State Preemption question

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!
  • sidewinder27

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 1, 2011
    460
    18
    Plainfield
    This is an ordinance from the Town of Plainfield. I know the police headquarters is off limits for firearms because they have the court rooms there. But the Town Municipal and the Town Rec. Center along with Barker Sports Complex should not be off limits with my understanding of the preemption law. Am I wrong?
    [FONT=&quot]
    ui-bookmark.gif
    § 132.02 POSSESSION OF DEADLY WEAPON PROHIBITED IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, POLICE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING AND THE TOWN RECREATION CENTER.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] Except as provided in § 132.05, no person shall possess on or about his or her person any deadly weapon(s) within the Town Municipal Building located at 206 West Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana, the Police Headquarters Building located at 1075 West Main Street, Plainfield Indiana, the Town Recreation Center located at 651 Vestal Road, Plainfield, Indiana, the Al and Jan Barker Sports Complex, or in any park, trail or other public place owned by or being used for a public purpose by the town.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](Ord. 23-94, passed 2-13-1995; Ord. 11-2000, passed 4-24-2000; Ord. 21-2009, passed 7-13-2009; Ord. 10-2011, passed 8-29-2011) Penalty, see § 132.99


    I am also questioning if they can legally ban weapons or firearms from public meetings as well.
    ui-bookmark.gif
    § 132.04 DISPLAY OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR FIREARM AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

    Except as provided in § 132.05, no person shall intentionally display any deadly weapon or any firearm at any public meeting.

    (Ord. 10-2011, passed 8-29-2011) Penalty, see § 132.99



    [/FONT]
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    [FONT=&amp]

    I am also questioning if they can legally ban weapons or firearms from public meetings as well.
    ui-bookmark.gif
    § 132.04 DISPLAY OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR FIREARM AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

    Except as provided in § 132.05, no person shall intentionally display any deadly weapon or any firearm at any public meeting.

    (Ord. 10-2011, passed 8-29-2011) Penalty, see § 132.99

    [/FONT]
    Perfectly legal, per IC:
    Indiana Code 2018 - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
    [FONT=&amp](6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.[/FONT]


    The first part, IMHO, is very much ILLEGAL. However, the courts (in their infinite wisdom) have determined that the illegal ordinances pay stand as long as they are not enforced.
     

    Redleg11b

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 3, 2017
    90
    6
    Goshen/Elkhart
    What does 132.05 state? Is that a LEO exemption only? Does that refer to having a CCW permit?

    The ordinance about public meetings specifically applies to brandishing, displaying, etc. If the public meetings are held in the Minicipal Building, that is the ordinance relating to possessing them at public meetings.
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,362
    149
    Probably legal here is their definition of deadly weapon "DEADLY WEAPON. A sword of any length; an electronic stun gun; a fixed blade knife; or a knife with a folding blade of four inches or more." It doesn't include firearms.They have a separate definition for firearms.
     

    sidewinder27

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 1, 2011
    460
    18
    Plainfield
    What does 132.05 state? Is that a LEO exemption only? Does that refer to having a CCW permit?

    The ordinance about public meetings specifically applies to brandishing, displaying, etc. If the public meetings are held in the Minicipal Building, that is the ordinance relating to possessing them at public meetings.

    [FONT=&quot]
    ui-bookmark.gif
    § 132.05 EXCEPTED PERSONS.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] Sections 132.02, 132.03 and 132.04 shall not apply to the following persons:
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] (A) Law enforcement officers as that term is defined under state law;
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] (B) Federal enforcement officers as that term is defined under state law; and
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] (C) Persons who are in the Town Police Department section of the Town Police Headquarters Building and have in their possession a firearm for the sole purpose of having it registered.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](Ord. 23-94, passed 2-13-1995; Ord. 11-2000, passed 4-24-2000; Ord. 21-2009, passed 7-13-2009; Ord. 10-2011, passed 8-29-2011)
    [/FONT]
     

    thompal

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 27, 2008
    3,545
    113
    Beech Grove
    [FONT=&amp]
    ui-bookmark.gif
    § 132.05 EXCEPTED PERSONS.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp] Sections 132.02, 132.03 and 132.04 shall not apply to the following persons:
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&amp][/FONT][FONT=&amp](C) Persons who are in the Town Police Department section of the Town Police Headquarters Building and have in their possession a firearm for the sole purpose of having it registered.
    [/FONT]

    ??? What does this mean??? "Registered?"
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Based on my understanding of Indiana Code 35-47-11 (below), Plainfield is in violation of Indiana's preemption statute. Can I get an INGO lawyer to chime in??



    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.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,686
    77
    Camby area
    Based on my understanding of Indiana Code 35-47-11 (below), Plainfield is in violation of Indiana's preemption statute. Can I get an INGO lawyer to chime in??



    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.

    Sadly, courts have ruled they are only in violation IF they decide to enforce the law. They dont have to strike the law, remove signage, etc. The latter is the most grievous part. They can leave signs in place that flat out lie to ignorant citizens who dont know any better.

    I wish some patriot would find those park signs and remove that part of the sign, or "deface" the sign to remove the ordinance they cannot enforce. I think that would be an interesting court case; a patriot being charged for vandalism for attempting to remove the reference to an ordinance that is preempted.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Sadly, courts have ruled they are only in violation IF they decide to enforce the law. They dont have to strike the law, remove signage, etc. The latter is the most grievous part. They can leave signs in place that flat out lie to ignorant citizens who dont know any better.

    I wish some patriot would find those park signs and remove that part of the sign, or "deface" the sign to remove the ordinance they cannot enforce. I think that would be an interesting court case; a patriot being charged for vandalism for attempting to remove the reference to an ordinance that is preempted.

    I know Cm, and I do have a problem with it. Someone who is law-abiding will follow something that clearly violates a State Code, because they are law-abiding. To me this is like saying, "We don't need the 3rd Amendment because there are no soldiers being quartered in homes." We're not enforcing the law, so it's ok that we have policy violates the law. We aren't currently violating the rights of our citizens in this manner, so we don't need Constitutional protection from this happening.
     

    WebSnyper

    Maximum Effort
    Rating - 100%
    56   0   0
    Jul 3, 2010
    15,417
    113
    127.0.0.1
    Sadly, courts have ruled they are only in violation IF they decide to enforce the law. They dont have to strike the law, remove signage, etc. The latter is the most grievous part. They can leave signs in place that flat out lie to ignorant citizens who dont know any better.

    I wish some patriot would find those park signs and remove that part of the sign, or "deface" the sign to remove the ordinance they cannot enforce. I think that would be an interesting court case; a patriot being charged for vandalism for attempting to remove the reference to an ordinance that is preempted.

    I know Cm, and I do have a problem with it. Someone who is law-abiding will follow something that clearly violates a State Code, because they are law-abiding. To me this is like saying, "We don't need the 3rd Amendment because there are no soldiers being quartered in homes." We're not enforcing the law, so it's ok that we have policy violates the law. We aren't currently violating the rights of our citizens in this manner, so we don't need Constitutional protection from this happening.

    I had good luck with Avon as well as Washington township taking it seriously a few years back when I provided them the IC and referenced some park signs they had that opened them up to potential litigation if anyone tried to enforce it. Took a few emails and the signs were dealt with. Avon park director jumped right on it at the time. The Washington Township park director took some persuasion (she gave me the "think of the children argument at first) but the Avon Parks Director confirmed what I was telling he and replied to me saying "He would get her up to speed", and they also changed their sign at the time.


    If I missed it, apologies, but has anyone made contact yet and cited the IC, etc to them? It might not be that difficult.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    I had good luck with Avon as well as Washington township taking it seriously a few years back when I provided them the IC and referenced some park signs they had that opened them up to potential litigation if anyone tried to enforce it. Took a few emails and the signs were dealt with. Avon park director jumped right on it at the time. The Washington Township park director took some persuasion (she gave me the "think of the children argument at first) but the Avon Parks Director confirmed what I was telling he and replied to me saying "He would get her up to speed", and they also changed their sign at the time.


    If I missed it, apologies, but has anyone made contact yet and cited the IC, etc to them? It might not be that difficult.

    That was you? Major props your way WebSnyper! I remember going in the Town Hall building for a meeting and they had the signs up. No courthouse in there and I knew it violated the preemption statute. Next time I was there, no signs!
     

    dprimm

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 13, 2013
    1,741
    83
    Just West of Indianapolis
    I had good luck with Avon as well as Washington township taking it seriously a few years back when I provided them the IC and referenced some park signs they had that opened them up to potential litigation if anyone tried to enforce it. Took a few emails and the signs were dealt with. Avon park director jumped right on it at the time. The Washington Township park director took some persuasion (she gave me the "think of the children argument at first) but the Avon Parks Director confirmed what I was telling he and replied to me saying "He would get her up to speed", and they also changed their sign at the time.


    If I missed it, apologies, but has anyone made contact yet and cited the IC, etc to them? It might not be that difficult.

    Except the board they put over the firearm part of the sign is gone. So every time I go I think how they are in violation.

    I am never there when the office is open. Need to get off my butt about it.
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,362
    149
    ??? What does this mean??? "Registered?"

    Way back in the day handguns were required to be registered with the local PD, as of a few years ago some PDs still offered but did not require registration. Ostensible in case of lose or theft, they would have all the info ready at hand.

    Based on my understanding of Indiana Code 35-47-11 (below), Plainfield is in violation of Indiana's preemption statute. Can I get an INGO lawyer to chime in??



    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.

    Under section 4 they are allowed to prohibit firearms in buildings that contain a courtroom and prohibit intentional display at a public meeting. That is all their ordinances do in regards to firearms. They have separate definitions of "deadly weapons" and "firearms". The IC doesn't have preemption for the items listed under deadly weapons. Such as swords, knives, stun devices.
    File Failed[field%20folio-destination-name:%27132.02%27]$x=Advanced#JD_132.02
     
    Top Bottom