Consequences to carrying where you shouldn't?

[MikeDVB]

Consequences to [unintentionally] carrying where you shouldn't?

I'm doing my best to get a solid grasp on all of the places you're not legally permitted to carry. I recently found that Indianapolis does not permit you to carry in a city park but I do not believe there is such a prohibition at state parks. If I understand it correctly - I could carry at a state park *in* Indianapolis - such as the canals at White River State Park, but some clarification would be appreciated.

I would think the laws of the state would preempt the local ordinance - but I could be wrong...

Now with this slight confusion comes the question - what happens if you're carrying somewhere you shouldn't be? I know on private property they essentially ask you to leave - but what about somewhere that you're legally not permitted to carry? An example is an actual city park where a local ordinance prohibits it. Let's assume that it isn't posted for the sake of this discussion.

I would think that discretion would apply so long as you're not being a nuisance/ass - i.e. the police could very well simply ask you to take the weapon to your vehicle. I could be wrong - they could be required to arrest/take further action, or they could just choose to do so if it's discretionary.

At the end of the day, I just want to get a feel for what I can expect in the event that I do happen to carry somewhere I'm not supposed to when it's not posted. There are so many ordinances in each and every city that it can be very difficult to keep track of all of them at all times.

 

[Sylvain]

If you carry where it's illegal and get caught you could become a felon and lose your gun rights (right to vote and others).
That's simple, dont carry where it's not legal to carry.

 

[MikeDVB]

If you carry where it's illegal and get caught you could become a felon and lose your gun rights (right to vote and others).
That's simple, dont carry where it's not legal to carry.

I will not ever intentionally carry (concealed or openly) anywhere that is prohibited by law. Obviously people make mistakes and it's impossible for the common person to know every ordinance in every city that they ever enter in their lives.

This is why I wanted to know what to expect should I somehow make a mistake (such as walking into an Indianapolis city park without disarming first). I wanted to know if they will absolutely arrest you and press felony charges against you no matter what, or if they have discretion. If the arrest is mandated/required then obviously if you're in doubt the best course of action (legally) would be to not carry.

Imho it would be ideal if the state laws pre-empted the local laws as far as where you can or cannot carry so that you would have a single central list of where is or is not legal. Others will disagree with this - and this isn't central to this thread (but feel free to discuss it).

The example I made - to be honest - I am not sure about. White River State Park - would that be prohibited due to the Indianapolis ordinance and the park being within the city limits, or would it fall under the state-wide law (that allows carrying in state parks)?

Please - if you respond - try to address the specific questions/circumstances of the post/questions.

 

[ralphb72]

I believe the park restrictions are no longer legal (Read below and also here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf )

SEA 292 took effect 7/1/11
Quote:
Preemption of local firearm regulation. Prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. Allows a person to file an action against a political subdivision if the person is adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy of the political subdivision that violates the law. Repeals a conflicting statute concerning local regulation of firearms.

 

[MikeDVB]

So essentially SEA 292 gives state-wide preemption, if I understand it correctly?

 

[IndyGunSafety]

You need to read the Indiana code in reference to firearms. There is no jeopordy in walking in a park. Local entities cannot regulate the carriage of firearms. You can walk in an Indianapolis park all day with your firearm.

IC 35-47-11.1-2
Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

IC 35-47-11.1-3
Voidance of political subdivision ordinances, measures, enactments, rules, policies, and exercises of proprietary authority
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

Section 4 has the exceptions:

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Exceptions
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.
(7) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours a day.
(8) The imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1).
(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm.
(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.
(11) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting
or restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23.
(12) A unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a building owned or administered by the unit if the person who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

 

[Sylvain]

I will not ever intentionally carry (concealed or openly) anywhere that is prohibited by law. Obviously people make mistakes and it's impossible for the common person to know every ordinance in every city that they ever enter in their lives.

This is why I wanted to know what to expect should I somehow make a mistake (such as walking into a park without disarming first). If they will absolutely arrest you and press felony charges against you no matter what - then I suppose the best thing to do when in doubt would be to not carry.

Imho it would be ideal if the state laws pre-empted the local laws as far as where you can or cannot carry so that you would have a single central list of where is or is not legal.

The example I made - to be honest - I am not sure about. White River State Park - would that be prohibited due to the Indianapolis ordinance and the park being within the city limits, or would it fall under the state-wide law (that allows carrying in state parks)?

Please - if you respond - try to address the specific questions/circumstances of the post/questions.

It doesn't really matter if you break the law intentionally or not.
I cant tell you if you will be arrested if you carry in an illegal place, or if they will press charges or not.It depends where you do it and it probably depends on each officer too.
It also depends on what you do too.
If you are arrested for doing something illegal (besides carrying) while illegaly carrying you can be pretty sure they will press felony charges.
Im not a lawyer but I would think it's legal to carry in any State Park.

 

[MikeDVB]

It doesn't really matter if you break the law intentionally or not.

I know this - I'm not an idiot. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. A good example that I can parallel with my question:

I'm driving down a road, and I do not know the speed limit (or believe it to be higher than it is). I get pulled over - not knowing isn't going to keep me from getting a ticket, but it's at the officer's discretion as to whether they choose to write a ticket or not.

>>Now replace not knowing the speed limit with not knowing whether it's legal to carry or not. Replace the ticket with arrest.

I cant tell you if you will be arrested if you carry in an illegal place, or if they will press charges or not.It depends where you do it and it probably depends on each officer too.

So your answer could be summarized as "I believe it's at the officer's discretion, but I'm not sure." That sort of response would be much less condescending.

Im not a lawyer but I would think it's legal to carry in any State Park.

It wasn't until recently (was researching this just now).

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

State Law preempts the local ordinances. period. most locals were repealed to comply with this new State law, (with the exception of Hammond which thinks that because the state law preempts the local ordinance it is a nullity, and therefore they can just leave the illegal ordinance on the books as long as it is not "enforced"... For a Very lengthy discussion, in particular the suit which was made against the city of Hammond,
Search "Hammond is looking for trouble" .

IAALBIANYL (I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR Lawyer) YMMV

 

[MikeDVB]

You need to read the Indiana code in reference to firearms. There is no jeopordy in walking in a park. Local entities cannot regulate the carriage of firearms. You can walk in an Indianapolis park all day with your firearm.

I was in the process of finding the right IC's relevant to local ordinances/laws/etc. Preemption only went into effect 07/11 so there are a lot of resources out there (not the ICs on in.gov) that are still outdated.

I do appreciate your response though .

 

[MikeDVB]

State Law preempts the local ordinances. period. most locals were repealed to comply with this new State law, (with the exception of Hammond which thinks that because the state law preempts the local ordinance it is a nullity, and therefore they can just leave the illegal ordinance on the books as long as it is not "enforced"... For a Very lengthy discussion, in particular the suit which was made against the city of Hammond,
Search "Hammond is looking for trouble" .

IAALBIANYL (I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR Lawyer) YMMV

Haha, I've never seen "IAALBIANYL" before - good for a chuckle. The IC that I read essentially said that local ordinances that regulate firearms are void. I would think that removing them from the books would be ideal to save confusion/issues but I wouldn't know whether it was required.

State preemption makes me happy, as it's much easier to know what is or is not allowed state-wide than it is for each individual city/town/etc.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

I was in the process of finding the right IC's relevant to local ordinances/laws/etc. Preemption only went into effect 07/11 so there are a lot of resources out there (not the ICs on in.gov) that are still outdated.

I do appreciate your response though .

The IC's I posted were from IN.gov and they are not outdated. Some of the things you mentioned changed 2 years ago.

We have a "legal" link on our web site that has some FAQ's and case law posted: www.IndyGunSafety.com/Legal

 

[MikeDVB]

I IC's I posted were from IN.gov and they are not outdated. Some of the things you mentioned changed 2 years ago.

We have a "legal" link on our web site that has some FAQ's and case law posted: Legal

I said "I was in the process of finding the right IC's relevant to local ordinances/laws/etc." - meaning I had not found them yet.

I also said "...there are a lot of resources out there (not the ICs on in.gov) that are still outdated."

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond/help - but you need to read what I said correctly before making a response. Nowhere did I say that the ICs on in.gov were outdated.

I'll presume you made a mistake in reading my post.

I did see the FAQ posted in the forums itself which didn't address my question (or at least, I didn't see it addressed there). I have never been to your site - so I hadn't seen that particular section of your site.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

I said "I was in the process of finding the right IC's relevant to local ordinances/laws/etc." - meaning I had not found them yet.

I also said "...there are a lot of resources out there (not the ICs on in.gov) that are still outdated."

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond/help - but you need to read what I said correctly before making a response. Nowhere did I say that the ICs on in.gov were outdated.

I'll presume you made a mistake in reading my post.

I did see the FAQ posted in the forums itself which didn't address my question (or at least, I didn't see it addressed there). I have never been to your site - so I hadn't seen that particular section of your site.

My apologies. I certainly did make a mistake reading and responding to your posts. I won't make the mistake of wasting my valuable time to help answer your questions again. In spite of your lecture and attitude, you still got the correct information free of charge.

 

[MikeDVB]

My apologies. I certainly did make a mistake reading and responding to your posts. I won't make the mistake of wasting my valuable time to help answer your questions again. In spite of your lecture and attitude, you still got the correct information free of charge.

You have no requirement to respond, and I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. If you want to be upset about it - well - I can think of better things to be upset about. I didn't lecture, simply pointed out your mistake and then made sure you were mistaken and that the mistake was not on my end.

I did actually start out with a very condescending and assenine post that I actually toned back and heavily edited as I knew it wasn't needed. Planned on repping you as well, but not sure if I did as it is late and I'm tired. :-)

Best of luck :-).

 

[Sylvain]

I know this - I'm not an idiot. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. A good example that I can parallel with my question:

I'm driving down a road, and I do not know the speed limit (or believe it to be higher than it is). I get pulled over - not knowing isn't going to keep me from getting a ticket, but it's at the officer's discretion as to whether they choose to write a ticket or not.

>>Now replace not knowing the speed limit with not knowing whether it's legal to carry or not. Replace the ticket with arrest.

So your answer could be summarized as "I believe it's at the officer's discretion, but I'm not sure." That sort of response would be much less condescending.

WOW

I would change your attitude if you want other members to answer your questions in the future, and just if you want to have a good time on INGO.
I dont see how my response was condescending in any way but I can see how YOUR post is very condescending.

If you want to summarize my post, again, it could just be: "I wont answer your questions again in the future".

 

[MikeDVB]

I would change your attitude if you want other members to answer your questions in the future, and just if you want to have a good time on INGO.

Those who address my questions and don't treat me like an idiot in the process don't get their posts summarized or an explanation of what I was trying to ask.

If I didn't know that ignorance wasn't a defense and was asking if that would allow me to avoid a charge - then your response would have been perfect. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and try not to treat them like an idiot unless they give me cause to do so. Perhaps I am being too sensitive here, I'm not above and beyond standing up and saying I've made a mistake.

The short version of my question was simply if the officer had discretion or if they were required to arrest - to which you basically said "I can't tell you if you will be arrested if you carry in an illegal place." This means that you didn't know the answer to the question, but I do still appreciate you trying.

I dont see how my response was condescending in any way but I can see how YOUR post is very condescending.

I summarized my question better with a dumbed down analogy to make the question itself easier to understand. It wasn't the last part of your post that I felt was condescending, but the part about ignorance not being a defense. Again, I'm not an idiot and I do have some basic common sense.

If you want to summarize my post, again, it could just be: "I wont answer your questions again in the future".

That's fine - your post overly helpful but I do appreciate you taking the time either way. My summary of this is: "If you choose not to respond to my posts, that's fine. My world won't come to an end."

I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings here - but you guys really should lighten up, imho. This is a discussion forum, and not everybody is going to agree with you or appreciate your input. I do appreciate your input, although it wasn't exactly answering the question I had asked.

I'm always appreciative of anybody who takes time to try and help me out, but if you're less than helpful or you don't address the core issue - I will call you out on it for two reasons.

1. So you know.
2. So others posting after you do not do the same thing.

Best of luck, and thank you to everybody who did take the time to respond.

 

[Rookie]

I think we should get his approval BEFORE we post a response to his questions.

 

[MikeDVB]

I think we should get his approval BEFORE we post a response to his questions.

Or simply try not to be so upset if I disagree/don't find the merit in your post. Seems people around here get upset far too easily, imho.

Feel free to point out my flaws and when I post things in error. I'm happy to be corrected and to admit I'm wrong.

If you choose not to respond to my posts/threads, that's your decision. I don't personally see the reason behind making a post saying that you are no longer going to respond to my posts, but perhaps you do. A parallel example is that I do not walk into stores and tell the managers that I am *not* going to buy anything today, nor do I walk up to a cashier as I walk out empty handed and inform them that I will no longer be coming into the store... I just do it and move on with my life .

 

[Rookie]

Those who address my questions and don't treat me like an idiot in the process don't get their posts summarized or an explanation of what I was trying to ask.

If I didn't know that ignorance wasn't a defense and was asking if that would allow me to avoid a charge - then your response would have been perfect. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and try not to treat them like an idiot unless they give me cause to do so. Perhaps I am being too sensitive here, I'm not above and beyond standing up and saying I've made a mistake.

The short version of my question was simply if the officer had discretion or if they were required to arrest - to which you basically said "I can't tell you if you will be arrested if you carry in an illegal place." This means that you didn't know the answer to the question, but I do still appreciate you trying.

I summarized my question better with a dumbed down analogy to make the question itself easier to understand. It wasn't the last part of your post that I felt was condescending, but the part about ignorance not being a defense. Again, I'm not an idiot and I do have some basic common sense.

That's fine - your post overly helpful but I do appreciate you taking the time either way. My summary of this is: "If you choose not to respond to my posts, that's fine. My world won't come to an end."

I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings here - but you guys really should lighten up, imho. This is a discussion forum, and not everybody is going to agree with you or appreciate your input. I do appreciate your input, although it wasn't exactly answering the question I had asked.

I'm always appreciative of anybody who takes time to try and help me out, but if you're less than helpful or you don't address the core issue - I will call you out on it for two reasons.

1. So you know.
2. So others posting after you do not do the same thing.

Best of luck, and thank you to everybody who did take the time to respond.

Not everyone is a rocket scientist. Obviously, you are the exception. Of course, knowing that not everyone excretes brilliance like you, people take the time to respond so everyone (you know, those lower life forms that you are forced to put up with) can understand and learn from any question that is asked.