SouthBend common council

[daddymikey1975]

For as much money as walmart makes im sure their lawyers could rake south bend over the coals.

Maybe Guy Relford should get in contact with Mr. Calderon

 

[cobber]

If Walmart wants to sue, they have to NOT enter agreements not to sell strategic (oops, tactical) guns.

Had they NOT entered an agreement and thrown down the gauntlet, the SBCC's only responses would have been: 1) nothing but bluster, or 2) pass an ordinance and break the law.

By capitulating, Walmart ensured there will be no suit.

 

[Hammerhead]

The statute says they can't regulate. Do you have a statute or case that says what they've done to the present is regulation?

Is it even a policy? They're contemplating passing an ordinance. It doesn't sound like they have anything on the books yet.

edit: looking back I wrote it was a clear violation... rethinking that now...

It might fly in court, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless they have some document they're claiming bars WalMart from doing what they're doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Evansville and Hammond both there were ordinances on the books. Not just an intent to keep guns out of wherever.

I'll defer to Guy if and when he weighs in.

That being said, folks can certainly make their opinions known to the CC. And to WalMart.

Actually, while I made a specific point to show that the common council was violating 11.1-2 and 11.1-4(4), even by trying to tell WM they're not allowed to do something with firearms, they're also violating 11.1-3


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.

They're stepping into a giant pile of manure with both feet.

 

[cobber]

Actually, while I made a specific point to show that the common council was violating 11.1-2 and 11.1-4(4), even by trying to tell WM they're not allowed to do something with firearms, they're also violating 11.1-3


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.

They're stepping into a giant pile of manure with both feet.

If what they did was a rule (no) or an "exercise of proprietary authority" () then their goose is already cooked.

But you still need an adversely affected party to bring suit. That would seem to be Walmart. They don't seem to be inclined to sue, unless I'm missing something.

Walmart agreed with the SBCC. Now what?

 

[jon5212]

It can only be three scenarios, 1 walmart actually didn't know about IN state law and just folded.
2 they did know and still agreed but now plan to sue? Why not if you've been black balled by a city council they still forced to sign an illegal agreement.

3, they did know, and decided it's not worth the trouble.

I really wish people would quit folding on stuff like this.

 

[dwickstrom]

Can't believe they bowed to the council.

 

[dwickstrom]

Sorry guys I know I started the thread but due to personal matters I was unable to attend.

 

[dwickstrom]

ok, re-posted.. looks like they didn't allow my first one...

Great comment I don't have home interwebz do all my surfing on my cellphone and can't figure out how to comment on their stories.

 

[dwickstrom]

When is the OC event I am In.

 

[daddymikey1975]

It can only be three scenarios, 1 walmart actually didn't know about IN state law and just folded.
2 they did know and still agreed but now plan to sue? Why not if you've been black balled by a city council they still forced to sign an illegal agreement.

3, they did know, and decided it's not worth the trouble.

I really wish people would quit folding on stuff like this.

These reasons are why I emailed WalMart's attorney and the city councilman that was mentioned in the news article.

WSBT is running a story this morning about how "wal mart removes some guns from it's shelves, and the group that made it happen" (puke)

Walmart pulls tactical firearms over public safety concerns - wsbt.com

Evidently the city has blocked certain types of guns from being shipped to wal mart as wel according to the news story this morning. (not sure how they've done that)

 

[daddymikey1975]

Update: Received a reply from Mr. Calderon (the attorney representing WalMart)

Thank you for the email, Mr. DM1975. Please understand that Wal-Mart filed for the Special Exception prior to the adoption of the new state law.

Even though the Special Exception was agreed to prior to the new state law, the passing of the new law makes the special exception void, does it not ?

For example, if an employer has a rule in their employee handbook that prohibits firearms on the property, by the new law passing, the new law governs and allows employees to have firearms in their vehicles (subject to certain restrictions) and the employee handbook 'rule' is now void.

Or is my logic flawed ?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Here's the Tribune article, FWIW...

City, Wal-Mart settle firearms issues at Ireland Road store - southbendtribune.com

 

[Valor35]

Fail by WalMart -- why am I not surprised?

 

[daddymikey1975]

So after playing email tag with Mr. Calderon, his final reply to me was

Thank you Mr. DM1975 for your interest

SMH

I will not be supporting a company that allows a BS small town city common council to push them around as such, I cannot support an OC event where will support WalMart if they fail to exercise their rights.

-1 for WalMart .. -10 for South Bend common council, -12 for Mr. Joe Calderon

 

[BStarkey 46947]

We need more Government.

 

[Hammerhead]

If what they did was a rule (no) or an "exercise of proprietary authority" () then their goose is already cooked.

But you still need an adversely affected party to bring suit. That would seem to be Walmart. They don't seem to be inclined to sue, unless I'm missing something.

Walmart agreed with the SBCC. Now what?

I believe they are exercising their proprietary authority by making rules that they're holding over WM.

And someone from SB should realize that as a customer, the rules that the council are lording over WM are adversely affecting them since they cannot now buy "tactical" shotguns after 9pm. The council is violating the law.

-10000000 to Joe Calderon for giving the SB common council a toe hold to violating our rights in spite of a law to the contrary.

 

[Hammerhead]

We need more Government.

I really hope that A) you dropped your purple and 2) you're not trolling for your 50.

 

[cobber]

I believe they are exercising their proprietary authority by making rules that they're holding over WM.

May well be. There might also be a cause of action by would-be customers of Walmart against the SBCC.

This isn't over by a long shot.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I'm currently playing email tag with Mr Davis - the Council Vice Pres..

He's asserting that WalMart CHOSE to restict it's own sales/etc..

Mr. DM1975,

Greetings. Rest assured, nothing was violated for the agreement that Walmart and the City of South Bend was agreed to by Walmart with their clear understanding that they did not have to make any changes due to the law that you quoted. If a business wants to promote public safety and good customer service, they are allowed to do such. Think about it, Walmart came to the Council to ask for a special exception in June of 2011, just days before the July 1, 2011 law took effect. We told them about the law taking place in July and they shared that they were aware of it but wanted to join the city to sign this agreement. Thus, we voted for it. In their letter this week, Walmart affirmed their commitment to honor the agreement that they signed with the city.

Honoring Walmart's Request,

Oliver Davis

I'm going to ask him for a copy of the agreement (why am I so intent on giving a $**t ?? )

ETA: Here's my email reply to him:

Mr. Davis,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my inquiry. Is it possible for you to send me a copy of the agreement in it's entirety? There are 23,000 members on INgunowners.com that are watching how this plays out. The media portrayed WalMart as 'the bad guy' and led viewers to believe that WalMart was doing somthing wrong when they were well within their legal rights to sell any products they wish.

None of the gun owners that have been following this topic (myself included) can find fault or danger with what WalMart is doing. The "tactical guns" and ".223" ammunition aren't the problem, nor are they the source of the problem. Can you cite a specific instance (or multiple if you have the data available) of an officer being shot through his/her vest with a .223 round? Can you cite instances when a "tactical gun" was used recently in a crime (in South Bend) that created a public safety hazard ?

Are you aware that anyone can drive 25 miles to plymouth and purchase ".223" ammunition and/or any other "tactical guns" ?? These same guns and ammunition are available at any gun store or sporting goods store in Mishawaka as well as at Len's ammunition shop on S. Michigan st. in South Bend.

Thanks for your time and attantion to this matter. 23,000 Indiana Residents await your reply.

Sincerely,
DM1975

 

[apsjiml]

I go there almost everyday. In fact, most Walmart all the time, I drive a lot for my job. I am not sure what people are talking about by assault weapons. What does that mean? They have a Stevens 12 gauge, with a hand grip stock but it is no different than the other 12 gauges. Actually I think that only holds 6 rounds. I saw on the news one of the counselman was talking about .223 going through a bullet proof vest. These guys have know idea what they are talking about. Some people go by looks, the gun looks mean so it is an assault rifle.
The other fact is, your not talking about criminal posession your talking about law abiding tax payers that get a background check. There is know distintion between the two accourding to the common counsel.