of citizens. It sounds to me like the real beef is with the legislature which did no provide for a cause of action for maintaining void ordinances on the books.

...and what makes you think these ordinances are being enforced?

You have a good point about the law being a little incomplete in that area, I think we were hoping for a little help from the courts on that in making a "common sense" decision.

As to the bolded portion I was implying my situation at the zoo more than their's specifically.

 

[HoughMade]

Jedi,

Do you not understand that the Hammond ordinances are void and the Court of Appeals stated that? What is your point?

 

[jedi]

Jedi,

Do you not understand that the Hammond ordinances are void and the Court of Appeals stated that? What is your point?

I'm a simple citizen. I see the sign and assume it's the law. Just like I see the speed limit sign and assume it's the law. So if the sign says

whites only I won't drink from that fountain
speed limit is 35 mph on the highway I won't go faster then that
no handguns in hammond parks I won't carry there

see the issue?
I'm not an atty how would I know if the signs are legal or not if Hammond says one thing and the state is saying something else?

 

[Bill B]

In what universe would a reasonable person expect the city to provide copies of void ordinances to citizens as if they were valid?
Apparently in the corrupt, entitlement-minded, nanny-state, carpet bagging world of Tommy McDermott Jr and his "punch 10" morons.
Lake County has more public officials in jail than you can shake a stick at and the public is supposed to take them at their word about not enforcing void ordinances? You gotta be kidding me.

 

[actaeon277]

If the council just brought their ordinances in compliance, this whole fiasco would be moot.

 

[mrortega]

when is the next one? and Where?
To bad the 'hot' councilwoman is not there anymore.

I wonder if this was at the City Park would you be advocating the same thing. After all state law I'm sure has done away with any local ordinance on this matter?

I just made the same point in the Eville C&P. Great point. I think it would be considered "Intimidation."

 

[MikeDVB]

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

So he issues an order to not enforce the law, but will not remove said law from the books?

Why?

Answer that question, and you can rest your case.