Hum... is TFT trying to do a mass sue on all of them all at once?
=)
Guy, no one answered this question in an earlier post but if a city or county govt hasn't gotten around to changing their ordinances to comply with SB292 can a person be in violation of their existing law as far as consequences or does 292 immediately nullify them and protect us?
St. Johns Hospital in Anderson has a no weapons sticker on their door. I ignore it though and cc anyway. All they can do is tell me to leave if they ever notice it. I also carried in Bloomington Hospital a couple of months ago when my mother was admitted, but I didn't see a sticker there.
Last time I was in the Hamilton County courthouse (a few years ago) they had metal detectors at the entrances to the hallways where courtrooms were, but not into the building itself. They were apparently in compliance long before the law was enacted.
Last time I was in the Indianapolis Code Enforcement building (mid to late July) they still had their sign up. 1200 Madison Avenue. I will be back there again sometime next week and will verify.
I think he's more on the track of a "hey, fair warning to fix it before you get stung" type of thing first.
There's no suit unless someone's adversely affected first.
Auburn still has restrictions banning firearms from parks.
https://documents.ci.auburn.in.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-5263#Proh
Hello,
I am a resident of Auburn.
I would be interested to find out if the city council is planning to repeal the prohibition on firearms in city parks (or any other firearms laws) in light of the state pre-emption law that went into effect on July 1st. I see that the local law is still on the Auburn Code of Ordinances website under section 93.04(D)
I'm sure you are aware that the new state law allows civil damages to anyone impacted by any local regulations. It would be a shame for our city to be unecessarily burdened by a civil suit that could so easily be avoided by simply repealing the ordinance.
Thank you for addressing this issue.
Jeff,
I will consult with City Attorney and forward this to Ordinance Chairperson, Jim Finchum.
The City usually eliminates ordinances which conflict with Indiana State Law.
Thank You,
David
Dr. David Painter
260-925-9161
(F)260-925-9171
I am the City Attorney for Auburn, Indiana.
I understand your concern regarding the current Park Ordinance as it relates to the new Indiana law regarding firearms.
The Park Ordinance will most likely undergo some modifications soon to comply with and become consistent with Indiana law.
In the meantime, the City will not enforce the portions of the ordinance that are in any way inconsistent with State Code.
That being said, since we are not enforcing the inconsistent portions of the code at this time, the City is not in immediate danger of civil litigation.
We do know that changes need to be made and will certainly address them in the future.
Thanks for your interest in the City of Auburn, Indiana. We will be sure to keep you updated.
W. Erik Weber
Auburn City Attorney
Mefford, Weber and Blythe, PC
Attorneys At Law
130 East Seventh Street
260 925 2300 Ext 305
260 925 7679 Direct Dial
260 925 2610 Fax
erik@lawmwb.com
UPDATE:
After I posted this this morning I e-mailed the mayor & council president about the ordinance no longer being in compliance with state law.
Here is my e-mail:
This is the response I got from the city council president:
A short while later I got this response from the city attorney:
It looks like they are on the right track, at least.
I was VERY impressed that I got such speedy & positive replies.
UPDATE:
After I posted this this morning I e-mailed the mayor & council president about the ordinance no longer being in compliance with state law.
Here is my e-mail:
This is the response I got from the city council president:
A short while later I got this response from the city attorney:
It looks like they are on the right track, at least.
I was VERY impressed that I got such speedy & positive replies.
yes, the city is in danger of immediate civil litigation whether they enforce it or not. If the law says that black people can only use a certain water fountain you can bet they are going to get sued whether or not they enforce it.
Hmmm... may I suggest that you re-read the part about "adversely affected" - but first clear your mind of any pre-conceived notions about what is required to file a lawsuit.So how can you sue if no "harm" has come to you by them having the outdated law on their books?... You have no grounds to sue since in order to sue "harm" must have come to you by way of arrest/fine for the illegal city code but since the city won't do either then you have no starting point.
My office is right next to Southport.I have heard indirectly that the Southport mayor is openly defying the new preemption statute. Does anyone have any personal knowledge of this?