Man removed by PD for carrying at St. Joe County polls

[Kirk Freeman]

St. Joseph County is leading with a sewer defense?

Look for tunneling projects being funded across the state.

Next I would anticipate the atom defense. Well, this atom touches this atom which touches this atom which eventually touches a courtroom.

 

[Rookie]

Makes sense to me. Does that mean I live in a school?

 

[SirRealism]

Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.

And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.

I never understood that part of SB 292. It's already illegal for someone without a license to carry in those locations, right?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Makes sense to me. Does that mean I live in a school?

Do you home school?

 

[Hammerhead]

I tend to think that the antis are just being arbitrary, but there might be a legitimate security issue with court access from the building across the street. This could come from LE, or perhaps even from the courts.

Even a conference room used regularly for court business, could conceivably be reason enough to classify the building as part of the courts.

As the IC already has outlined relief to such an issue, why not pursue it, if you believe it to be illegitimate?

Is there a jail or some such in the other building? Do they bring prisoners through the tunnel for holding or transport? Or is it just the office complex and it saves whomever is crossing the street from dealing with traffic? I don't know because I've never stepped foot in that building. As far as a legitimate security issue, they can and could prohibit access to the tunnel from visitors or non-essential personnel.

I can't pursue it because I'm not adversely affected (mainly by physical location). If I ever decide to walk into the building, I'll see what happens, but I doubt that will ever happen without some strange circumstances.

I never understood that part of SB 292. It's already illegal for someone without a license to carry in those locations, right?

Not necessarily. It falls under the portion of 11.1 where it says that 11.1 isn't meant to keep a local gov't entity from prohibiting certain things. Not to say that it's illegal, but they can make a rule keeping people from carrying when there are metal detectors, except for those with a Larry.

It's the same way that 11.1 says that courts CAN prohibit carry but it is not ILLEGAL to carry in a courthouse via the IC. There are courthouses in IN that do not prohibit carry.

 

[SirRealism]

Not necessarily. It falls under the portion of 11.1 where it says that 11.1 isn't meant to keep a local gov't entity from prohibiting certain things. Not to say that it's illegal, but they can make a rule keeping people from carrying when there are metal detectors, except for those with a Larry.

It's the same way that 11.1 says that courts CAN prohibit carry but it is not ILLEGAL to carry in a courthouse via the IC. There are courthouses in IN that do not prohibit carry.

That's not my point. I get the "optional" aspect (are not prevented from prohibiting, but are not forced to prohibit).

My question still stands. The courtroom part says that they may prohibit otherwise legal carriers. But the metal detector section says that they may prohibit illegal carriers (those without LTCH, who would already run afoul of the law), but not legal carriers (those with LTCH).

What am I missing?

 

[Hammerhead]

That's not my point. I get the "optional" aspect (are not prevented from prohibiting, but are not forced to prohibit).

My question still stands. The courtroom part says that they may prohibit otherwise legal carriers. But the metal detector section says that they may prohibit illegal carriers (those without LTCH, who would already run afoul of the law), but not legal carriers (those with LTCH).

What am I missing?

I guess I don't believe you're missing anything, or I'm not understanding. Courtrooms can prohibit carry, it's up to the judge, but the IC doesn't make it illegal.

The part about metal detectors is in there because they use the metal detectors to keep people from carrying. They used to be able to prohibit legal carriers with the metal detectors because they used to be able to prohibit everyone. Now, they can only prohibit those who aren't legally carrying. When your sidearm sets off the metal detector, your Larry is a free pass.

 

[SirRealism]

I guess I don't believe you're missing anything, or I'm not understanding. Courtrooms can prohibit carry, it's up to the judge, but the IC doesn't make it illegal.

The part about metal detectors is in there because they use the metal detectors to keep people from carrying. They used to be able to prohibit legal carriers with the metal detectors because they used to be able to prohibit everyone. Now, they can only prohibit those who aren't legally carrying. When your sidearm sets off the metal detector, your Larry is a free pass.

Yeah, we're in agreement. I just thought it's a waste of ink to tell a government agency that it can prohibit something that was, by law, already illegal and outside the scope of the preemption. The agency would not be enforcing a law/rule created by a political subdivision; they would be enforcing state law already on the books elsewhere.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The whole point of IC 35-47-11.1-4 is not subdivisions (1) through (13), telling political subdivisions what they can still prohibit. The whole point of IC 35-47-11.1-4 is the last line referencing LTCH carriers, telling political subdivisions what they cannot prohibit vis-a-vis law abiding firearm carriers.

 

[BaseDeltaZero]

I'd be honored to break bread with this fine former Marine.

Let me know when/where and I'll buy a round!

 

[Ted]

Then I'm sure he is aware of the overwhelming support he has here. Let him know he has a steak and cold beverages of his choice on my dime. I'd be honored to break bread with this fine former Marine.

No such thing.

 

[Hammerhead]

The whole point of IC 35-47-11.1-4 is not subdivisions (1) through (13), telling political subdivisions what they can still prohibit. The whole point of IC 35-47-11.1-4 is the last line referencing LTCH carriers, telling political subdivisions what they cannot prohibit vis-a-vis law abiding firearm carriers.

Interesting. I've actually not considered that.

So what that means is that everything except sub-section 5 about courtrooms means that no matter what prohibitions that may still be allowed (since 11.1-4 is all about what is still allowed) none of those prohibitions that may still be allowed limit anyone with a Larry.

Hmm. This also means that someone with a Larry CAN carry into Lucas Oil (for example) as sub-section 10 attempts to limit, and CAN carry into a hospital as defined under the IC referenced in sub-section 11.

So the whole Jim Irsay clause of sub-section 10 doesn't apply to LTCH holders after they made such a big deal about people carrying into the sports venues.

That's a eye opener. I was mis-reading that section for a long time. Thanks, Cathy. Rep inbound.

 

[actaeon277]

You guys are HURTING MY HEAD.
Here's an idea. Make the law easy enough to understand.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Depends... Is Lucas Oil Stadium "a building owned or administered by the unit"? If so, then the "unit may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision" there.

 

[Hammerhead]

Lucas Oil is owned by the CIB. Jim Irsay threw a fit that because of the law as it was being written made legal carry acceptable there. They threw in sub-section 10 because of that, basically saying that anyone renting or leasing a building (the Colts are leasing it) could prohibit carry as a point of admission (as part of buying a ticket).

If my re-read of that last line of section 4 is correct, even if the Colts make being disarmed a part of admission, the Larry negates that.

 

[jedi]

That's not my point. I get the "optional" aspect (are not prevented from prohibiting, but are not forced to prohibit).

My question still stands. The courtroom part says that they may prohibit otherwise legal carriers. But the metal detector section says that they may prohibit illegal carriers (those without LTCH, who would already run afoul of the law), but not legal carriers (those with LTCH).

What am I missing?

In guys in law class he told us that courtrooms are a bit different than everything else. Ic applies to all public places expect courtrooms. The in constitution gave the in supreme the power to make whatever rules (not laws but court house rules) they want. If u break those rules then u r in contemp of court n the judge can toss u in jail or make u do whatever. Now the in supreme court delegates that power down to the lower courts to make their own rules (thus some courthouse its ok to carry and o5hers no)

So the ic cant make it illegal to carry/not carry in courthouses since they (in congress) dont have that power.

 

[Vince49]

Lucas Oil is owned by the CIB. Jim Ersay threw a fit that because of the law as it was being written made legal carry acceptable there. They threw in sub-section 10 because of that, basically saying that anyone renting or leasing a building (the Colts are leasing it) could prohibit carry as a point of admission (as part of buying a ticket).

If my re-read of that last line of section 4 is correct, even if the Colts make being disarmed a part of admission, the Larry negates that.

While not illegal to carry there while it is being leased by the Colts it is de-facto their private property for the duration of any event being held under the terms of their lease. As a property owner then Mr. Irsay can refuse admission to anyone for any reason he so chooses. Refusing to leave would be trespassing the same as it would on anyone else's property when asked to leave.

 

[jedi]

While not illegal to carry there while it is being leased by the Colts it is de-facto their private property for the duration of any event being held under the terms of their lease. As a property owner then Mr. Irsay can refuse admission to anyone for any reason he so chooses. Refusing to leave would be trespassing the same as it would on anyone else's property when asked to leave.

ZING ZING!! Chicken dinner for the ring!

 

[Hammerhead]

While not illegal to carry there while it is being leased by the Colts it is de-facto their private property for the duration of any event being held under the terms of their lease. As a property owner then Mr. Irsay can refuse admission to anyone for any reason he so chooses. Refusing to leave would be trespassing the same as it would on anyone else's property when asked to leave.

I'm wondering about that. That last line in section 4 only excludes courthouses via section 5. However, it says that the unit can't prohibit LTCH holders. Sub-section 10 says that the event organizer or promoter can make rules as terms of admission. So the city can't say no carry in Lucas Oil, but whomever is using it can.

Anyone interested in leasing Lucas Oil for a day and having a giant OC event?

 

[MikeDVB]

Anyone interested in leasing Lucas Oil for a day and having a giant OC event?

When you find out how much that costs and you get done picking your jaw up off the floor, I think we'll consider it .