Councilman Wants Handguns Allowed At City Parks

[voidsherpa]

You already can!

Councilman wants handguns allowed at city parks | WANE

“Citizens have been stopped in city parks and been cited for having a firearm that would otherwise be legal to carry,” Jason Arp said

No they haven't. Link to the city losing the lawsuit please.

 

[KittySlayer]

I was going to comment about the finger inside the trigger guard on the cover photo but could not get past the hideous manicure.

 

[voidsherpa]

If WANE wasnt such a **** show of Liberal ****s the article would be titled "council man seeking to have old, null, and defunct law dropped off the books" and then it wouldnt even be a news story.

 

[actaeon277]

According to Arp the city code is not consistent with the state’s gun regulations. He said in 2011, the state got rid of regulations that prohibit legally-licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm in a park. Arp said he’s just trying to bring the city’s ordinance up to speed.

 

[voidsherpa]

He also said this on Oct 10th

"My wife is licensed to carry a firearm. I would prefer she have the ability to defend herself and our children if the need arose. The only way for most women to defend themselves against an assailant twice their size is with a handgun. Our ordinance currently forbids women from defending themselves or their children in city parks." - Jason Arp

Does he not understand it is already legal? I'm all for it but he sounds like he has no idea that it's already legal, which is asinine.

 

[lonehoosier]

.

 

[actaeon277]

He also said this on Oct 10th

"My wife is licensed to carry a firearm. I would prefer she have the ability to defend herself and our children if the need arose. The only way for most women to defend themselves against an assailant twice their size is with a handgun. Our ordinance currently forbids women from defending themselves or their children in city parks." - Jason Arp

Does he not understand it is already legal? I'm all for it but he sounds like he has no idea that it's already legal, which is asinine.

According to Arp the city code is not consistent with the state’s gun regulations. He said in 2011, the state got rid of regulations that prohibit legally-licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm in a park. Arp said he’s just trying to bring the city’s ordinance up to speed.

He already stated he knew it is legal. But he's saying the town law is in violation of State law. He's trying to correct that.

 

[voidsherpa]

He already stated he knew it is legal. But he's saying the town law is in violation of State law. He's trying to correct that.

And yet he goes on to talk about people being fined for currently carrying in a park. I'm not sure he has a full grasp of the situation, or maybe he's just having issues communicating it.

 

[littletommy]

Where is this park? I'm gonna go OC there! Cha-CHING BABY!
Hopefully I get my ass kicked real good by the arresting officers, too.

 

[CrimSix]

He purposely communicated it in a conflicting manner. The ordinance hasn't been enforced since the state law took effect. It's a complete non-issue. If his intention was to simply clean up antiquated ordinances, he would have explained it as such without all the other nonsense. That, however, isn't very sensational. He's been hunting for headlines and the local news has obliged. I like a fair bit of his stances, but this was nothing more than a weak attempt to get the pro 2A support ahead of a mayoral campaign.

 

[JettaKnight]

Where is this park? I'm gonna go OC there! Cha-CHING BABY!
Hopefully I get my ass kicked real good by the arresting officers, too.

You won't.

FWPD doesn't enforce it - they're smarter than the good councilman.

 

[voidsherpa]

You won't.

FWPD doesn't enforce it - they're smarter than the good councilman.

Well in all fairness I did get booted from headwaters park by FWPD one time for carrying, but that was due to 3Rivers Festivals GFZ policy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well in all fairness I did get booted from headwaters park by FWPD one time for carrying, but that was due to 3Rivers Festivals GFZ policy.

Yup - they can (jack)boot you for private events, but they won't ticket you.

 

[TheSpark]

Fort Wayne Parks board gets updates on riverfront, guns in parks proposals - Local - News-Sentinel.com

It's important for people to feel safe in city parks, so Parks Director Al Moll told park board members his department doesn't want people to carry weapons in parks. He also believes the parks department is complying with state law when prohibiting weapons in parks.

Apparently he refuses to do a little research. Takes no more than 2 minutes on google to find that the parks department is NOT complying with state law.

 

[JettaKnight]

OC event?

 

[Chance]

Absolutely!

 

[TCI]

Can someone help me here? I learned about this before the news article. I was at the Fort Wayne Gun show last week, and I signed a petition for this cause. After that, I saw the news article. I understand that through all of this that the state law says we can carry at these parks, but the local law says we can't. Can't certain local laws take authority despite state law? The article mentions that people are getting in trouble. A lot of you are saying that the state law trumps this local law.

I don't have a lot of legal experience, but I was pondering Colorado law when writing my reply. In Colorado, Marijuana is legal. FEDERAL LAW says it's not. But STATE & LOCAL LAW says it is. In a lot of these cases, the state and local law is trumping the federal law. So with that said, couldn't Fort Wayne's local ordinance trump the state law?

I am just a little confused here.

 

[AngryRooster]

Can someone help me here? I learned about this before the news article. I was at the Fort Wayne Gun show last week, and I signed a petition for this cause. After that, I saw the news article. I understand that through all of this that the state law says we can carry at these parks, but the local law says we can't. Can't certain local laws take authority despite state law? The article mentions that people are getting in trouble. A lot of you are saying that the state law trumps this local law.

I don't have a lot of legal experience, but I was pondering Colorado law when writing my reply. In Colorado, Marijuana is legal. FEDERAL LAW says it's not. But STATE & LOCAL LAW says it is. In a lot of these cases, the state and local law is trumping the federal law. So with that said, couldn't Fort Wayne's local ordinance trump the state law?

I am just a little confused here.

Indiana preemption makes it illegal for Ft Wayne to ENFORCE that law. It can be on the books, but they can't enforce it. What the new bill is doing is getting rid of the law that can't be enforced. The people on FB that oppose this think that it's illegal right now to carry (it's not) and that by getting rid of the city ordnance it will allow people to do something they can't do already.

For those that have been ticketed or harassed by this city ordnance it is upon them to challenge it. They can take it to court and should win, but they have to get off their fourth point of contact and do it.


As far as your Colorado scenario, state law does NOT trump federal law. It may be legal under state law, but the feds could still bring federal charges if they chose to do so. Just like it may be legal to use it there, but if you do and fill out a 4473 then you are either lying on the form by marking it 'no' you don't use illegal drugs, or you get denied because you marked it 'yes'. The form is a FEDERAL form and it's still illegal on a FEDERAL level. At least that's my understanding on the Colorado issue.



Others, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. INAL.

 

[TCI]

Indiana preemption makes it illegal for Ft Wayne to ENFORCE that law. It can be on the books, but they can't enforce it. What the new bill is doing is getting rid of the law that can't be enforced. The people on FB that oppose this think that it's illegal right now to carry (it's not) and that by getting rid of the city ordnance it will allow people to do something they can't do already.

For those that have been ticketed or harassed by this city ordnance it is upon them to challenge it. They can take it to court and should win, but they have to get off their fourth point of contact and do it.


As far as your Colorado scenario, state law does NOT trump federal law. It may be legal under state law, but the feds could still bring federal charges if they chose to do so. Just like it may be legal to use it there, but if you do and fill out a 4473 then you are either lying on the form by marking it 'no' you don't use illegal drugs, or you get denied because you marked it 'yes'. The form is a FEDERAL form and it's still illegal on a FEDERAL level. At least that's my understanding on the Colorado issue.



Others, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. INAL.

Thanks for this reply. That definitely helped my understanding. I only brought up Colorado in this because that's where I am from before Indiana. I have never done Marijuana and never will. I was just bringing that up because if it is allowed by state law, but not allowed via federal law, then I was wondering if this was something similar.

Your information still makes me wonder why Hoosier Carry is making people sign petitions then. Why would a entity helping people who OC/CC in Indiana bother with a petition if it is actually legal.

 

[AngryRooster]

Thanks for this reply. That definitely helped my understanding. I only brought up Colorado in this because that's where I am from before Indiana. I have never done Marijuana and never will. I was just bringing that up because if it is allowed by state law, but not allowed via federal law, then I was wondering if this was something similar.

Your information still makes me wonder why Hoosier Carry is making people sign petitions then. Why would a entity helping people who OC/CC in Indiana bother with a petition if it is actually legal.

If for some reason in the future the preemption law is overturned (not likely) then all the unenforceable laws still on the books would instantly be enforceable again. With them gone from the books the cities would have to legally get them passed again. Personally I think the preemption law should have included a clause that said city laws that are found to be illegal must be removed from the books when discovered or challenged.

It would be a complete nightmare for the feds to try to involve themselves in Colorado unless it was something on a major scale, and they had something to gain by doing so, or if it filled an agenda.