If this were to happen, and the person arrested got a good attorney who filed various motions, judges would look at past cases. In this kind of case, DUIs are a great example. There are specific instances where a person has been ruled to be "operating" a vehicle even though the vehicle is in park or they are passed out. There is certain language used by the courts in these cases. I think a good defense attorney could make a good argument that as long as you were in the vehicle, in the driver's seat _and_ that you did transport someone to the grounds, _and_ you were transporting someone off the grounds after x amount of time, then you _might_ get off. Of course you better be ready to pay thousands in legal fees for this.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Carry on School Grounds
- Thread starter Beau
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
If this were to happen, and the person arrested got a good attorney who filed various motions, judges would look at past cases. In this kind of case, DUIs are a great example. There are specific instances where a person has been ruled to be "operating" a vehicle even though the vehicle is in park or they are passed out. There is certain language used by the courts in these cases. I think a good defense attorney could make a good argument that as long as you were in the vehicle, in the driver's seat _and_ that you did transport someone to the grounds, _and_ you were transporting someone off the grounds after x amount of time, then you _might_ get off. Of course you better be ready to pay thousands in legal fees for this.
so who is going to write the letter for all of us to send? I agree it needs to be uniform. I think we should ask for it to be amended to allow licensed individuals to carry on school grounds. I say a few people write letters. Post them on here. Then we can vote on which one we will all use.
The question I then have is are you in possession of something that is locked in a car when you are not in it?
It almost seems to me that once you leave it locked in the car you are no longer carring it and once you re-enter the car you are now operating the car.
It almost seems to me that once you leave it locked in the car you are no longer carring it and once you re-enter the car you are now operating the car.
CountryBoy19
Grandmaster
The question I then have is are you in possession of something that is locked in a car when you are not in it?
It almost seems to me that once you leave it locked in the car you are no longer carring it and once you re-enter the car you are now operating the car.
That is a good question, I like your thinking. I'll wait for someone smarter than myself to answer that.
OK here is my attempt, obviously people would need to alter the letter to read son, daughter, niece, nephew, etc....
Dear Senator XXXX (also Dear Representative XXXX)
I am writing to you today to ask you to sponsor new legislation that will remove some undue burdens on those of us parents (could insert Uncles/Aunts/etc) with children who also have an Indiana License to Carry a Handgun (LTCH).
We are faced with a particular set of problems and we need some relief from the wording of the law as it is currently written. A court case has ruled that even if we have a "LTCH" we are forbidden from leaving our vehicles and forbidding from leaving the gun in the vehicle on school property. While this may not seem like a burden it is one that has, on frequent occasions, caused problems.
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 worst one is when you have to deal with a child who gets sick at school and my daughter is a Type 1, Insulin Dependent Diabetic, and periodically needs to come home or be taken to the doctor; 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 to make a sick child walk all the way off school grounds when she is sick. 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 [insert your local school district here] (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!!! [insert another example of a local school district here] 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? As a parent I want to set a good example for my child so I work within the law. It would be easy to tell me to leave my gun at home, [insert your reason here] but as I work in retail and transport money as my job, I have been advised to carry a gun with me by several police agencies in the area. It is not practical to leave the gun at home.
I am asking you to draft legislation for the next session that will repeal the restrictions on parents/guardians with regard to carrying weapons onto school property when we are there with our children. I look forward to your reply on this matter.
Respectfully
[insert name]
[insert address]
[insert phone #]
Gentlemen,
As I have said many, many times on here, a bill to do this very thing was introduced in the 2008 legislative session by Sen. Johnny Nugent. The bill, SB 65, never even got a hearing.
Here is the synopsis of SB 65, from the 2008 session:
The bill went to Second Reading in the Senate and got about an hour and a half (IIRC) of arguing between the senators on Third Reading, when it could no longer be amended. One comment made by Sen. Nugent at Third Reading was that after the Second, someone had asked him about the 18 year old HS senior who has a LTCH, and what if that student chose to carry. SB 356 would have permitted this, and Sen. Nugent read the bill with the promise on his honor that his House sponsors would not move the bill forward without addressing that issue. He swore that if that issue was not addressed, he would kill the bill himself. Sen. Lanane questioned his integrity, saying (paraphrased) "Well, that's all well and good that you promise to change it, but this is the bill we have to vote on now." Sen. David Long, president of the Senate, also registered objection to that oversight, but voted to pass it, as did all but seven so-called Republican senators. Every Democrat senator voted against it. The final vote was 25-23 to pass, however, Senate rules require a Constitutional majority, if I recall the term correctly, and as there are 50 total senators, and two were excused for medical reasons (cancer, as I recall), the bill would have needed 26 votes to pass on to the House. Note that Pat Bauer was in charge of the House then as now, and it does not take much thinking to realize he would likely have killed it just as he did several other bills this term.
The upshot of this is that the attempt to pass that change has already happened. I would not be averse to making the attempt again, however we will need a solid Conservative base in both houses as well as a Conservative governor. People like Tom Wyss, Pat Bauer, Sheila Klinker, Bob Deig, Tim Lanane, and others of their ilk need to be removed from positions of power. The biggest argument was about the 18 yr old senior, carrying at school. Let's face it, if s/he has passed the background check and voluntarily given fingerprints, etc., s/he is no more a danger than any of us. For that matter, if an 18 year old (an adult, remember) cannot be so trusted, at what age does that trustworthiness magically get bestowed upon him/her? 19? 20? 21?
I fully support making our laws better. I do not think that this will happen as long as we have power-hungry blowhards like Bauer in the General Assembly. Let's get the horse back in front of the cart and get the horse's asses out, then we can focus on drafting some good legislation again.
Blessings,
Bill
As I have said many, many times on here, a bill to do this very thing was introduced in the 2008 legislative session by Sen. Johnny Nugent. The bill, SB 65, never even got a hearing.
Here is the synopsis of SB 65, from the 2008 session:
It was re-introduced as SB 356, which did get heard and finally passed the committee after an amendment was added. Here are the synopses of SB 356, 2008 session, as originally introduced and as amended:
The bill went to Second Reading in the Senate and got about an hour and a half (IIRC) of arguing between the senators on Third Reading, when it could no longer be amended. One comment made by Sen. Nugent at Third Reading was that after the Second, someone had asked him about the 18 year old HS senior who has a LTCH, and what if that student chose to carry. SB 356 would have permitted this, and Sen. Nugent read the bill with the promise on his honor that his House sponsors would not move the bill forward without addressing that issue. He swore that if that issue was not addressed, he would kill the bill himself. Sen. Lanane questioned his integrity, saying (paraphrased) "Well, that's all well and good that you promise to change it, but this is the bill we have to vote on now." Sen. David Long, president of the Senate, also registered objection to that oversight, but voted to pass it, as did all but seven so-called Republican senators. Every Democrat senator voted against it. The final vote was 25-23 to pass, however, Senate rules require a Constitutional majority, if I recall the term correctly, and as there are 50 total senators, and two were excused for medical reasons (cancer, as I recall), the bill would have needed 26 votes to pass on to the House. Note that Pat Bauer was in charge of the House then as now, and it does not take much thinking to realize he would likely have killed it just as he did several other bills this term.
The upshot of this is that the attempt to pass that change has already happened. I would not be averse to making the attempt again, however we will need a solid Conservative base in both houses as well as a Conservative governor. People like Tom Wyss, Pat Bauer, Sheila Klinker, Bob Deig, Tim Lanane, and others of their ilk need to be removed from positions of power. The biggest argument was about the 18 yr old senior, carrying at school. Let's face it, if s/he has passed the background check and voluntarily given fingerprints, etc., s/he is no more a danger than any of us. For that matter, if an 18 year old (an adult, remember) cannot be so trusted, at what age does that trustworthiness magically get bestowed upon him/her? 19? 20? 21?
I fully support making our laws better. I do not think that this will happen as long as we have power-hungry blowhards like Bauer in the General Assembly. Let's get the horse back in front of the cart and get the horse's asses out, then we can focus on drafting some good legislation again.
Blessings,
Bill
Bill, let me suggest we do not need a wholesale change of the elected officials we need to put a lot of pressure on the Democrats in the House and Senate.
Take some version of my letter above, insert the line "please support a bill very similar to the SB 356 from 2008"
Add another line that suggests "Please rise above traditional politics, this is not a Democrats versus Republican issue, this is an issues to help families and needs to be given bi-partisan support."
If we get 500+ letters from INGO members to various Senators and House reps, and if many of those go to Democrats, we will make this a bipartisan issue. Further, we have an opportunity with Democrats, they are trying to prove they are not the anti-gun party, this is a way for them to show they can support the rights of honest citizens.
Take some version of my letter above, insert the line "please support a bill very similar to the SB 356 from 2008"
Add another line that suggests "Please rise above traditional politics, this is not a Democrats versus Republican issue, this is an issues to help families and needs to be given bi-partisan support."
If we get 500+ letters from INGO members to various Senators and House reps, and if many of those go to Democrats, we will make this a bipartisan issue. Further, we have an opportunity with Democrats, they are trying to prove they are not the anti-gun party, this is a way for them to show they can support the rights of honest citizens.
This is a good theory, melensdad, but unfortunately, it's unrealistic. I read a report recently of some (unnamed) Dem state rep who wanted Rep. Jackie Walorski to remove her name from SB 11 so he could add his as political cover. The fact that SB 11 passed the state Senate so easily is transparently due to the full knowledge that Pat Bauer wouldn't let it get a vote in the House, and so the Dems could say they voted for a pro-gun bill with full knowledge it would never become law.
With rectal apertures like him controlling the agenda, no pro-gun bill will ever get a fair hearing and pass, even if all it does is lower the cost of the Lifetime LTCH by a dollar. Lifetime LTCH only passed because Bosma was the Speaker when it came to the legislature.
No, we don't need to totally revamp the General Assembly, but we do need to change the makeup of the House and remove some of the stalwart anti-rights members as well as some of those who have no convictions but will simply vote however their biggest contributor orders them to vote. For both groups, it does not matter what the people who elected them want-it only matters how many can be buffaloed into keeping them in office for yet another term, sucking on the government tit.
Alternatively, if you can outspend such people as Bloomberg or Soros and choose to do so to pass pro-gun rights legislation, we may have a chance to do so. Until we can afford to "pay to play", though, or get rid of the bastards who participate in such farces, we will have a government that even Lincoln would look upon, sigh, shake his head and turn his back upon.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people? Not for many years now, my friend.
Blessings,
Bill
Originally Posted by colt45er
The question I then have is are you in possession of something that is locked in a car when you are not in it?
It almost seems to me that once you leave it locked in the car you are no longer carring it and once you re-enter the car you are now operating the car.
I believe that was answered in the Indiana Supreme Court ruling as posted above.
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.
If you need to come into the school to help your kid carry something, or to pick them up when they are sick, simply call and get permission from the Principal to bring your gun in with you or leave it in your car. If they say no way, then stop off at home first and drop it off. Don't violate the law out of laziness or convenience (until we can get it repealed)
IC-35-47-9-1 ss(2)
A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
IC-35-47-9-1 ss(2)
A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
I'm guessing you live in a tidy little suburb or in a neighborhood near your school.
Me, I live a good rural drive away from my daughter's school, its about 15 miles and takes roughly 25 minutes to get from rural southwest Lake County (we are 6 miles outside of the town of Lowell) and her school is a couple cities north of us in St John. Typically I come from my office, to get her if she is sick, that is another 12 miles north/east in Merrillville on the other side of the county.
Now I could drive 15 - 20 minutes from my office to her school with my gun (and park across the street), or I could do as you suggest, drive home (30 minutes), drop of the gun (5 minutes), and then drive to school (25 minutes). Direct route is 15 -20 minutes depending on traffic. Following your suggestion, a solid hour. If you had a sick child which choice would you make?
The law needs to be changed. At least we both agree on that point.
Your resentment of suburbanites (tidy or otherwise) not withstanding, the point of my post was that permission from the school gives you an out. Call them and get permission. If they won't give it to you, then your options are limited. You can choose to make a longer drive to obey the law, leave the gun at work to obey the law, park a half mile away and obey the law, or break the law.
I agree whole heartedly that the law is stupid, doesn't protect children one bit, and needs to be changed. Let's work to get it done. I'm writing Dan Burton a letter.
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
I have an AR-15 INGO lower.... WHAT should I do with it?- Latest: daddyusmaximus
Members online
- DDadams
- Lost Californian
- Needmorammo
- Tradesylver
- MCgrease08
- Squid556
- Wolfhound
- Tomahawkman
- BOLTGUN
- shibumiseeker
- SEIndSAM
- patience0830
- danatkins
- daventos
- erasure
- Steel and wood
- Dirty Steve
- Leo
- Okimeister
- syntax357
- wesleyoliver95
- pitbulld45
- WhitleyStu
- PK ARMS
- x34822
- DJM95B
- Hayden F
- Slow Hand
- stoyan79
- bwframe
- bigz82
- Jtrain
- jsn_mooney
- swamptick
