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]

Originally Posted by bw8755

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:

Originally Posted by 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!!!

[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.

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

[Episcopus]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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

[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.