South Bend to ban guns on City property...regardless of IN LTCH

[bw8755]

They are voting on this tonight. Just saw it on WNDU. Lame @ss excuse Mayor Lueke said was to protect city workers from "upset or disgruntled people having a bad day carrying guns..that would not be good around city workers" (I paraphrased as I was trying to pick up my jaw off the floor as they were talking about it).

They specifically said regardless of IN LTCH. WTF???? What about state pre-emption??? Said City owned buildings and parks...... Fines $50 first time up tp $250, though some want higher fines!!!

 

[melensdad]

City owned buildings and parks......

Maybe you can volunteer to hang these signs for the mayor?

 

[Fenway]

I'm sure those signs will keep someone from going postal :rolleyesedit:

They are voting on this tonight. Just saw it on WNDU. Lame @ss excuse Mayor Lueke said was to protect city workers from "upset or disgruntled people having a bad day carrying guns..that would not be good around city workers" (I paraphrased as I was trying to pick up my jaw off the floor as they were talking about it).

They specifically said regardless of IN LTCH. WTF???? What about state pre-emption??? Said City owned buildings and parks...... Fines $50 first time up tp $250, though some want higher fines!!!

 

[TomN]

South Bend is so liberal it makes me sick.

 

[bw8755]

Think I'm going to open carry everywhere in south bend that isn't banned. Not that I haven't OC'd, just not consistently.

 

[jerbur6]

maybe we should trade south bend to illinois for some of those bad guns they dont want over there.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I doubt this will survive the first court challenge. I do think that those who passed it should personally (as in not out of city taxpayer funds) have to pay the legal expenses of the person challenging the suit, though. Passing a law that they know is in conflict with state law should be a no-brainer. Oh wait, it is-- you have to not have any brains to do something like that.

Blessings,
B

 

[Lars]

I'd go a step further Bill of Rights.

I think those who pass the law, should be legally liable for any injuries/death that occur to a citizen on city property to a person who was otherwise licensed to carry legally.

IE, I go to south bend, am in the park disarmed because I'm a law abiding citizen. Joe dirt bag shoots me in the arm, and steals my wallet. Joe Dirt bag should go to jail for a really long time. And the law makers should be the targets of a civil injury suit on my part.

 

[melensdad]

. . . And the law makers should be the targets of a civil injury suit on my part.

But of course, the lawmakers have written a law that exempts them from lawsuits in cases like this. We can't take them court, we can't hold them responsible and we (that would be the collective 'we' encompassing all the voters) are too dumb to vote them out of office.

 

[Episcopus]

I doubt this will survive the first court challenge. I do think that those who passed it should personally (as in not out of city taxpayer funds) have to pay the legal expenses of the person challenging the suit, though. Passing a law that they know is in conflict with state law should be a no-brainer. Oh wait, it is-- you have to not have any brains to do something like that.

Blessings,
B

It will pass court challenges.

IC 35-47-11-2
Regulation of firearms by units other than townships
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding IC 36-1-3, a unit may not regulate in any manner the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5) or ammunition except as follows:
(1) This chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit, except highways (as defined in IC 8-23-1-23) or public highways (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-14).

I don't really agree with it, but it is legal. I just look at it the same as I look at businesses that ban firearms. It is their right to do so, and it is my right to stay away from those places.

 

[Lars]

But of course, the lawmakers have written a law that exempts them from lawsuits in cases like this. We can't take them court, we can't hold them responsible and we (that would be the collective 'we' encompassing all the voters) are too dumb to vote them out of office.

You're right. I don't believe they can prevent a lawsuit levied against the city/town for enacting a law that lead to X outcome. The problem with that suit is while you may eventually win. You, and your neighbors get to pay for the victory through taxes. It's a lose, lose, lose situation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It will pass court challenges.

IC 35-47-11-2
Regulation of firearms by units other than townships
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding IC 36-1-3, a unit may not regulate in any manner the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5) or ammunition except as follows:
(1) This chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit, except highways (as defined in IC 8-23-1-23) or public highways (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-14).

I don't really agree with it, but it is legal. I just look at it the same as I look at businesses that ban firearms. It is their right to do so, and it is my right to stay away from those places.

True. Good point. Now that you post it, I do remember reading that law. In 4 years or so, if we still have the lawful ability to use our RKBA, and when we have a governor who believes in it, we'll need to push the legislature to pass full and total pre-emption, no more grandfathered laws, no more "local regulation" more restrictive than state statute. If by some miracle we keep Mitch, we need to push for it sooner.

Blessings,
B

 

[Dogman]

This is what the people that create gun free zones believe will happen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8]YouTube - Gun Free Zones - 1/2 Hour News Hour[/ame]

Gun Free Zones

 

[roadstar]

I am stongly pro gun, but I am also strongly in favor proper of property rights. If the city wants to say no guns on thier property, I can't really get that excited about it.

Now, here's the part where I want to have my cake and eat it too. I think that you should be able to park on city property and secure your weapon in a locked vehicle while you do your business/goto work. If they will not allow that I think their being unreasonable.

I'm not a lawyer and don't even know that much about the law so go easy on me when you are all tearing me apart.

 

[Scutter01]

I am stongly pro gun, but I am also strongly in favor proper of property rights. If the city wants to say no guns on thier property, I can't really get that excited about it.

Except that it's not their property. It's OUR property. It's bought and paid for with public funds. It's property that's covered under both the state and national Constitutions. If the city wants to put it the ordinance up for a vote, that's one thing, but to unilaterally declare that the Constitution doesn't apply to them is crap.

 

[rhino]

I am stongly pro gun, but I am also strongly in favor proper of property rights. If the city wants to say no guns on thier property, I can't really get that excited about it.

It's not THEIR property. It belongs to the taxpayers. They only administer it. Unfortunately, the taxpayers all too often grant way too much power to those they allow to rule them.

 

[roadstar]

Good points! I stand corrected.

 

[bwframe]

It's not THEIR property. It belongs to the taxpayers. They only administer it. Unfortunately, the taxpayers all too often grant way too much power to those they allow to rule them.

This is absolutely true. We are also quick to forget when election time comes.

Examples of non firearm related issues that a lot of us have taken a screwing over are increases in local tax rates and vehicle wheel taxes. This kind of crap, that we never voted on or voted the officials in to do, also spreads like wildfire.

So, the outcome of this vote in South Bend is pretty critical to the rest of us who live in, shop in, or do business in liberal leaning locals. In other words, if this passes, is Bloomington next?

 

[Gryphon]

I've heard that it's already illegal to carry on city property in Terrible Haute. But this kind of hearsay is often spread by anti-gunners who 'feel' their crackpot views should be enforced as established laws, and I'm interested only in facts.

So, does anyone know for a fact rather or not it is legal to carry on city property in Terrible Haute?

 

[bw8755]

Keep in mind it's not just about the buildings. It's the parks. I live within a half mile of four city parks (ie East Race). I have always walked along the river walk there since I was a teenager. There have been violence there or near there (Howard Park) not too long ago. While it's usually safe, nothing is guaranteed safe. I have carried whenever I go there. And the fact teh same sidewalk that runs along the river connects several parks. I could be intermittently breaking the law if I walked along the sidewalk as I would pass through "no gun zones".

Plus, now all the criminals need to do to get guns is wait for people to pull up and disarm themselves and leave their car. Free guns for those with the 20-30 seconds to break in.

But they'd never use them for crimes, right? I mean, there's a sign there......