Firearm Bans on Public Property During Local Festivals

[CTS]

I have a good friend who's a member of a festival board for a small town in Indiana and we had an interesting conversation the other day. He's being pressured by their insurance carrier to designate the festival area a gun free zone. Now I should mention that the festival area is on 100% public property, a city park and several streets. My understanding is that several area festivals are designated as gun free and are getting away with it because the city is leasing the property in use to the festival board and thus as a private organization the festival board can eject individuals in much they same way as they could on private property. Carrying the firearm isn't illegal, but they can charge you with trespass if you fail to leave when asked. That just seems wrong, is anyone aware of any challenges? After all why not simply "lease" all of downtown to the "City Managment Corp" and pay them to administer the city on behalf of the local government...then they could just do whatever they want all year long.

Is anyone aware of any challenges to the law or efforts in the legislature to remove this "gun free zone" loophole?

 

[SSGSAD]

Guy Relford, is the man .....

Concealed, means CONCEALED .....

 

[chipbennett]

If it's public property, and I'm a local taxpayer, then aren't I one of the lessors? And if I'm one of the lessors, then I can't be trespassed by a lessee, can I?

(IANAL; I stick to engineer logic.)

 

[T.Lex]

This is not legal advice, simply general commentary and observation.

Indiana Code 35-47-11.1-4(10) allows entities leasing public facilities to impose their own rules of conduct. That's an observation.

The commentary is that certain municipalities enter into public/private partnerships involving complicated lease deals and property trusts that then use those bases to post signs prohibiting firearms in buildings that cost more than $200M in public funds to build and are subsidized by the city annually to the tune of a couple million dollars.

Oh, and the Colts do the same thing with Indy.

 

[chipbennett]

This is not legal advice, simply general commentary and observation.

Indiana Code 35-47-11.1-4(10) allows entities leasing public facilities to impose their own rules of conduct. That's an observation.

Questions:

1. Is there a distinction between "facilities" and "grounds"?
2. Does ICS allow said "rules of conduct" to supersede the preemption statutes?

The commentary is that certain municipalities enter into public/private partnerships involving complicated lease deals and property trusts that then use those bases to post signs prohibiting firearms in buildings that cost more than $200M in public funds to build and are subsidized by the city annually to the tune of a couple million dollars.

Oh, and the Colts do the same thing with Indy.

That sounds like another whole issue all on its own (and one that merits discussion), but in this case, I think the OP is talking about using public grounds (such as parks) for "festivals" and such.

 

[HoughMade]

Not legal advice to anyone, just a hypothetical discussion.

Questions:

1. Is there a distinction between "facilities" and "grounds"?

Not that I'm aware of.

2. Does ICS allow said "rules of conduct" to supersede the preemption statutes?

The preemption statute applies to governmental entities, not private lessees. Private lessees can do things that a governmental entity could not.

That sounds like another whole issue all on its own (and one that merits discussion), but in this case, I think the OP is talking about using public grounds (such as parks) for "festivals" and such.

That what it sounds like. If the municipality remains in full possession and control and does not lease or otherwise transfer the property (no matter how temporarily), the preemption statutes may be an issue for them.

 

[T.Lex]

Just to add to HM's hypothetical observations, a lease for $1 is as valid as a lease for $1M (all other things being equal).

 

[eldirector]

I'm with Hough on this one.

As long as public entities are allowed to lease public property to private organizations, then this "loophole" will exist.

Luckily, these are policies, and not laws.

And, also yes, I see tons of municipalities doing this bait-and-switch. Not for firearms, but so they can avoid all kinds of government oversight. Some call it the "privatization of government".

 

[JettaKnight]

They do the same thing at Headwater Park in Fort Wayne for every ____fest.

CC and move along.

 

[lonehoosier]

Also most county fairs are privately run on county property.

 

[Biggredchev]

They lease it to a private board, yet use public servants (paid by the taxpayers) to secure the event.... Seems legit. You would think the festival board would be required to hire private security since its private land.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[hopper68]

Is this not comparable to an organization renting the local community center for a gun show and banning carrying of a loaded firearm?

 

[HoughMade]

Is this not comparable to an organization renting the local community center for a gun show and banning carrying of a loaded firearm?

Yes.

 

[jve153]

just curious thinking....
if one were to own an establishment, and were to make it a non-gun free zone, ie, to enter, you had to be carrying, would not the other side throw a **** fit?

 

[Denny347]

just curious thinking....
if one were to own an establishment, and were to make it a non-gun free zone, ie, to enter, you had to be carrying, would not the other side throw a **** fit?

Hmmm, maybe/maybe not. Sadly, they probably would be struggling for business.

 

[SwikLS]

USCCA and the NRA are into the insurance biz for gun owners. I wonder if they would be interested in this sort of insurance for local governments or know of others willing insure without gun free zone rules.

Competition is the solution to this problem.

 

[2A_Tom]

A lot of the NRAAN events are gun free zones. Go figure.

 

[KLB]

Does the fact that part of the area is public streets make a difference?

I can see where a park or fairgrounds could be leased by some entity and made gun free zones, but public streets?

 

[T.Lex]

Does the fact that part of the area is public streets make a difference?

I can see where a park or fairgrounds could be leased by some entity and made gun free zones, but public streets?

Probably not.

Municipalities generally have the authority to cordon off an area for special events (like parades) and then that can become part of the leased area. If traffic is flowing, though, it is probably ok for someone - not part of the festivities - to pass through without becoming subject to the lessee's rules.

Probably. Maybe. Sorta.