Local Prohibition of Firearms

[Hammerhead]

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.

 

[GuyRelford]

Hum... is TFT trying to do a mass sue on all of them all at once?
=)

No, no.

 

[finity]

Auburn still has restrictions banning firearms from parks.

https://documents.ci.auburn.in.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-5263#Proh

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I just started a thread about the recent flap caused by the South Bend parks commisioners about Bill 292 passing in Indiana.

See this thread here:

Response to South Bend Park anti gun in parks - INGunOwners

There is another thread that addresses the Parks Commisssioners BS in the SB Tribune here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._parks_simply_no_place_for_your_firearms.html

 

[finity]

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?

The new law doesn't "protect us" per se. You can still be arrested/fined, etc.

What it does do is it provides us with a defense after the fact & allows us to be compensated by providing a way to civilly sue the local government for a violation of the new law.

Unfortunately, it could still cost you some $ up front. That's why we need to work to get those ILLEGAL laws off the books.

 

[.45 Dave]

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.

 

[japartridge]

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.

Bloomington hospital has a policy, nothing else, so CC away!

 

[hooky]

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.

You can't go anywhere in the building now without going through a metal detector and putting everything on the conveyor to be x-rayed.

 

[TVon]

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.

Just got back from the office of Code Enforcement. Since my last visit, they have removed the sign.

 

[GuyRelford]

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.

Exactly.

 

[finity]

Auburn still has restrictions banning firearms from parks.

https://documents.ci.auburn.in.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-5263#Proh

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:

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.

This is the response I got from the city council president:

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

A short while later I got this response from the city attorney:

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

It looks like they are on the right track, at least.

I was VERY impressed that I got such speedy & positive replies.

 

[GuyRelford]

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.

Outstanding!!!! Great work!

Guy

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

 

[jedi]

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.

Hum.. my understanding is that you have no way to sue the city for their ordinance (Aurburn) if they will not slap you with an arrest/fine/etc for said ordinance. So how can you sue if no "harm" has come to you by them having the outdated law on their books? See what I am trying to say?

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

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.

It is certainly possible that a court might adopt your interpretation, stated above. But, I personally think the 'cause of action' is broader than what you describe.

Until someone sues, we don't really know.

 

[GuyRelford]

I agree completely with T.Lex (as usual). And keep in mind that the statute doesn't say anything about "harm." It says a person "adversely affected" by an invalid local restriction that is "adopted or enforced" by a political subdivision.

So if my client wants to carry a gun into a government building in, say, Southport, and there is a local prohibition in place that does not fall within any of the exceptions in 35-47-11-1-4, so that my client risks arrest and/or other punitive measures, includng simply being ejected from the building, which causes him to relinquish his right to carry a firearm into that building - hasn't he been "advereely affected"?

Of course he has.

Also keep in mind that you don't have to prove actual damages (i.e., "harm") to recover an award under the new statute - it provides for liquidated damages of three times your attorneys fees (and attorneys fees).

Guy

 

[halfmileharry]

I have heard indirectly that the Southport mayor is openly defying the new preemption statute. Does anyone have any personal knowledge of this?

My office is right next to Southport.
The mayor there is a trip. IF you need a tooth pulled.....

 

[mainjet]

here ya go. Check this out...

Council defeats gun ordinance; city exposed to potential lawsuits

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

If I was an attorney, I'd be licking my chops!

Let me at 'em...grrrr, let me at 'em!

 

[jedi]

here ya go. Check this out...

Council defeats gun ordinance; city exposed to potential lawsuits

Paging Bill B!!! Paging Bill B! Easy money here for "you people" to make.
I can't believe that the City of Hammond is so willing to set themselves up for a lawsuit that they will lose!