IC Prohibits the Possession of Handguns on Penal Facility Property

[MickeyBlueEyes]

I looked it up in IC 35-41:
Chapter 7. Possession of Firearms on Certain Property
Sec. 1. This chapter applies only to possession of a firearm by an individual who may legally possess a firearm.
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce a policy or rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an individual from possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in or on the person's property.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an individual who possesses a firearm:
(1) on school property or on a school bus in violation of IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home; or
(E) an emergency shelter care group home;
in violation of 470 IAC 3-11-80, 470 IAC 3-12-79, 470 IAC 3-13-80, 470 IAC 3-14-78, or 470 IAC 3-15-77;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-41-1-21);
(4) on the property of an oil refinery; or
(5) in violation of federal law.

My point to starting this thread is that several CO's and I have discussed at length, the states culpability for any negative action caused against us when leaving work or on the way home from work in our uniforms. Seeing as there are several former Inmates living in society and how society deems it that only law abiding citizens only, are able to purchase weapons for use in a perfect, law abiding world. Why should people that have targets on their shoulders, with the state DOC patch, have to be stripped of their rights to keep a weapon in a locked vehicle because it's on a penal facility parking lot?

I'm not drumming for Pity, just trying to figure out if there is a better way, like the state constructing off facility gun storage for all of the C.O.'s so they can be better protected on the way home.

 

[BravoMike]

IMO, I don't think that any of those places on that list should be there. I agree with you, but other than contacting your representatives, I don't know what other course of action there is.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe a group of you all park in the same place, off-site, and one guy carpools all of you from that site to the facility and back? That way you can all be armed on the way home, just not between the facility and the parking site.

And yes, the list of places is BS also. I get their reasoning, not wanting an escapee to steal both a car and a weapon (hey, it happens in the movies ALL the time! ) but we shouldn't be restricting the good people because of what the BGs might do.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[modelflyer2003]

The oil refinery line kind of got me. Do we even have an oil refinery in Indiana and what makes them so special that they can circumvent my 2nd Ammendment Rights?

 

[KLB]

The oil refinery line kind of got me. Do we even have an oil refinery in Indiana and what makes them so special that they can circumvent my 2nd Ammendment Rights?

Yep, in Lake County.

I was thinking the same thing. Why are they so special? Must have been campaign contributions.

 

[Htrailblazer]

Most of the places on the list are there so they can charge someone snooping around if they are carrying.

Think of this situation: A terrorist wants to blow up the oil refinery and starts watching it and checking for weak spots in security, (lets pretend its not illegal to carry on the property) he gets caught by police with a gun and they know he is up to no good but cant charge him with anything because he has all his papers (ltch). so with the law the way it is they can charge said terroist even though he has a ltch and can probably get more info out of him.

I am not saying I agree with it because it could be used against more good people just trying to protect themselves. I do kinda see the point though.

And I would not put it past a terroist to have a ltch valid or fake to show in such a stituation.

 

[Double T]

IC 35-41-1-7
Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.114-2012, SEC.95.)

I am confused?

it says it was repealed?

Edit:

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(1) in or on school property, in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function, or on a school bus in violation of IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9-2;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center;
in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(4) in violation of federal law;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(6) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(7) at a person's residence;


Basically, parking lot storage is a no go at a penal facility. No exemption.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

IC 35-41-1-7
Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.114-2012, SEC.95.)

I am confused?

it says it was repealed?

Basically, parking lot storage is a no go at a penal facility. No exemption.

That section was repealed and replaced by this one.
IC 35-31.5-2-232
"Penal facility"
Sec. 232. "Penal facility" means a state prison, correctional facility, county jail, penitentiary, house of correction, or any other facility for confinement of persons under sentence, or awaiting trial or sentence, for offenses. The term includes a correctional facility constructed under IC 4-13.5.
As added by P.L.114-2012, SEC.67.
It was supposed to make it easier to find definitions for the criminal code by putting them all in one place, rather than under different chapters.

And not necessarily a no go, it just allows them to make a rule that you can't. They can still allow parking lot storage, they just don't have to like the majority of employers. Same with colleges and a few others.