Hammond is looking for trouble

[billyramair]

I agree that officials should have to pay their own court fees over an illegal law.

 

[Indy317]

Simple enough, let's have a carry night at the next city council meeting.

Protests is what it will take. Things like picketing, passing out flyers, etc.. Just make it known that if the council just takes the ordinances away, all protesting stops and everyone is happy and the news media hounds will go away. Imagine a simple one page flyer describing how the mayor must be incompetent. Instead of removing unenforceable laws, he has to put out silly directives telling city employees not to follow certain city ordinances. Then make comments/questions about if this is smart governance, what people want in a leader, etc..

 

[jedi]

Its not the city council. They were going to vote on removing it and then mayor told them if they do he would veto it. The council lady so started this and went against the mayor's wishes LOST in the last election cycle. Why?

The mayor ensured she lost.

If the council just brought their ordinances in compliance, this whole fiasco would be moot.

Protests is what it will take. Things like picketing, passing out flyers, etc.. Just make it known that if the council just takes the ordinances away, all protesting stops and everyone is happy and the news media hounds will go away. Imagine a simple one page flyer describing how the mayor must be incompetent. Instead of removing unenforceable laws, he has to put out silly directives telling city employees not to follow certain city ordinances. Then make comments/questions about if this is smart governance, what people want in a leader, etc..

That will do them no good. The hammond mayor will not be un elected from office. He controls all the power in hammond and 95% of lake county. The people will continue to vote for him similar to how chichago continues to vote for the same ones over and over even afetr they are on trial *cough* jessy jackson jr *cough*

Understand that up here the hammond mayor is king. Any opposition to him is met with swifness and those elected officals lose the next election cycle.

 

[spec4]

Anybody know if the Lake County GOP is doing anything seriously to change this? I'm new here, but it seems like the name McDermott here is like Daley in Chicago.

 

[jedi]

Anybody know if the Lake County GOP is doing anything seriously to change this? I'm new here, but it seems like the name McDermott here is like Daley in Chicago.

Sorry for laughing at you since you are a newbie to "Da Region".
Lake Couty is a Democrat stronghold and when the last of the old political machine bosses lost his power (Robert A. Pastrick, Mayor of East Chicago and State of Indiana Democrat Party Boss) McDermott Jr took over. He does not weild as much power (yet) as Pastrick did, nor does he have Pastrick's style and/or grace, but he is still young and rough around the edges.

The Lake County GOP has no chance in winning yet and won't for a long time to come. Way too much corruption and "dead people voting" before that can happen.

Interesting note is Jr's dad was also mayor of Hammond back from 84-04 and he was an R!
Hammond, Indiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bill B]

Also, for the longest time the Lake County GOP was an arm of the Democratic Party. While no longer true, infighting and political betrayal have kept it from becoming a viable alternative to the machine.

 

[jedi]

Also, for the longest time the Lake County GOP was an arm of the Democratic Party. While no longer true, infighting and political betrayal have kept it from becoming a viable alternative to the machine.

Oh come now Bill the 'machine' was/is a good thing here in NWI. Prior to the mess it's currenlty in 'the machine' did get things done and ensured everything went OK.

 

[finity]

My understanding is "injury" in a legal sense is what the Preemption Law is referring to.

The statute doesn't say "injury". It says that someone is simply "adversely affected" by the ordinance. I would say (in my non-legal mind, at least) that a physical injury due to a law that is still on the books that someone doesn't know has been overriden by another law is being "adversely affected" by that law.

Otherwise the argument could be made that ANY injury (physical) would have the recourse of a lawsuit against the political subdivision.

I have no problem with that at all. If a political subdivision passes a law (or, as in this case, intentionally misleads someone to believe that a voided law is still a valid law) that causes someone to be injured then they should absolutely be held responsible for that injury.

 

[finity]

Do you not understand that the Hammond ordinances are void and the Court of Appeals stated that? What is your point?

I can't see (again in my non-legal mind) how the average person should be required to verify that EVERY single law written anywhere hasn't been voided or overrriden by some other law somewhere else. How can we be forced to question the validity of every law before we decide that it is a valid law & follow it?

It should be inherent on the ones that we have granted the authority to ensure that the laws on the books reflect the TRUE law of the land. Obviously, I think the court made a serious mistake on this decision. It leaves the door WIDE OPEN for abuses by every other political subdivision & under every other category of law (speed limits are only one example that has already been mentioned).

[strike]Basically it told cities/counties/townships/etc that if they want to pass a law (or keep a law previously passed) that is overriden by state or federal law then go ahead since it is now incumbent on the citizen to somehow figure out if the law is valid or not & they won't be held accountable for the effects of that action.[/strike]

ETA:

Never mind. After I thought about it I realized that it is already that way & has been. No wonder no one has any respect for the system. My comments above it still stand, though.

 

[Destro]

If you see a "No Firearms" sign that was illegal, but you didn't realize it because you think, 'why would there be an illegal sign (or law on the books)' and you obeyed it without a cop writing you a ticket for it, are you not an affected party because you are not exercising rights you have available since there was a sign/law stating otherwise?

can you cite the example of someone being harmed by this, or is it just a hypothetical?

 

[Destro]

If the council just brought their ordinances in compliance, this whole fiasco would be moot.

but they are in compliance as far as the letter of the law, their ord. was in effect befor preemption

 

[Destro]

I agree that officials should have to pay their own court fees over an illegal law.

it is not an illegal ord., the city should seek damages from the pettioner to ensure frivolus suits like this don't keep draining the taxpayers

 

[Destro]

I can't see (again in my non-legal mind) how the average person should be required to verify that EVERY single law written anywhere hasn't been voided or overrriden by some other law somewhere else. How can we be forced to question the validity of every law before we decide that it is a valid law & follow it?


Basically it told cities/counties/townships/etc that if they want to pass a law (or keep a law previously passed) that is overriden by state or federal law then go ahead since it is now incumbent on the citizen to somehow figure out if the law is valid or not & they won't be held accountable for the effects of that action.

ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, and the court did NOT say that, they said their ord. did not conflict with indiana's preemption law. If they enacted the ord. after the preemption law, they would clearly be in violation. Hammond is under no legal obligation to change their law.

 

[Destro]

What about states with preemptions on the NFA? When those were past there were lots of cheers and atta boys. (i doubt anybody wants to be the test case on that). That law is obviously in conflict however I don't see the firearms community up and arms about that?

 

[finity]

can you cite the example of someone being harmed by this, or is it just a hypothetical?

Define "harmed".

If you mean physically harmed then that was the point that I was making in my post.

If you mean "legally" harmed then, yes, every single person who reads the law in the Hammond code book & doesn't know that it is preempted by state law is "harmed" by that law. That is no hypothetical. It is a fact.

 

[finity]

What about states with preemptions on the NFA? When those were past there were lots of cheers and atta boys. (i doubt anybody wants to be the test case on that). That law is obviously in conflict however I don't see the firearms community up and arms about that?

The "preemptions on the NFA" passed by states specifically deal with firearms that don't relate to interstate commerce, hence the federal government NEVER had the authority to regulate those arms in the first place. It was simply the states clarifying their authority to regulate commerce within their own state's boundaries.

That is a completely different scenario.

 

[finity]

ignorance of the law is not a valid defense

This is not an "ignorance of the law as a defense" case. It is a "I'm being regulated by a law that shouldn't be on the books by virtue of the fact that I didn't know I didn't have to follow it" case.

and the court did NOT say that, they said their ord. did not conflict with indiana's preemption law.

True, but that, IMHO, is not what they should have ruled on. The suit stated that because the law was still on the books & gave the intentionally misleading impression that it is still valid then EVERYONE is "adversely affected" by the law whether it is void or not.


Right case, wrong decision.

And back to my previous point, following the law in this case that was void but someone doesn't know is void has the VERY REAL possibility of ACTUAL injury, not just the legal kind by being forced to be unarmed when there was no real reason to be.

 

[Destro]

That is a completely different scenario.

Montana - someone could read the law and believe that it is, in fact the law as it relates to NFA items within its borders, even though it is not the case.

Hammond - someone could read the ord. and believe that it is, in fact the law as it relates to the possession of firearms on city property, even though it is not the case.

 

[Destro]

This is not an "ignorance of the law as a defense" case. It is a "I'm being regulated by a law that shouldn't be on the books by virtue of the fact that I didn't know I didn't have to follow it" case.




True, but that, IMHO, is not what they should have ruled on. The suit stated that because the law was still on the books & gave the intentionally misleading impression that it is still valid then EVERYONE is "adversely affected" by the law whether it is void or not.


Right case, wrong decision.

And back to my previous point, following the law in this case that was void but someone doesn't know is void has the VERY REAL possibility of ACTUAL injury, not just the legal kind by being forced to be unarmed when there was no real reason to be.

So because somebody fails to understand gun laws, it's the .gov fault? Hammond has no legal obligation to change the ord. under indiana law. Yes for practical reasons they should take it off the books. Relford is just an ambulance chaser who thinks he's gonna get a payout from his fake victims

 

[finity]

OK. let's assume those situations are similar, as you say.

The similarity then continues in that people are fighting the idea that a political entity is overreaching it's authority to regulate in an area it shouldn't.

Either way, there is no hypocrisy in giving kudo's to Montana & jeers to Hammond and/or the decision of the court.