Member of Greenfield, IN ruling council flips out over new state gun law

[jedi]

So does anyone have the audio or transcript of the council meeting so we can verify Irish story? Otherwise we contune in the endless cycle of only getting one side of the story, not believeng a newbie (BTW welcome to INGO) and spinning our wheels over nothing.

 

[Caleb]

I want to give benefit of the doubt and not call him a troll...but neither Irish or the Carwein has any reputable reputation on this board.

 

[GuyRelford]

TFT:

Good point. Oh, I think you'd have to say he "did it." As to slant, well, bias is generally not in what you report, but rather what you don't report ...in other words, choose to leave out.

If you ask most anyone in local govenment, they'll tell you that their roles are frequently made far more difficult by the actions of state (and federal) legislatures (unfunded mandates, exemptions, and the like). Greg perceived that the state had opened up local government buildings to handgun carry, but still exempted many, if not most, state government buildings. From what I understand, he made it clear at the meeting that his point was to draw attention to yet another example of lawmakers exempting themselves (or in this case their workplaces) from laws that they enact for others to obey. That emphasis was omitted in large part from the press report upon which the furor has been based.

I and all the folks with whom I generally associate agree that the preemption statute which was strengthened considerably in this year's General Assembly (with much work and support from the ISRPA and the NRA, I might add) is a very good thing. But it shouldn't be applied only where some are expected to obey the new law while others are exempt.

This just happened to be about firearms but I think Greg's anger would have been the same at any new law that he felt the legislature was creating for everyone but themselves. Unfortunately, he probably chose a poor way to draw attention to it and the media did nothing to help the situation-- but rather, through omission, only fanned the flames of the always "hot" (in the press) gun issue.

That is very informative, Irish. And I appreciate your calm, rational approach to this thread.

You have convinced me (at least) that I don't have all of the facts and should reserve judgment as to the councilman's motive. However, it also sounds like he might now agree that he chose a very poor way of making his point. The public response was entirely foreseeable.

 

[Irish]

TFT:

Thank you, sir.
Oh, I certainly think Greg realizes he stepped in a cow-pie with the method he chose. He really isn't very gun issue-savvy and I know he didn't realize how his action would be interpreted. He's not a 2nd amendment activist, but he's certainly not an anti, either. Generally I find that he leans much more toward our side than the other, but I don't think it's an issue that he thinks about all that much. I was only trying to offer some insight that would separate his actual motive from the motive being attributed to him.

I realize how "newbies" are often treated on similar boards and the tendency to distrust their opinions, especially if they happen to be contratry to the prevailing winds on a given issue. That's understandable to a degree. It's really the only reason I included some of my background in my initial post -- to attempt to show some bona fides that I wasn't an "anti" in sheep's clothing so to speak. Not trying to impress anyone, certainly, just hoping it would help allay any "troll" fears among the members.

Anyway, I don't think there's any more that I can add to the topic. Folks can read the comments and believe whatever they choose. Again, thank you TFT for your civil response and to the board for allowing me to offer my information.

On to other issues.

 

[thompal]

I’d be happy to invite him. Don’t know whether he’d come or not (what with everyone here being so friendly and all towards him ...just kidding) but if not, I can say with some certainty that it wouldn’t be due to an aversion to firearms or to any who legally carry them.

Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative -- who may not have had the brightest idea for making his point but it was then slanted by a reporter and ended up in an understandable-but-undeserved sh**storm over here.

And coming from a gun rights person, I just thought you folks should --and would want to -- know.

I appreciate the insight. However, I notice that you have joined INGO within the past 3 days. Did you join INGO as a result of this situation with Carwein? Either on his behalf, or because you heard of the brouhaha stirring here, and came to defend him?

 

[thompal]

I realize how "newbies" are often treated on similar boards and the tendency to distrust their opinions, especially if they happen to be contratry to the prevailing winds on a given issue. That's understandable to a degree. It's really the only reason I included some of my background in my initial post -- to attempt to show some bona fides that I wasn't an "anti" in sheep's clothing so to speak. Not trying to impress anyone, certainly, just hoping it would help allay any "troll" fears among the members.

Even having such 'bona fides' as yours really proves nothing about your intent or even beliefs about 2nd Amendment issues. There are MANY MANY NRA and competition shooters who believe that the 2nd Amendment pertains only to hunting and competition, when in reality, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or competition, or even self-defense.

 

[youngda9]

Irish...tell your friend to come on here and speak for himself.

 

[theweakerbrother]

If you're NOT a 2nd Amendment activist then you're an ANTI-2nd Amendment activist.

If the Councilman would ever like to go to a shooting range and try out a few firearms, I would be happy to take him to Hoosier Hills. I'd rather win him over by letting him shoot a few guns, ask a few questions and show that gun owners are moral, reasonable and law abiding than to make an enemy over an emotional argument.

 

[hooky]

Just curious why the councilman didn't spell out his actions a more clear and concise way in the email response? It would have been easy to do. And since it sounds like he is just copying and pasting his reply to others, the extra effort would have been a minimal, upfront investment.

 

[cornfused]

Thanks for another side of the story Irish. Maybe this could cause him to think and be more 2nd amendment Pro Active?!

 

[Irish]

Gents.

tompal: 1) Well not exclusively. I have perused the board from time to time (some boards call these folks "lurkers" but that seems kind of pejorative to me) mostly just reading others posts and watching the issues. I did come across the greenfield thread and seemed like I should join in and contribute what I knew about the issue. 2) I hear you about the 2nd Amendment.

theweakerbrother: Not a bad idea. Actually probably my fault to some degree since I can shoot at my rural home, but can't say I ever invited him to come out and do some shooting.

hooky: Good points. My guess is just that he was in unfamiliar territory; hadn't anticipated this interpretation; and responded too hurriedly.

cornfused: You're welcome. Don't know whether he'll suddenly become pro-active, but I definitely believe he'll be more sensitive to how his actions are perceived and more appreciative of the commitment level that we all have toward our 2nd Amendment rights. And even that's a step in the right direction.

 

[Indy317]

The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.

His calling out of state elected officials is somewhat valid, but I would counter with the following: With the state house, it is manned 24/7 by both armed LEOs and security personnel.

If I were the state, they could counter with an exemption in the new law: If the municipality stations an LEO in the building during business hours, they can ban weapons. There should be definitions of how many LEOs are required given the size of the municipal building. If a municipality has rented space all over the town/city, then they would either have to station an LEO at all those places, or allow law abiding people with a license to carry if the wanted.

The councilman can only claim hypocrisy if he did exactly what the state was doing: Banning guns from the city hall, but having a sufficient number of LEOs working during business hours. How many Greenfield LEOs are stationed at city hall during business hours? Does anyone know? I know that last time I was in the county courthouse, they had a deputy stationed in the lobby, and they also have a few deputies dealing with prisoners throughout the day in the courts.

Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative ....

OK. If he is conservative, I have a few questions that maybe you could answer:
#1: Prior to the change in state law, did the City of Greenfield allow people with a license to carry a handgun carry handguns into Greenfield city hall?

#2: If not, are the conservative, non-anti-gunner Councilman Carwein's remarks to over-turn this ban on record? (ie: He made public comments about wanting to allow those with licenses to carry the ability to carry in Greenfield city hall)

...I definitely believe he'll be more sensitive to how his actions are perceived....

Carwein's actions just came off as someone who believes that silly rules magically stop crime, and that he was upset with not being able to make a silly rule for Greenfield government property. The law clearly states that to carry a handgun into such a building, one still has to have a license to carry. The whole target of the law were folks who are likely going to be law-abiding 99.999999% of the time (there are always those who fall through the cracks). His actions were a smack in the face of thousands upon thousands of people who are law-abiding, went through a background check, and are more often than not, productive members of society. His wearing of a protective vest now that licensed individuals can carry guns can only be taken one way: Since licensed gun owners can now bring handguns into the city hall, he fears being shot by one of them. Does he honestly believe that if some words are written down in some book, that those actions that are forbidden will never occur?

 

[Irish]

Indy317:
If I recall correctly, it was the current (and now out-going fortunately) mayor who issued the executive edict that firearms were verboten in City Hall. Don't remember it being posted as such before him.

Don't know about LEOs in City Hall as I haven't been there in some time.

 

[pig957]

I believe that the councilman was also complainting about carrying in the city park as well.

 

[davidparrish60]

Oh, I certainly think Greg realizes he stepped in a cow-pie with the method he chose. He really isn't very gun issue-savvy and I know he didn't realize how his action would be interpreted. He's not a 2nd amendment activist, but he's certainly not an anti, either. Generally I find that he leans much more toward our side than the other, but I don't think it's an issue that he thinks about all that much. I was only trying to offer some insight that would separate his actual motive from the motive being attributed to him.



he enabled himself to look like an a**. i strongly believe that he stepped into a mess that he will have to account for in the indiana gun carrying groups... its a very big mess and really only he can dig himself out of it.

just my...

 

[seamus]

I've known Greg since I was 14 and we were on the track team together, played on the same intramural baketball team and graduated in the same class. I don't know if Greg has a permit or not. I occasionally see him in the local Wal-Mart which like me, he dares to frequent without engaging in open carry. I will contact him through facebook and see if he is aware of the furor he has caused on the board here. He was a member of the Greenfield Central 74 State championship football team and I imagine you guys characterizing him as a lily livered coward probably would be amusing to him. I glanced at the article in the Greenfield Reporter but need to read it in its entirety before I will comment on the content. It seems to me that he was being sarcastic about the skywalk but serious about the unfairness of state government pushing a policy upon local government.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Guys,

I don't know Councilman Carwein and don't really care what his intent was... his action was ill-conceived, but he did have a good point: We (local government officials) are no longer allowed to prohibit guns from our buildings, but you, at the state level, exempt yourselves from a similar position. As I see what he seemed to have been trying to say, it seems like the same thing some of us have been saying for years: WHY is the State Capitol and Indiana Government Center off-limits to good, law-abiding citizens who carry firearms? Of what are the legislators and judges in that building so frightened? (especially considering that as a group, we are not only more law-abiding but also more accurate with our fire, statistically speaking, than the LEOs that are unrestricted in carrying there.)

If that is indeed the point that Mr. Carwein was attempting to make, I cannot fault him, other than the method by which he made it. I do agree that there is no reason for the local governments to be disallowed from being gun-free when the state capitol is. By that, I mean that there is no reason for the state capitol to continue to be "gun free".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hf3787]

Just what we need is more paranoia over guns. If the legal system had any "real teeth", those who use guns to commit crimes would be executed

 

[Drakkule]

If there is a courtroom in the State Capitol and Indiana Government Center, then they would be off limits anyway, wouldn't they?

 

[Kutnupe14]

All I want to know is where he found a (what I'm assuming) Vietnam-era flak jacket.