Carry on School Grounds

[Beau]

<A name=IC35-47-9>IC 35-47-9
Chapter 9. Possession of Firearms on School Property and School Buses

<A name=IC35-47-9-1>IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A: may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.

Let us assume the softball program is ran by the school. Also that the fields are considered part of school grounds.
This does not state that the person must leave school grounds after transporting person to school function.
Whether I exit the vehicle or not it is still being operated by me as long as only I posses the means to enter the vehicle and the vehicle is locked. If the firearm is left in the vehicle then it is still possesed in the vehicle.

Any other interpretations?

 

[Griffeycom]

You are no longer operating the vehicle once you exit the vehicle.


Actually, I think it would be even better to say, once you leave the drivers seat you are no longer operating the vehicle.

 

[Beau]

I could agree with that. I think it could be taken either way though. So what if the person stays in the vehicle then? Doesn't get out, just waits to transport the person from the school function.

 

[ATM]

I could agree with that. I think it could be taken either way though. So what if the person stays in the vehicle then? Doesn't get out, just waits to transport the person from the school function.

This is how most have interpreted the code. Staying in the vehicle only.

 

[tv1217]

You're probably better off not testing the boundaries.

 

[Rookie]

Speaking of boundaries - is a sidewalk considered public access or school property?

 

[AFA1CY]

Case law:

FOR PUBLICATION


ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:


BRUCE E. ANDIS STEVE CARTER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CHRISTOPHER L. LAFUSE
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana





IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICAH NEWSON, ) )Appellant-Defendant, ) )vs. ) No. 49A02-0207-CR-609 )STATE OF INDIANA, ) )Appellee-Plaintiff. )


APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable William Robinette, Judge
Cause No. 49F15-0111-DF-215281





April 4, 2003


OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION


BROOK, Chief Judge

Case Summary
Appellant-defendant Micah Newson appeals his conviction for possession of firearms on school property, a Class D felony. See footnote We affirm.
Issues
Newson raises three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as follows:
I. whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the handgun seized from his car; and

II. whether he established an affirmative defense to possession of firearms on school property.

Facts and Procedural History
At approximately 3:15 p.m. on November 6, 2001, a student at Ben Davis High School in Indianapolis noticed a handgun in the passenger seat of a car parked by the service dock and reported it to school officials. Principal David Marcotte verified the report and notified school security. School security officer James Ingalls opened the car door and retrieved the handgun. Shortly thereafter, Newson approached the car, acknowledged ownership of the vehicle and the handgun, and produced a valid Indiana gun permit.
The State charged Newson with possession of firearms on school property, a Class D felony. On May 3, 2002, the trial court found Newson guilty as charged. Newson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Admission of Firearm
Newson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the handgun retrieved from his car. We need not address Newson’s contention, however. Marcotte, Ingalls, and school security officer David Lindsey all testified without objection that they saw a handgun in the passenger seat of a car parked by the service dock. All three witnesses also testified without objection that Newson admitted owning both the car and the handgun. As such, any error in the admission of the handgun can only be considered harmless. See Martin v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1213, 1219 (Ind. 2000) (“t is ‘well settled that the erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal if other evidence having the same probative value is admitted without objection or contradiction.’”) (citation omitted).

II. Affirmative Defense to Possession of Firearms on School Property
Indiana Code Section 35-47-9-2 provides that a person who possesses a firearm on school property commits a Class D felony. Section 35-47-9-1(3) provides, however, that section 35-47-9-2 does not apply to “[a] person who … may legally possess a firearm … and … possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.” Newson does not deny that he possessed a handgun on school property but points to his testimony that he drove a friend to his job at the school. In other words, Newson contends that he established an affirmative defense to the charged crime. See footnote
“[T]he defendant has the burden of proof on any affirmative defense.” Brown v. State, 485 N.E.2d 108, 111 (Ind. 1985). As such, Newson appeals from a negative judgment. Cf. Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668, 672 (Ind. 1996) (noting that “[t]he burden rests with the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the affirmative defense of insanity” and that “[a] convicted defendant who claims that his insanity defense would have prevailed at trial is in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
When a party appeals from a negative judgment, he must demonstrate that the evidence points unerringly to a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court. We will reverse a negative judgment only if the decision of the trial court is contrary to law. In determining whether a trial court’s decision is contrary to law, we must determine if the undisputed evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom lead to but one conclusion and the trial court has reached a different one.


Cooper v. State, 760 N.E.2d 660, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (citations omitted), trans. denied (2002).
It is undisputed that Newson legally possessed the handgun; at issue is whether he possessed it in a motor vehicle “that [was] being operated” to transport another person to the school. Ind. Code § 35-47-9-1(3). The record clearly indicates that Newson was not operating his car when the student saw the handgun in the passenger seat. As such, we must conclude that Newson failed to establish his affirmative defense.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and MATTINGLY-MAY, J., concur.

Footnote: Ind. Code § 35-47-9-2.

Footnote: Although not designated as such, the exception enumerated in Indiana Code Section 35-47-9-1(3) is clearly an affirmative defense to the crime of possession of firearms on school property. See Black’s Law Dictionary 430 (7th ed. 1999) (defining affirmative defense as “[a] defendant’s assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true.”). In his appellate brief, Newson frames his argument as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction; given that Newson does not dispute that he possessed a firearm on school property, we instead review the adequacy of his affirmative defense.

 

[Truckerman79]

There you have it. What a dummy leaving it in plain view with the car unlocked.

 

[AFA1CY]

Yes but most important:

[qoute]Cooper v. State, 760 N.E.2d 660, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (citations omitted), trans. denied (2002).
It is undisputed that Newson legally possessed the handgun; at issue is whether he possessed it in a motor vehicle “that [was] being operated” to transport another person to the school. Ind. Code § 35-47-9-1(3). The record clearly indicates that Newson was not operating his car when the student saw the handgun in the passenger seat. As such, we must conclude that Newson failed to establish his affirmative defense. [/quote]

 

[melensdad]

While I KNOW the law it seems to me it should be amended slightly.

As a parent who takes his daughter to school and picks her up daily, it is difficult to comply with this law 100% of the time. I do my best to arrive early so my daughter has the shortest walk possible from the school to the car, but there are times when it is down pouring rain I am not allowed to get out an umbrella and walk her 50' to 75' from the door of the school to the car. That is wrong. There are times when she needs to carry in a large 'project' like during science fair and other events, I am not allowed to help her. That is wrong. There are times when there are special events going on (food drives for the needy, etc) where she is taking in her school books AND bags of other things, I am not allowed to carry these things to the front of the school. That is wrong.

The best/worst one is when you have to deal with a child who gets sick at school and needs to come home; parents have to come in and sign out their child. I could park across the street, leave the gun in the car, walk across the street, and then across the whole width of the parking lot, and into school, making my sick child walk that same long return trip to the car and comply with the law. But that is morally wrong! It may be the correct legal answer but it is still wrong. In fact some of the high schools in this area are so large that it is not even practical to park off the property and walk in (Lake Central High School comes to mind) as its probably set back from the road 500' and there is NO PARKING on the road in front of the school!!! Munster High School occupies property on BOTH SIDES of the street, there is NOWHERE to park within 1/4 mile of the entrance to the school without being on school property.

So what does a parent do other than disobey the word of the law?

While I think its stupid to leave a gun visible and on the seat of the car, why can't I slip it under the seat and help my child . . . especially if I remain in sight of the car? I'm not asking to be allowed to go INTO the school armed. I'm not asking to park the car & go into an event that may last an hour or two. I'm asking to be able to help my kid carry stuff to the door, I'm asking to be able to get my sick kid, I'm asking to be able to keep my kid dry in a rainstorm.

Again, I know the law.

I'm simply saying the law needs to be amended to allow for some contingencies.

 

[AFA1CY]

While I KNOW the law it seems to me it should be amended slightly.

... snip ...

Again, I know the law.

I'm simply saying the law needs to be amended to allow for some contingencies.

In my opinion, I believe you are wrong. The law does not need to be amended, it needs to be repealed. Carrying on school property should be allowed by a properly licensed responsable person.

 

[melensdad]

In my opinion, I believe you are wrong. The law does not need to be amended, it needs to be repealed. Carrying on school property should be allowed by a properly licensed responsable person.

Well I won't disagree with you on that point, but just as we got gun control laws into place in small increments, I'd be more than willing to work the same way to get to some level of sanity the reverse, even if we are forced to accept the political reality that we have to roll these laws backwards in baby steps.

 

[jmb79]

I too would like to see Indiana's law changed so that licensed individuals could legally carry on school property/at school functions/etc.

It is noteworthy that dicta in the United States Supreme Court's Heller decision (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) suggests that even the current U.S. Supreme Court would uphold Indiana's law as currently written. In Heller, the Supreme Court opined that:

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (emphsis added).

 

[Buckaroo]

I find it interesting that leaving a firearm in your car carries the same penalty as carrying it onto school property.

Law needs to be repealed. Maybe it is time for (drum roll please.......)


























Change!

Buckaroo

 

[citizenvain]

How can we get the law changed? I would totally be a part of that movement. What point is there having a proper license to carry if your restricted from places because of their broad authorities to prohibit your firearm? I agree, it needs to be taken off the books.

 

[HICKMAN]

In my opinion, I believe you are wrong. The law does not need to be amended, it needs to be repealed. Carrying on school property should be allowed by a properly licensed responsable person.

All of my kids have softball/baseball practices at schools, this law drives me nuts.

 

[HICKMAN]

I actually called Indiana State Police earlier this year about this very topic, as I pick up a high schooler everyday from track or football practice. I never park and turn off the motor, to comply with the "operating the vehicle" code.... as there is alway a cop in parking lot.

The MORON who left his out in plain sight on school property pretty much got what he asked for.

 

[melensdad]

How can we get the law changed? I would totally be a part of that movement. What point is there having a proper license to carry if your restricted from places because of their broad authorities to prohibit your firearm? I agree, it needs to be taken off the books.

Well its pretty simple. We need to follow a few steps.

• Decide what we want done.
  • Consider if we can get what we want done passed.
  • Consider a partial solution if we think we will face opposition to what we really want.
• Then, only after we all pretty much agree, and we all are on the same page, we go to a few of the pro-gun legislators around the state. We all take the SAME message, we all ask for the SAME thing, we all do it at the SAME time (and timing is important, we need to start this year for action next year).

We can ask for a complete repeal or we can ask for a roll back. We need to decide because all this has to be written in advance so we can't go in confused or say something like we really want EVERYTHING but we will accept ANYTHING better than what we have. It just doesn't work that way. My suggestion (just my opinion) is that we go in asking for SOME restrictions to be removed.

For example we ask for Parents/Legal Guardians/Relatives, with carry permits, who are attending a school function for a related student should be allowed on the grounds, and in the office area of the school, and in the main public areas (fieldhouse, gym, theater, etc) of a school for school events, productions, etc or to pick up/drop off a sick child, etc.

Then the following year we go back and say: HEY LOOK, YOU LOOSENED THE LAWS AND NOBODY GOT KILLED, LET'S CONSIDER LOOSENING THEM A BIT MORE. Realize that is how these laws got put into place. Most restrictions don't come all at once, they come in baby steps. I believe (again my opinion) is that it will be most effective to remove them in baby steps.

 

[AFA1CY]

I say go for broke. Lifetime LTCH was not the introduced bill but was a longshot that became a reality.

 

[minuteman32]

Push for complete repeal. We need to push for much more than what will be acceptable to us. We will not get exactly what we want, but if we push for an even unreasonable (to some) goal, when it gets compromised down, it will be closer to what we wanted in the 1st place. We need to chip away @ the restrictions the same way that "they" chip away @ our rights!