Member of Greenfield, IN ruling council flips out over new state gun law

[bingley]

Greg Carwein, a Greenfield, IN city councilman, wore a flack jacket or other sort of bullet resistant vest to a council meeting. It seems Greg doesn't like it now that law-abiding, licensed-to-carry commoners can bring their pistols into city hall. He has even made a comment about building a sky walk to the county courthouse so that city hall would be exempt.

I don't know why you guys are giving him such a hard time. He has the right to his opinion, and the right to protect himself however he sees fit. Heck, maybe he was even carrying a piece, in case some nut case decides to start shooting.

Da Bing

 

[Caleb]

I don't know why you guys are giving him such a hard time. He has the right to his opinion, and the right to protect himself however he sees fit. Heck, maybe he was even carrying a piece, in case some nut case decides to start shooting.

Da Bing

Because he is utterly confused on how law abiding citizens operate and can't tell the difference between us and the badguys. Furthermore, he probably too ignorant and stubborn to be learnt differently...

 

[Knife Lady]

I don't know why you guys are giving him such a hard time. He has the right to his opinion, and the right to protect himself however he sees fit. Heck, maybe he was even carrying a piece, in case some nut case decides to start shooting.

Da Bing

The only nut case was the one wearing the vest.

 

[littletommy]

I don't know why you guys are giving him such a hard time. He has the right to his opinion, and the right to protect himself however he sees fit. Heck, maybe he was even carrying a piece, in case some nut case decides to start shooting.

Da Bing

Because he's the typical arrogant politician! He's smarter than everybody else and thought this would be a clever way of showing everyone how wrong this law is, and how dangerous us law abiding citizens are. Too bad his little prank back fired and made him look like the scared little ***** that he really is.

 

[xring62]

What a WUSSY ,Ill email him ,tell him to go to NewYork and be with his kinfolk. He's maybe trying to get ahead in his little town political game hoping it'll get him noticed so he one day can be mayor in that bustling place .HA

 

[xring62]

DId he have a diaper on too in case he pee'd if he seen a gun?

 

[Caleb]

Because he's the typical arrogant politician! He's smarter than everybody else and thought this would be a clever way of showing everyone how wrong this law is, and how dangerous us law abiding citizens are. Too bad his little prank back fired and made him look like the scared little ***** that he really is.

Damn right bro... Get these nutjob out of our state

 

[henktermaat]

I received a reply from him today:

I appreciate you writing and sharing your opinions. The unfortunate thing was the paper omitted my biggest gripe. I had asked the reporter to ask Bev Gard and Bob Cherry why they felt that they should be exempt at the state house while everyone else had to live by there lawmaking. Laws should be for all or are their exemptions that are an acceptable?

Thanks
Greg Carwein

I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

 

[mrjarrell]

I received a reply from him today:



I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

Sounds like he's saying you can carry in his council chambers but you're not allowed to carry in the statehouse. He's pointing out a double standard, seems like. Can't say I disagree with that, but it doesn't excuse his behaviour or viewpoint.

 

[Hammerhead]

Is he saying he's protesting the new law by trying to get the buildings in Greenfield exempted because the statehouse has those exemptions and he's saying they're being hypocritical?

So the paper is making him out to be an anit-gun paranoid nutjob, and not telling the whole truth?

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

I am. A few years ago ('06, I think... Rhino could tell us for sure) the Dept. of Administration made the State House off-limits to anyone with a firearm other than a legislator, judge, or LEO.

Mr. Carwein could ask those questions, but Sen. Gard and Rep. Cherry didn't pass any law to that effect. That said, they also have not introduced or passed any legislation to counter it, either, and the point was specifically raised while SB 292 was being debated in committee and in the Second Reading in each house.

I have to say that I agree with him on that point: it is not right for us to be disarmed by law there any more than it is right for us to be disarmed in SB's parks. That's not the way he meant it, of course, but it's a good point that the legislature needs to address. Gun-free zones are by their nature unsafe.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sbcman]

I received a reply from him today:



I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

Seems a response email is in order. I would also suggest attaching a letter from a 3rd grade English teacher on the proper uses of "there" and "their."

I do feel the need to say that I believe you guys are going about this the wrong way. I would completely support the use of armor- for the whole population- at the county's expense. It would be cool to get a vest out of this deal

 

[beararms1776]

Wearing a fj vest only after the law was changed is kind of strange I think.

 

[bingley]

Because he is utterly confused on how law abiding citizens operate and can't tell the difference between us and the badguys. Furthermore, he probably too ignorant and stubborn to be learnt differently...

Not all gun-carrying people are law-abiding. Not even everyone who's been licensed to carry is law-abiding. (Heck, as we have seen again and again, even law enforcement is not always law-abiding.) But that's why we carry.

I really don't see what's so bad about wearing a vest. I think we should all wear one. Real life is a two-way shooting range, you know. Again, anyone can protect himself anyway he sees fit: guns, clubs, vests, pepper spray, helmets... I frankly think wearing a vest is just a logical conclusion of the direction our society is moving in, and the only reason you guys don't like it in this case is he happens to be on the "opposing team." If an anti-gun activist starts carrying a gun to protect himself, would you take away his gun? You should congratulate this guy for making a move in OUR DIRECTION! Take responsibility for self defense. You can't wait for the cops to show up anymore.

Some of you might reply: well, that's not how he meant it. Perhaps, but if we reframe his symbolic act as self-defense, more people will join our side.

Maybe I shouldn't let on that I carry a survival kit and a trauma pack, in case you guys make fun of me. That is, until you've got a bullet hole in you and no clean water to drink.

Da Bing

 

[x10]

Shame, I grew up in Maxwell and graduated GCHS and while in grade school I brought my shotgun to school and put it in the counslers office and rode schoolbus home and rabitt hunted the tracks back to my house after school. What a Decent into madness

 

[steve666]

 

[canav844]

Well he certainly wasn't original in idea, but at least he was legal in doing so unlike the CA congress woman protesting OC in CA by wearing the vest on the legislature floor.

The news story does make me wonder what the reaction would be if people started to wear vests in "criminals are the only people who have guns" zones. It really wouldn't be any different than what the politicians consider acceptable behavior. (I wish I could put that in purple but the news story proves it to be true)

 

[Caleb]

Not all gun-carrying people are law-abiding. Not even everyone who's been licensed to carry is law-abiding. (Heck, as we have seen again and again, even law enforcement is not always law-abiding.) But that's why we carry.

Do note that I said "law abiding" and not "all gun-carrying people"

 

[Irish]

Hi folks:

New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.

Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.

I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.

This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of independent-thinking elected official that I, at least, am happy to have in office.

Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.

The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.

The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.

While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.

I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.

And that's my opinion.

 

[Kase]

Hi folks:

New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.

Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.

I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.

This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of intelligent and independent-thinking elected official that we should be happy to have in office.

Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.

The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.

The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.

While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.

I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.

And that's my opinion.

I'm glad you decided to join INGO Councilman Carwein.....