Here's a breakdown and my thoughts:
A person employed or authorized by:
A or B
to
X, Y, or Z
So, if you are:
employed or authorized (to carry a handgun?)*
either:
by a school
or
by the owner/operator of the property a school uses,
specifically for the purpose of
acting as security,
or
participating in a school function,
or
participating in any authorized school activity
* My guess is that the part I added in red was likely the original implied intent - but it did not make it into the law. This leaves open the possibility of a completely legal loophole they likely never intended.
That's why it's debatable if teachers or others could legally carry when employed or authorized to participate even without specific authorization to carry a handgun.
Just my
This was my thought as well, and I addressed it with a lawyer once. It's not authorization (to carry a handgun), it's authorization
- to act as a security guard,
- perform or participate in a school function, or
- participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
The attorney with whom I discussed this agreed that the semicolons could be interpreted that way, but advised me that the courts would not. We both agreed that they should, but Indiana courts are not known for seeing things as most of us think they should.
As such, under the present law, it does not appear that anyone not wearing a badge will be carrying at a school lawfully any time in the foreseeable future.
I don't like it, I'm just reportin' it.
Blessings,
Bill