4th celebration headache

[hopper68]

Local 4th fest has a no carry sign up and it is generating some controversy. I will give the facts then ask your opinions.

Private organization (community service club) owns land next to the local community center.

For its annual celebration the club rents the community center and grounds for rides and fair booths while using its own property for demo derby and tractor pulls.

Last year there was an incident, someone OCed. No club rules against it but they made him put it in his vehicle.

Deputy attended next meeting and told club to post no carry signs.

OCer told to leave complains on FB.

I know they can post their own property but what about the community center property since they are renting?

My advice was ignored by those in power.

 

[BogWalker]

Who administers the community center? If they allow them they can post the sign, but if they're posting without permission there may be a conversation to be had.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who administers the community center? If they allow them they can post the sign, but if they're posting without permission there may be a conversation to be had.

I believe he meant this in terms of the state preemption law.

 

[hopper68]

If memory serves me correctly the group that runs the community center are volunteers who pay yearly dues to belong, anybody can join just pay the dues but they do not own the property. The township trustee is who the community center board answers to.

SIGN IS DOWN!!! After a brief discussion of club rights and gun owner rights the signs were taken down. There also was discussion of before posting any more signs to consult a lawyer instead of a deputy. Also I suggested just a sign that says "keep em holstered" if they must put up a sign.

 

[littletommy]

Fantastic! Nice job!

 

[Bill of Rights]

That the sign is down is a good thing. I would wonder if the deputy, an employee (and therefore agent) of a political subdivision, advising them to put up signs after the preemption law of 2011, (IC 35-47-11.1) would trigger the treble damages portion of sec. 5(?) of that law?

 

[eldirector]

That the sign is down is a good thing. I would wonder if the deputy, an employee (and therefore agent) of a political subdivision, advising them to put up signs after the preemption law of 2011, (IC 35-47-11.1) would trigger the treble damages portion of sec. 5(?) of that law?

That would be nice, but we can't even get towns/cities to strike their illegal ordinances and remove their illegal signs (Hammond). As long as it isn't enforced person-to-person, the Courts think it is A-OK.

+1 on getting the sign removed.

 

[stephen87]

That the sign is down is a good thing. I would wonder if the deputy, an employee (and therefore agent) of a political subdivision, advising them to put up signs after the preemption law of 2011, (IC 35-47-11.1) would trigger the treble damages portion of sec. 5(?) of that law?

No likely seeing as how LOS and ICC openly RECOMMEND their lessees to enact a policy.

 

[stephen87]

That would be nice, but we can't even get towns/cities to strike their illegal ordinances and remove their illegal signs (Hammond). As long as it isn't enforced person-to-person, the Courts think it is A-OK.

+1 on getting the sign removed.

I guess some people need to go push some buttons.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I guess some people need to go push some buttons.

I volunteer to push the button on my orbital sander and/or sawsall to remove the parts of the sign that are in conflict with preemption, thus bringing them into full legal compliance.

Which reminds me. So if an entity refuses to change a sign because "if we dont enforce the rule, its cool", I wonder if groups like ours could arrange to correct the signs at no cost to the entities, thus bringing them into compliance? Seems like a win-win to me. After all, how much could tweaking the average sign cost?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I guess some people need to go push some buttons.

Indeed so. Now, if I could just find that button that eliminates Hillary from the face of the planet.

 

[churchmouse]

Indeed so. Now, if I could just find that button that eliminates Hillary from the face of the planet.

Please.............................

 

[hopper68]

Let me clear this up. The sign was at the entrance to the track area, land owned by the private club-totally within their rights. Put up because someone OCed last year and this is what a deputy recommended they do even after someone pointed out he thought it was bad advice. The headache was a deputy asked a lady to leave who was on community center property (just found out where she was at). A discussion of how the rules change according to whose property it was on can be confusing for some and the attention the sign was getting on fb helped in getting the sign removed.

But the issue is far from dead. I'm sure next meeting there will be questions about since the club was renting community property can they legally have someone trespassed for carrying? Anything I can use to fight the bad advice that I know will be given would be appreciated.

But next year this could be even more complicated by the club and community center leasing part of their land to start a charter school and maybe a daycare.

 

[hopper68]

I guess it could be compared to a gunshow at the local community centers put on by an outside organizer. If they can put signs up preventing you from being armed and kick you out if caught with one, what is the difference?

And on a side note if the show is run by the same people who run the center is it legal to disarm people?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

SIGN IS DOWN!!! After a brief discussion of club rights and gun owner rights the signs were taken down. There also was discussion of before posting any more signs to consult a lawyer instead of a deputy. Also I suggested just a sign that says "keep em holstered" if they must put up a sign.

^^^Repped for fighting the good fight^^^

I volunteer to push the button on my orbital sander and/or sawsall to remove the parts of the sign that are in conflict with preemption, thus bringing them into full legal compliance.

Which reminds me. So if an entity refuses to change a sign because "if we dont enforce the rule, its cool", I wonder if groups like ours could arrange to correct the signs at no cost to the entities, thus bringing them into compliance? Seems like a win-win to me. After all, how much could tweaking the average sign cost?

^^^This is an idea that I can get behind^^^