Hammond is looking for trouble

[jedi]

Let the lawsuits begin. And when the city of Hammond is drained of its cash in lawsuits and asks for a bailout I say let them starve. The citizens of that city don't deserve much better.

FTFY
The majority of those citizens voted for that council and mayor. Let them reap what they sow. Sry Bill B.

Indiana needs to copy Florida. Preemption laws don't work unless there is a penalty for violating them. Local legislators can create such restrictions more easily and rapidly than civil suits can get them removed. Right now, local politicians in Florida are scrambling to remove local firearms restrictions because a law was passed that can impose penalties of a $5000 personal fine and removal from office for enacting or enforcing such laws.

Gun Rights Win in Florida: State Law Will End Local Restrictions | TheBlaze.com

Compiling a substantial list of such violations in Indiana can be a first step towards getting some of our 2A-friendly state legislators to introduce similar legislation.

Nice!!!! We should push for that next year.

 

[mainjet]

If any Hammond residents have been adversely affected by the illegal Hammond gun ban and are interested in challenging the city's ordinances, please PM me.

Guy, if someone is a resident of Hammond who is licensed to carry, wouldn't they be adversely affected as soon as the gun ban is passed? Do they really need to put themselves in harms way in order to be damaged or does the mere fact that they upheld the ban make it damaging?

IC 35-47-11.1-6
1. (C)The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 5 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Maybe if Hammond runs out of money, they will raise taxes on Cableas and then the Cableas will move to Fort Wayne.

 

[mainjet]

Also, can we all just agree to use Bill B as the sacrificial lamb? He is already beat up from his run-in in St. John so I see no reason to put someone else through the system. Let's use him.

All is favor say "I". Those opposed say "I".

 

[jedi]

Guy, if someone is a resident of Hammond who is licensed to carry, wouldn't they be adversely affected as soon as the gun ban is passed? Do they really need to put themselves in harms way in order to be damaged or does the mere fact that they passed the ban make it damaging?

Hammond did not PASS the ban. Hammond ALREADY had the ban in place. The council meeting this week was for Hammond to "remove" the ban from their books since they (council people) know that their ban is illegal per the new Indiana state law. They failed to remove the ban as such they have now open themselves to a lawsuit.

Maybe if Hammond runs out of money, they will raise taxes on Cableas and then the Cableas will move to Fort Wayne.

x 1000000
I'm not sure on this but I think Cabela's got a city tax break for 'x' years in order to get them to come to Hammond. They (Cabela's) are not going away any time soon.

 

[jedi]

Also, can we all just agree to use Bill B as the sacrificial lamb? He is already beat up from his run-in in St. John so I see no reason to put someone else through the system. Let's use him.

All is favor say "I". Those opposed say "I".

Agree!!! It needs to be a hammond resident and the only other hammond resident is

that we know of.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Now you are getting close to proving yourself wrong. Despite the fact that Cabelas is a 'destination' for many people it does not bring in much as a % of the city's budget. You clearly indicated that a lot of the city's revenue is directly related to gun sales. You are a long way away from proving that, and I suspect that any revenues derived from Cabela's TOTAL contribution to the city amount to less than 1% of the city budget. I've been a business owner in NW Indiana my whole life, currently own industrial property in NWI as well as retail stores. I can assure you that your assumptions are very far from reality.

But I'm still waiting for you to prove yourself.

OK you two! Take it outside, take it outside...

 

[mainjet]

Hammond did not PASS the ban. Hammond ALREADY had the ban in place. The council meeting this week was for Hammond to "remove" the ban from their books since they (council people) know that their ban is illegal per the new Indiana state law. They failed to remove the ban as such they have now open themselves to a lawsuit.

Okay - same question.... Before July 1st they had a local ordinance. After July 1st that became unlawful. Then when Hammond actually looked at it and considered it before deciding to not remove it they basically said "We know it's is there, we know it is contrary to state law and we will defy it".

 

[GBuck]

Indiana needs to copy Florida. Preemption laws don't work unless there is a penalty for violating them. Local legislators can create such restrictions more easily and rapidly than civil suits can get them removed. Right now, local politicians in Florida are scrambling to remove local firearms restrictions because a law was passed that can impose penalties of a $5000 personal fine and removal from office for enacting or enforcing such laws.

Gun Rights Win in Florida: State Law Will End Local Restrictions | TheBlaze.com

Compiling a substantial list of such violations in Indiana can be a first step towards getting some of our 2A-friendly state legislators to introduce similar legislation.

Yeah! What ^^ said!

I wonder how many of those in our state legislature would take kindly to Hammond spitting in their faces on this law. Just like any other law, why didn't they put a penalty in place for violating it when they passed the law?

 

[mainjet]

IC 35-47-11.1-7
Civil actions; recovery of damages, costs, and fees
Sec. 7. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 5 of this chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the following:
(1) The greater of the following:
(A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
(B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees.
(2) Court costs (including fees).
(3) Reasonable attorney's fees.


Granted it's not a large amount of money and it is taxpayer money but it does allow anyone to take it on and get the costs of taking it on paid for.

All it takes is the first victory on this and then it would be an open spigot until the City of Hammond decides they are not going to prevail.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Would an email to Mitch or the AG about this do any good? Should it be directed elsewhere? I'm willing to help but I'm not sure the best course of action...

Our parks board wants to try the same crapola in South Bend but they don't have the stones to try it.

 

[jedi]

Okay - same question.... Before July 1st they had a local ordinance. After July 1st that became unlawful. Then when Hammond actually looked at it and considered it before deciding to not remove it they basically said "We know it's is there, we know it is contrary to state law and we will defy it".

Hum.. So where is your new question?
Yes that statement is correct as you worded it BTW. City of Hammond via it's city council meeting this week basically have spoken (legally) that they will continue to defy the new IN state law.

 

[youngda9]

The Hammond city council must be made up of a bunch of people from the People's Republic of Illinois.

Maybe the Council Attourney and some of the members need a few phone calls and letters.
City of Hammond | City Council | City Council

 

[GuyRelford]

Guy, if someone is a resident of Hammond who is licensed to carry, wouldn't they be adversely affected as soon as the gun ban is passed? Do they really need to put themselves in harms way in order to be damaged or does the mere fact that they upheld the ban make it damaging?

IC 35-47-11.1-6
1. (C)The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 5 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.

No, I don't believe a person needs to put himself in harm's way first, because the statute references a local regulation that is "enacted or enforced." The "or" wouldn't make any sense if it had to be enforced for there to be liability.

 

[jgreiner]

Council defeats gun ordinance; city exposed to potential lawsuits

Someone needs to grant their wishes....and sue them.........

 

[Expat]

I wonder if their insurance company is aware that the City has decided to intentionally break the law and subject itself to litigation. If I was a citizen of Hammond, I think I would find out who that insurance is with (should be public record) and give them a call.

 

[mainjet]

Hum.. So where is your new question?
Yes that statement is correct as you worded it BTW. City of Hammond via it's city council meeting this week basically have spoken (legally) that they will continue to defy the new IN state law.

The question actually came a post or so earlier to Tactical Firearms training. He put out the call for anyone who had been "adversely affected". My questions was in regards to that. My thinking is that you can be adversely affected just by the fact that they have the law/ordinance against it. If you are a Hammond resident or if you came into the town limits.

I figure that you do not physically have to be stopped by police or arrested. If you do not carry because the "law" says you cannot it violates the state law and renders me "adversely affected" as a citizen (I believe).

So what I was saying is whether it was passed or upheld really did not change my original questioin about being "adversely affected". It was illegal from July 1st and continued to be illegal when the upheld it. The upholding of it only dug them deeper into a hole in my opinion.

It's one thing to be negligent it is another thing to be intentional. The city council meeting removed any defense of negligent in removing the ordinance and put it into the relm of intentional wrong doing.

 

[jgreiner]

I wonder if their insurance company is aware that the City has decided to intentionally break the law and subject itself to litigation. If I was a citizen of Hammond, I think I would find out who that insurance is with (should be public record) and give them a call.

That is a most excellent idea

 

[AndersonIN]

If you pass a city law that a tree cannot make a sound if it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it fall has it really broken the law????

 

[mainjet]

If you pass a city law that a tree cannot make a sound if it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it fall has it really broken the law????

It is breaking the law. If the state passes a law that says political subdivisions may not make a law that the tree can make no noise when it falls.

The local law is then against the State law as soon as the local law is passed. We do not need to wait for the tree to fall or listen to see if it makes a noise when it does fall. However, if the police then arrest or harass the tree for making noise when it fell the tree now has damages and further grounds for litigation against the town.