Local Prohibition of Firearms

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!
  • CathyInBlue

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    If so, then the II Amendment already covers it .... especially a bayonet. Shall we approach it on that grounds? It seems it would then be up to the powers-that-be to prove a bayonet is NOT an "ARM" under II Amendment definitions. Let's get the "To Do" list cooking. EBG
    IC 35-47-11.1-4 bans the regulation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. A boynet is unequivocally a firearm accessory. As such, the firearm preemption law prevents the local regulation of knives, at least those that are capable of being affixed as a bayonet.

    Food for thought. Also law suit fodder.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    IC 35-47-11.1-4 bans the regulation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. A boynet is unequivocally a firearm accessory. As such, the firearm preemption law prevents the local regulation of knives, at least those that are capable of being affixed as a bayonet.

    Food for thought. Also law suit fodder.

    Can you explain to him why we can't use the 2A for reasoning? I am holding a baby and it is very hard to type one handed.

    Good catch on the bayo/accessory but I think its a stretch.
     

    CathyInBlue

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I'm one of those people who understands "Arms", as the founding fathers understood it, to mean any and all material thing which was profittable and useful for a miltary force. Thus, food is an "arm". Wagons are "arms". Blankets are "arms". What would be the point of keeping and bearing guns if the government could deprive you of food until you gave up your guns? What would be the point of keeping and bearing guns if the government could deprive you of clothing and blankets in the dead of winter until you gave them up?

    And why would it be a stretch to use the "firearms accessories" phrase in 11.1 against knife prohibitions? Would it make any more sense for a city or county to say, "Okay, you can have your nasty, ugly handguns in our public parks, but you can't have a holster of any kind in the park, so you have to carry it in your pocket, hand, or just tucked inside you belt next to your junk." Without the "firearms accessories" phrase in 11.1, there would be no legal way to prevent such idiocy on the part of government. If the knife handle has attachment points for affixing to the barrel of a rifle, then it's inherently a firearm accessory. When you can ban a knife without bayonet lugs, but can't ban an otherwise identical knife with bayonet lugs, then there's an avenue of attack on the compelling public interest aspect required of such prohibitions.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    I'm one of those people who understands "Arms", as the founding fathers understood it, to mean any and all material thing which was profittable and useful for a miltary force. Thus, food is an "arm". Wagons are "arms". Blankets are "arms". What would be the point of keeping and bearing guns if the government could deprive you of food until you gave up your guns? What would be the point of keeping and bearing guns if the government could deprive you of clothing and blankets in the dead of winter until you gave them up?

    And why would it be a stretch to use the "firearms accessories" phrase in 11.1 against knife prohibitions? Would it make any more sense for a city or county to say, "Okay, you can have your nasty, ugly handguns in our public parks, but you can't have a holster of any kind in the park, so you have to carry it in your pocket, hand, or just tucked inside you belt next to your junk." Without the "firearms accessories" phrase in 11.1, there would be no legal way to prevent such idiocy on the part of government. If the knife handle has attachment points for affixing to the barrel of a rifle, then it's inherently a firearm accessory. When you can ban a knife without bayonet lugs, but can't ban an otherwise identical knife with bayonet lugs, then there's an avenue of attack on the compelling public interest aspect required of such prohibitions.

    :facepalm:

    Nevermind.
     

    EvilBlackGun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   1
    Apr 11, 2011
    1,851
    38
    Mid-eastern
    Isn't that why ...

    ... the bayonet "mounting-lug" and the "thing that goes up" were included in the Clinton ban? The barrel-lug made the affixing of the bayonet to the weapon an actual part of the weapon -- one and the same. Otherwise the bayonet just sits there, out of the way, waiting ... It is MORE than a wire-cutting attachment. That ban has expired. EBG
    Can you explain to him why we can't use the 2A for reasoning? I am holding a baby and it is very hard to type one handed.

    Good catch on the bayo/accessory but I think its a stretch.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    EBG you and I are not even in the same book with what I was trying to say to someone else.

    My point was that you cannot use the 2A as the basis for an argument to carry a weapon in public when we still have to prove to the SCOTUS that is what the 2A means! That is all.
     

    EvilBlackGun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   1
    Apr 11, 2011
    1,851
    38
    Mid-eastern
    I misunderstood your premise:

    You of course are right in your stance, and I am a bit off base. Roger-wilco.
    EBG you and I are not even in the same book with what I was trying to say to someone else.

    My point was that you cannot use the 2A as the basis for an argument to carry a weapon in public when we still have to prove to the SCOTUS that is what the 2A means! That is all.
     

    .45 Dave

    Master
    Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 13, 2010
    1,519
    38
    Anderson
    Finally got a reply concerning the email I sent. It reads:


    Mr. Trisler,

    Currently there's no city ordinance that prohibits you from carrying a firearm on the trail system, but you must have a valid gun permit to do so.

    regards,

    Stephon


    Next email will ask when the sign will be amended to reflect current law.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    ... your age and generation: The Last Great One this side of Sky King! ) EBG

    I'm 27. I had to google "sky king," never seen it. Too many Bugs Bunny cartoons when I was little I guess :laugh:



    Finally got a reply concerning the email I sent. It reads:


    Mr. Trisler,

    Currently there's no city ordinance that prohibits you from carrying a firearm on the trail system, but you must have a valid gun permit to do so.

    regards,

    Stephon


    Next email will ask when the sign will be amended to reflect current law.

    :+1:
     

    AndersonIN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 21, 2009
    1,627
    38
    Anderson, IN
    Finally got a reply concerning the email I sent. It reads:


    Mr. Trisler,

    Currently there's no city ordinance that prohibits you from carrying a firearm on the trail system, but you must have a valid gun permit to do so.

    regards,

    Stephon


    Next email will ask when the sign will be amended to reflect current law.

    I got the same. Replied that's nice to know but we need the sign changed to avert a possible issue with other riders. Or those that have a license not knowing the SB292 makes it OK to carry anyway. Told him we need it changed!
     

    .45 Dave

    Master
    Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 13, 2010
    1,519
    38
    Anderson
    This is the next email I sent.

    Sir:
    Thank you for your reply. When will the sign be changed to reflect current law under SB 292? I realize that signs cost money and budgets to include new signs must be approved, but I would appreciate knowing what kind of time frame we are talking about here. Again, thank you for you attention to this.



    A big +1 to AndersonIN for all your help on this. Between the 2 of us will get this mission accomplished! :patriot:
     

    AndersonIN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 21, 2009
    1,627
    38
    Anderson, IN
    This is the next email I sent.

    Sir:
    Thank you for your reply. When will the sign be changed to reflect current law under SB 292? I realize that signs cost money and budgets to include new signs must be approved, but I would appreciate knowing what kind of time frame we are talking about here. Again, thank you for you attention to this.



    A big +1 to AndersonIN for all your help on this. Between the 2 of us will get this mission accomplished! :patriot:

    I remember Sky King!!! :rockwoot: Any show that had Jill St. John in it I remembered!!!
     
    Top Bottom