State Preemption IMPOTENCE.

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!
  • 2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    This is the law of the land.
    Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, andFirearm Accessories
    https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/8/a/0/b/8a0b81bc/TITLE35_AR47_ch11.1.pdf

    Notice the title, Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, andFirearm Accessories

    There are two main points to this post.
    1. Leasing of Local Government Property to Private entities.
    2. State agency Administrative Code

    First, as it stands right now a private entity can rent, lease or organize an event on government property and preempt the state legislature's will by declaring government property a GFZ.

    I have no problem with private property rights. If a property owner doesn't want my business and declares his property a GFZ, so be it. That is his privilege just like he doesn't have to serve blacks at his lunch counter. If a private entity rents a vacant grocery store (private property) for a gun show and declare it a GFZ, fine.

    If government property is used then the property falls under the authority of the people. The people's elected officials have supposedly preempted local government from declaring GFZs.

    Second, any State entity can make an Administrative rule and declare their properly a GFZ.

    The DNR has done this on all of their ranges and many of us have stopped using properties that we pay for.

    We need to write to our representatives and get this law amended.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    I don't care so much about renting for events. Policies can be ignored.

    I care more about establishing a private Board that manages the property, that then circumvents all kinds of controls on our Government. Fairgrounds do this pretty commonly. I've started to see it more with Parks and Recreation as well. Again, these are policies (not laws), but rather than for a random event they are now 24x7x365.

    As for State Agencies, yeah. Totally agree. They should follow State Law or IAC. Not make up rules on the fly.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    If government property is used then the property falls under the authority of the people. The people's elected officials have supposedly preempted local government from declaring GFZs.

    The local gov't isn't declaring it a GFZ, the renter is.

    I routinely rent cabins in state parks. I don't get to decide who and what comes in the cabin? If you rent a shelter at a city park for your kid's birthday party and I show up and sit in the shelter, you have no recourse to remove me?
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    What other civil rights are you allowed to suspend on rental property that you open to the public?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    We'll just have to disagree. If I rent something, it becomes mine for the duration of the rental period. The fact today's Art Fair is yesterday and tomorrow's public street doesn't change that.

    Unless the owner writes into the rental agreement you cannot preempt state law on the keeping and bearing of firearms like other landlords do with regards to various interests they have with how you use their property. Yes, maybe this is a loop hole that needs to be closed.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    Some may not have read my OP for comprehension.

    Hint: line 13 starting with that.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    Some may not have read my OP for comprehension.

    Hint: line 13 starting with that.

    To BBI's point, it's not the suddivision creating the policy, it's the renter. Now, if it can be shown that the subdivision is being nefarious by entering into agreements for conducting subdivision business, services, etc., so they could sneak in GFZs, then I'd say that's a problem. Otherwise, it'll take action by the legislature to force subdivisions to include the proper language in their rental agreements to get what you're asking for.....IMO. And I would support that in principle.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I am talking about Legislative action.

    At what point does public property stop being public property? If your answer is when some bureaucrat collects a fee, then I respectfully disagree. Can a subdivision benefit from private money? Absolutely, With the understanding that the property belongs to the people and their civil rights will not be infringed.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    I'd go for splitting the difference.

    If you rent an otherwise public place, like, say, a gazebo in the park, for a private gathering (like a wedding), then the renter should be able to set their own policy.

    If you rent an otherwise public place, like, say, the fiairgrounds, to host a public gathering (like a county fair), then the renter should have to follow the subdivision policies.

    If the otherwise public place is managed every single day by a private party, they should follow the subdivision policies. The PLACE is public. Shouldn't matter who sweeps the floors.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I agree. If it is a Private affair that is one thing. A public venue should not be able to suspend any civil right.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    I'd go for splitting the difference.

    If you rent an otherwise public place, like, say, a gazebo in the park, for a private gathering (like a wedding), then the renter should be able to set their own policy.

    If you rent an otherwise public place, like, say, the fiairgrounds, to host a public gathering (like a county fair), then the renter should have to follow the subdivision policies.

    If the otherwise public place is managed every single day by a private party, they should follow the subdivision policies. The PLACE is public. Shouldn't matter who sweeps the floors.

    Agreed. This seems reasonable.






    So that means it'll never happen.

    :D
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I agree. If it is a Private affair that is one thing. A public venue should not be able to suspend any civil right.

    So if I rent a hall at a convention center to display my collection of tasteful nudes of INGO members to the general public and PETA wants to protest the treatment of shaved Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) in my hall I have to let them? A group of the homeless set up under "ChurchMouse and the Unicorns" and I have to let them? A congregation of snake handlers wants to pray under "Indiucky's Breechclout in High Winds" and I've got to go along with that?
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    All of those like the 2A are bound by legality.
    You can yell fire in a crowded theater, and face prosecution.
    You can redress grievances, picket lines and such, but it is illegal to block public access.
    If a person is accosting others with their religion, gun, loitering or causing a disruption of any kind in your establishment you can trespass them.

    If I pray over my meal and you do not like it you can pound sand.

    I try not to be hyperbolic except in sarcasm.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    All of those like the 2A are bound by legality.
    You can yell fire in a crowded theater, and face prosecution.
    You can redress grievances, picket lines and such, but it is illegal to block public access.

    But that's not the same. Inciting a riot is illegal regardless of public or private, but picketing is completely different based on the setting. You asked what civil rights can be suspended, Hough and I gave you examples.

    And you didn't answer my question. Should I have to let PETA protest inside my showing?

    If a person is accosting others with their religion, gun, loitering or causing a disruption of any kind in your establishment you can trespass them.

    Which isn't true on public property, hence a limit on civil rights.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    That is not a legal form of protest. I am sorry I did not address every straw man that you posited.

    You have a perfect right to trespass any one causing a disturbance. If you ask me to leave I must. Can you trespass someone for no reason at all? I think you can, but it would be stupid.

    The question is, do you believe that the mere presence of a handgun, open or concealed, causes a disturbance. Does the mere presence of a person of color cause a disturbance.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    That is not a legal form of protest. I am sorry I did not address every straw man that you posited.

    You have a perfect right to trespass any one causing a disturbance. If you ask me to leave I must. Can you trespass someone for no reason at all? I think you can, but it would be stupid...

    Why is it not a legal form of protest? Because private property? Nobody said they were making a disturbance. They could be standing quietly in the corner with a banner, I don't have to let them. But on public property, I do.

    You can, and that's the meat of the issue, not a strawman. You don't have to be making a disturbance, you have no right to protest, to assemble, etc on property controlled by someone else. You can't be trespassed from a public place without a court becoming involved. Witness the court orders issued to clear out homeless camps under overpasses. I can implement a dress code for my Tasteful Nudes of INGO event on my own whim, I cannot implement a dress code for a sidewalk except via the law (such as public nudity).

    So, no, the actual strawman is if carrying a gun is a disturbance. It's irrelevant. No disturbance is required, and civil rights do not enjoy the same level of protection on private property, permanent or temporary, as they do on public property. And it's a sliding scale, your house is not treated the same as the mall is not treated the same as a city park.
     
    Top Bottom