Prohibited Carry?

[Bill of Rights]

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

1. to act as a security guard,
2. perform or participate in a school function, or
3. participate in any other activity authorized by a school.

Specifically, the semicolons at 35-47-9-1 (2)(A) and (B) seemed to me to mean that any person employed by the school for any of those three purposes or authorized by the school to do any of those three purposes would be exempt. This would include a teacher (employed by the school) or a parent (authorized by the school, perhaps to chaperone a field trip or a school dance or even just to visit a classroom)

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

 

[Love the 1911]

(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.

Criminal Code always being written short hand makes for a confusing read. My take would look like this: "A person who has been employed or authorized (by a school or another person who owns or operates property bing 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."

Based on what I believe the code actually says, not what it implies, a teacher could be charged with a D Felony if they carry a gun into a school without being authorized by the school to do so. This shouldn't be too big of an issue seeing how universities that prospective teachers are required to attend to get a teaching license these days do everything they can to brain wash said potential teachers to a left-minded way of thinking that makes them believe any gun within 500 yards of a school will automatically go off and annihilate all innocent children that are within earshot.

Bill, you posted while I was typing and I think you nailed it.

 

[ATM]

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

I understand judges can interpret it any way they like, which is why I am requesting that my church authorize me specifically to carry a firearm while participating in functions and activities. (It has a preschool.)

I do see it in my foreseeable future.