Interesting Sign At New Castle Library

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Compatriot G

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2010
    861
    28
    New Castle
    I was attending Sky Warn training last night at the New Castle-Henry County Library. As I was going in, I noticed a "Code of Conduct" sign. The last line of the sign stated, "no weapons, except for law enforcement and those allowed by IC 35-47-11.1". I thought that was a sneaky way to get around the Preemption Statute. I know what IC35-47-11.1 states. However, I wonder how many library patrons know what that is?
    A friend was attending the class with me. He is a retired deputy. He used to work security at the library. He stated the staff is extremely liberal. I'm sure they had their attorney come up with that so they don't get sued, yet still push their anti-gun feelings.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,608
    77
    Camby area
    So they basically posted an illegal rule worded in such a way to fool patrons into thinking they cant carry a gun there because the rule listed says no, but in fact the law referenced to back it up doesnt actually back up their illegal rule? And in fact, they posted the rule that would tell a smart patron willing to do his homework that their rule is full of crap and that its not enforceable so they can carry anyway?

    Not sure what to think of that. Basically "giving permission" to only smart folks not willing to take the sign at face value. Hmmmmm.
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,839
    113
    Lafayette
    So they basically posted an illegal rule worded in such a way to fool patrons into thinking they cant carry a gun there because the rule listed says no, but in fact the law referenced to back it up doesnt actually back up their illegal rule? And in fact, they posted the rule that would tell a smart patron willing to do his homework that their rule is full of crap and that its not enforceable so they can carry anyway?

    Not sure what to think of that. Basically "giving permission" to only smart folks not willing to take the sign at face value. Hmmmmm.
    Control the message, control the mind...
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,791
    113
    Avon
    I was attending Sky Warn training last night at the New Castle-Henry County Library. As I was going in, I noticed a "Code of Conduct" sign. The last line of the sign stated, "no weapons, except for law enforcement and those allowed by IC 35-47-11.1". I thought that was a sneaky way to get around the Preemption Statute. I know what IC35-47-11.1 states. However, I wonder how many library patrons know what that is?
    A friend was attending the class with me. He is a retired deputy. He used to work security at the library. He stated the staff is extremely liberal. I'm sure they had their attorney come up with that so they don't get sued, yet still push their anti-gun feelings.
    Posting of the sign can reasonably be construed to prohibit/prevent/discourage persons from lawfully possessing firearms on the premises - in which case, said persons would meet the criteria for "adversely affected" under Section 6, and therefore would have grounds to file a civil suit against the Library under Section 5.

    Bold strategy, Cotton.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,608
    77
    Camby area
    Posting of the sign can reasonably be construed to prohibit/prevent/discourage persons from lawfully possessing firearms on the premises - in which case, said persons would meet the criteria for "adversely affected" under Section 6, and therefore would have grounds to file a civil suit against the Library under Section 5.

    Bold strategy, Cotton.
    I doubt its a slam dunk. I can see a judge saying "If you did your homework and read the IC they provided to you, you'd see that they cant prohibit you and therefore you have no standing.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,791
    113
    Avon
    I doubt its a slam dunk. I can see a judge saying "If you did your homework and read the IC they provided to you, you'd see that they cant prohibit you and therefore you have no standing.
    Sure. And I can also see a judge saying, "this appears to be attempting to deprive rights under color of law. The cited statute has nothing to do with either allowing or prohibiting individuals to carry firearms. The obvious intent is to discourage individuals from lawfully carrying, by taking advantage of their layman lack of understanding of the cited statute."
     
    Top Bottom