Jeffersonville successfully bans weapons in city for 1 day.

[Djangotarantino]

Now Clarksville is trying their hand in a gun ban. Geez.

News and Tribune : Jeffersonville lifts ban on firearms for Thunder; Clarksville's stays despite state law

 

[Booya]

Here we go again. He doesn't like he wants to budge on it!

 

[Llamaguy]

Pulling out a gun is a little different than carrying a gun, don't you think?


Then I guess the police should be disarmed also. Isn't there a chance they might have a round go astray?

Well trained police never miss!
Times Square shooting: NYPD officers shoot two innocent bystanders near Times Square - CBS News

 

[Llamaguy]

Now Clarksville is trying their hand in a gun ban. Geez.

News and Tribune : Jeffersonville lifts ban on firearms for Thunder; Clarksville's stays despite state law

Clarksville?s ?most dangerous? ranking questioned
This seems quite good timing.

 

[KellyinAvon]

"Clarksville's stays despite state law" Let me see if I got this straight, if I carry a firearm into a court house (violation of Indiana code 35 Section 47 etc.) I'm going to have multiple deputies taking me into custody. If a city's government (who by the way are people subject to the same laws that have basis in COMMON LAW, as in COMMON to everyone) is in violation of state law, why is there not a similar reaction? Bueller?

 

[Harleyrider_50]

Clarksville?s ?most dangerous? ranking questioned
This seems quite good timing.

DUZZ, don't it......

 

[Slawburger]

Now Clarksville is trying their hand in a gun ban. Geez.

News and Tribune : Jeffersonville lifts ban on firearms for Thunder; Clarksville's stays despite state law

I contacted a Town Council member concerning this issue. Clarksville is a Town rather than a City so they don't have a Mayor they have a Town Council and a Council President. The next Town Council meeting isn't until the 3rd Monday of the month but hopefully he will be able to get something done to lift the attempted ban.

 

[Destro]

If the law creates a cause of action for which you can be sued, the action can no longer be said to be legal. All that is in question is whether it is a civil or criminal violation. In this case it is civil.

But no action would have been taken against the individual. Unless the ordnance is actually enforced, nobody is harmed.

 

[Destro]

"Clarksville's stays despite state law" Let me see if I got this straight, if I carry a firearm into a court house (violation of Indiana code 35 Section 47 etc.) I'm going to have multiple deputies taking me into custody. If a city's government (who by the way are people subject to the same laws that have basis in COMMON LAW, as in COMMON to everyone) is in violation of state law, why is there not a similar reaction? Bueller?

they are breaking no laws. Cause for civil action will only arise if the ban is enforced.

 

[finnegan]

Heading out toward English, IN; provided the weather is alright. Need to give the Stevens I picked up a try. I also ended up trading the SA 93 AK for an Arsenal in 5.56, so need to test it too.

 

[Slawburger]

IC 35-47-11.1-5 Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations

IC 35-47-11.1-5
Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations
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.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

IC 35-47-11.1-6
Civil actions; adversely affected persons
Sec. 6. A person is "adversely affected" for purposes of section 5 of this chapter if either of the following applies:
(1) The person is an individual who meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The individual lawfully resides within the United States.
(B) The individual may legally possess a firearm under the laws of Indiana.
(C) The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 5 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.
(2) The person is a membership organization that:
(A) includes two (2) or more individuals described in subdivision (1); and
(B) is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the rights of persons who possess, own, or use firearms for competitive, sporting, defensive, or other lawful purposes.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

IC 35-47-11.1-7
Civil actions; recovery of damages, costs, and fees
Sec. 7. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 5 of this chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the following:
(1) The greater of the following:
(A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
(B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees.
(2) Court costs (including fees).
(3) Reasonable attorney's fees.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

 

[ryknoll3]

I'm surprised these stupid towns don't ALL pass no gun ordinances and post them in their books and put up their signs all over their property, parks, etc.... They'd trick the uninformed and then hide behind the "we didn't enforce it" defense.

Someone should put a "No black people" sign in their store window and see how long that is allowed to stand, even though they "don't enforce it."

 

[SteveM4A1]

they are breaking no laws. Cause for civil action will only arise if the ban is enforced.

Incorrect according to the statute. Quoted from above for further emphasis:

IC 35-47-11.1-5
Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations
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.

 

[level0]

Regarding all the chat about the myriad of laws that one is expected to know, recall that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I'm a driver, it is my responsibility to know applicable driving laws for whatever road I may be on at any given moment. I'm a gun owner, it's my responsibility to know applicable guns laws.

No doubt there are about a bazillion too many laws on the books, I'm all for reducing that number quite a bit.

 

[ryknoll3]

Incorrect according to the statute. Quoted from above for further emphasis:

I guess the only way this would differ from the Hammond case would be that if the court somehow found that "adopted" was applicable because they made the law AFTER preemption went into effect.

 

[ryknoll3]

Regarding all the chat about the myriad of laws that one is expected to know, recall that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I'm a driver, it is my responsibility to know applicable driving laws for whatever road I may be on at any given moment. I'm a gun owner, it's my responsibility to know applicable guns laws.

No doubt there are about a bazillion too many laws on the books, I'm all for reducing that number quite a bit.

Yeah, just think if there were other areas of law (actually applicable to today's life, not some ancient law about walking around with a boner) that were on the books but not applicable.

Also, what stops a town from throwing up a speed limit sign out on the highway because they don't like the state's higher limit, but then just "not enforcing it."

 

[cobber]

But no action would have been taken against the individual. Unless the ordnance is actually enforced, nobody is harmed.

they are breaking no laws. Cause for civil action will only arise if the ban is enforced.

If, but for the sign or ordinance, you would have carried, but didn't because you feared the government would hammer you, then you were harmed.

When the government threatens to deprive us of a constitutional right, when the law actually says they cannot, then they harm us whether we are cited or fined, or not.

The local government does not have the authority to promulgate such laws. That they continue to try to do so is perverse and dictatorial.

 

[actaeon277]

Yeah, just think if there were other areas of law (actually applicable to today's life, not some ancient law about walking around with a boner) that were on the books but not applicable.

Also, what stops a town from throwing up a speed limit sign out on the highway because they don't like the state's higher limit, but then just "not enforcing it."

Actually, the speed limit sign on a highway comparison was used by Guy Relford in the Hammond case.
I thought it was very good.
The court didn't. What a shame.

So, I guess according to Destro, every town/county/village can post signs up on the highway all with different limits. As long as they don't enforce it, everything's alright.

 

[Destro]

Incorrect according to the statute. Quoted from above for further emphasis:

and that changes what?

Someone must still be adversely affected.

 

[Destro]

So, I guess according to Destro, every town/county/village can post signs up on the highway all with different limits. As long as they don't enforce it, everything's alright.

I don't agree with it, but when we discuss laws we should be correct.