Proctor Park - New Whiteland, IN: no firearms sign

[ATM]

...ATM, I'll be cutting and pasting your post without attribution. It would just confuse them if I said "this dude named ATM on this forum said..."

I'm sure they've heard of me.






So, yeah, I'd definitely skip mentioning me.

 

[jeremy]

ATM, I'll be cutting and pasting your post without attribution. It would just confuse them if I said "this dude named ATM on this forum said..."

Plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery...

 

[hoosierdoc]

Plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery...

I actually almost wrote that in my post but my thumbs were getting tired. It's alread 9:30 after all

 

[KG1]

I had great luck with getting a couple of the parks in Avon to change the signs with some emails to the Park Directors, indicating the specific references to the IC's and letting them know that the signs opened the town to liability from litigation.

Much of this was detailed in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...south_bend_parks_dept_violating_sb_292_a.html

It took about 2 days to get responses, and the signs changed.

Just point out to them the specific state laws, quoting and referencing them specifically with URLs, etc really helps, and let them know that there is liability involved, and things should move quickly.

In the case of the Avon signs, they updated them without the need to replace the sign, which was fine with me. Here was a pic of one of the updated signs:

I just got off the phone with the town hall contact info and they stated te park was owned by the town. Time to compose an email.

ATM, I'll be cutting and pasting your post without attribution. It would just confuse them if I said "this dude named ATM on this forum said..."

This other member quoted above dealt with a very similar circumstance and had some success.

Here is a link to a post he made from that other thread that has the actual e-mail that he sent. It may help you with an idea on how to formulate one.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ks_dept_violating_sb_292_a-4.html#post2875582

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well, it's a little wordy but mainly the IC references at the end... I'll keep you all informed. I can't make the Thursday council meeting.

-----

Hello, I wanted to contact you regarding a sign posted at Proctor Park in New Whiteland. I was there fishing with my two sons and enjoying the playground equipment but I noticed the sign states that firearms are not allowed. I found your ordinance listed on the police department website as listed below:

§ 94.11 FIREARMS.
It shall be unlawful for any person, unless so authorized by the Town Council, to discharge or have possession of any firearms or other explosive device within the limits of any park or on any other property owned, operated or controlled by the town.
(Ord. 88-11, passed 10-10-88) Penalty, see § 94.99

§ 94.99 PENALTY.
Any person violating any provision of this chapter for which no penalty is otherwise provided shall be fined a sum not exceeding $500, plus court costs.
(Ord. 88-11, passed 10-10-88)

There was a recent change to the Indiana Code, promulgated on July 1, 2011 which supercedes all local ordinances regarding the carry of firearms, among other things. It in effect states that municipalities and local divisions of government cannot have ordinances on the books such as 94.11. I've included a link to the IC below for reference: You can read further that the town of New Whiteland is actually open to fines and penalties should it attempt to enforce the written statute or the sign. I'd like to formally request the ordinance be removed from the town books and the sign be changed so that it is in compliance with Indiana law.
I am happy to discuss this further either via email or by phone at XXX-XXXX
thanks,
-Hoosierdoc

---------------------
REFERENCES:
---------------------
Indiana Code 35-47-11.1
Pertinent subsections:
-----------------------------
"IC 35-47-11.1-2
Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

IC 35-47-11.1-3
Voidance of political subdivision ordinances, measures, enactments, rules, policies, and exercises of proprietary authority
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4."
--------------------

--------------------
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.

 

[KG1]

Looks good to me.

 

[jeremy]

Good luck, will be looking forward to an update...

 

[MrsGungho]

Good luck, will be looking forward to an update...

 

[Boost Lee]

Great letter, doc!

 

[hoosierdoc]

I have a preliminary response from The person monitoring the inbox. Said they are aware of the law change and will forward to the city attorney to see what, if any, changes need to be made. Also said they didn't understand the reason the law was changed. Clearly not that sympathetic to our cause or just not liking local power being usurped by state.
I'll post full text when there's a resolution.

 

[DarkRose]

Good to hear, as I'm in New Whiteland semi-frequently.

 

[KG1]

I have a preliminary response from The person monitoring the inbox. Said they are aware of the law change and will forward to the city attorney to see what, if any, changes need to be made. Also said they didn't understand the reason the law was changed. Clearly not that sympathetic to our cause or just not liking local power being usurped by state.
I'll post full text when there's a resolution.

It does'nt matter if they don't understand why the law was changed. Their duty is to comply with it or face possible litigation. Thanks for the update.

 

[hoosierdoc]

That's my thought too. If anothe response comes I'll explain it was changed to stop regular folks from becoming felons inadvertently

 

[KG1]

That's my thought too. If anothe response comes I'll explain it was changed to stop regular folks from becoming felons inadvertently

This is exactly why. To have some commonality of law so lawful firearm carriers do not have to worry about being caught up in some charge based on not knowing the different laws relating to firearms in each local jurisdiction.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Here's the final response. I offered to donate the cost to repair the sign as a sign of good faith.

----
We may not be able to prohibit people from carrying guns in our park but it is against the law to discharge a gun within the park or within the town limits. *We will make any changes that we are required to make - it's just finding the money to replace the sign - that entire park has been built with donations.

I am so happy for your son - I loved fishing with my Dad when I was little! *That's on my wish list if we raise enough money - stocking the pond with more fish!

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Forward them the photo of the Avon sign - that it's just a piece of plastic / wood riveted over the prohibition.

As far as any *potential lawsuits: The Hammond case that Guy is dealing with right now - based on the content of the town's website still maintaining old law language - was decided against Guy's suit because (praphrasing) just because it's on the website doesn't mean that it's the actual reflection of the laws as they're on the books. A still-maintained sign might be a different story - but the verbiage on the website probably not. (Because the website isn't the "official repository" of the code, probably)

-J-

 

[MrsGungho]

Forward them the photo of the Avon sign - that it's just a piece of plastic / wood riveted over the prohibition.

As far as any *potential lawsuits: The Hammond case that Guy is dealing with right now - based on the content of the town's website still maintaining old law language - was decided against Guy's suit because (praphrasing) just because it's on the website doesn't mean that it's the actual reflection of the laws as they're on the books. A still-maintained sign might be a different story - but the verbiage on the website probably not. (Because the website isn't the "official repository" of the code, probably)

-J-

that does make sense, but not everyone is aware of the laws as well as some here and would look at that on the website and think it's true.
Maybe, just maybe, even with the lawsuit going their way they will get it changed.

 

[KG1]

Here's the final response. I offered to donate the cost to repair the sign as a sign of good faith.

----
We may not be able to prohibit people from carrying guns in our park but it is against the law to discharge a gun within the park or within the town limits. *We will make any changes that we are required to make - it's just finding the money to replace the sign - that entire park has been built with donations.

I am so happy for your son - I loved fishing with my Dad when I was little! *That's on my wish list if we raise enough money - stocking the pond with more fish!

Placard over item #4. that reads "Discharge of a firearm prohibited" instead of "Firearms are prohibited".

 

[KLB]

Placard over item #4. Discharge of a firearm prohibited.

Or a couple of coats of paint.

 

[Ted]

......Also said they didn't understand the reason the law was changed......

They need only access the legislative intent from the state library. Clearly they don't have a clue to the lawmaking process of government; a sad commentary upon those within government.

They probably think that we live in a democracy as well.