Gura Beats Chicago Again!

[T.Lex]

Whoa, guys.

Couple different things going on.

First, to my reading, a significant part of why Chicago's gun ban is now unenforceable is that the permit to have guns requires time on a range. Indiana doesn't have that requirement, so the interest in access is diluted.

Second, local governments still have considerable discretion in how to do zoning. This case doesn't really address that.

Third, and this is more in the way of observation. There were something like 5 "private" gun ranges in Chicago, even though there was no codified exception for them. I think that didn't sit well with the court. I don't know that that is a problem anywhere in Indiana.

Oh, and to Kirk's point about red tape... years ago on NPR, I heard a left-leaning libertarian talking about some issue. He made the point that often, gridlock is better than action from the government. When there is some triggering event, and the politicians look for some law to pass, the lefty-guy's reaction is more like, "Don't just do something, stand there!"

(A play on the, "Don't just stand there, do something!" mentality.)

I tend to agree. Nowadays, gridlock is a good thing. Let 'em argue and filibuster and ultimately, just stand there.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm still waiting to hear more about this Bloomington Ban?

Is this the IU Union shooting range closing down 20 years ago (where I used to shoot, not a word about my age) transmorgified into a sweeping Bloomington shooting range ban???

 

[pirate]

This is great news. Hopefully they will continue the good fight.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm still waiting to hear more about this Bloomington Ban?

Is this the IU Union shooting range closing down 20 years ago (where I used to shoot, not a word about my age) transmorgified into a sweeping Bloomington shooting range ban???

Carmel and Kirk,
Why does it matter? Even if they did have such a ban in place, it's obviously gone now, under 292. Are there public ranges there currently of which you're (either of you) aware?

BTW, these are intended as honest questions- I'm pretty sure on the first and without knowledge on the second. Thanks for any info.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why does it matter?

1. Personal edification.

2. Professional curiousity (I like to track gun law myths and have quite a collection already).

3. As Director at Large of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association, this is the kind of thing that I should be aware of as it impacts the members I serve.

That's why.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Fair enough. Are there public ranges in B'ton area that you know of?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Fair enough. Are there public ranges in B'ton area that you know of?

No, but I have not shot in Bloomington since undergrad and when we shot it was in self-defense against cave bears, saber tooth tigers and giant sloths.

Short-faced bear outside Swain Hall in Bloomington:

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Short faced bear?
Guderian?
Do I smell single malt?

 

[T.Lex]

Is this the IU Union shooting range closing down 20 years ago (where I used to shoot, not a word about my age)....

Wha? It hasn't been closed THAT long!

I mean, I remember shooting those .22s there in 1990 or so...

Oh... wait... math strikes again...

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Fair enough. Are there public ranges in B'ton area that you know of?

Being in the Bloomington area I can confirm there are no known ranges around here. Techres would probably second me if he was near a computer today.

We have to go to Atterbury for the closest public range and Martinsville or Terre Haute for the closest private ranges.

 

[T.Lex]

Just now, I quickly skimmed the Bloomington planning/zoning ordinances. It really doesn't look like they have any zoning for gun ranges. That doesn't mean necessarily a prohibition, just it might require a variance.

Now, that just means that there is a huge kettle of issues about whether they can be forced to allow zoning. It would be an epic mess of litigation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just now, I quickly skimmed the Bloomington planning/zoning ordinances. It really doesn't look like they have any zoning for gun ranges. That doesn't mean necessarily a prohibition, just it might require a variance.

Now, that just means that there is a huge kettle of issues about whether they can be forced to allow zoning. It would be an epic mess of litigation.

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.
(7) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours a day.
(8) The imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1).
(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm.
(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the
promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.
(11) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23.
(12) A unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a building owned or administered by the unit if the person who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.

The red text above seems to answer that question, T. However, the blue sections have puzzled me since I first saw them. Which is it? Can they or can't they?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Well, yeah. It doesn't always make sense.

It seems to me that 292 says local units can't have pro-active measures that regulate gun businesses. But, that's not really how zoning works. Bloomington can accurately say that they have no provision of any ordinance that treats gun dealers any differently. But, they just don't have anything allowing it.

I don't think 292 can be read to require units to have zoning for gun ranges, or any other gun business.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, yeah. It doesn't always make sense.

It seems to me that 292 says local units can't have pro-active measures that regulate gun businesses. But, that's not really how zoning works. Bloomington can accurately say that they have no provision of any ordinance that treats gun dealers any differently. But, they just don't have anything allowing it.

I don't think 292 can be read to require units to have zoning for gun ranges, or any other gun business.

As I read it, it seemed to say that if you can have, say, a bicycle shop in a location, they cannot say that you can't have a gunsmith shop or FFL or range in that location. They can either allow businesses or not, but not specify, "no, you can't have a gun business here."

I'm still unclear on the latter stipulation in re: proximity to schools in #4 vs. #12. Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Thoughts?

Honestly? As laws go, it isn't very well written from a practical perspective. From a political perspective, it is very well written, because it can mean different things to different people.

My biggest problem with it is that there is so much CONTEXT around so many of those sub-issues, that it can't be read in a vacuum. But, to read it properly, you need to know a bunch about a whole bunch of other laws.

Ultimately, we won't know until it is tested.

As to the zoning thing, you are right that a bicycle shop and a gunsmith shop are basically interchangeable from a zoning perspective. But, not a gun range. And note, "use" of firearms isn't included, and is pretty much exempted from application of 292. Gun ranges are really just use of guns in a controlled environment. On a good day.

As to 4 and 12, that gets back to context. I'm pretty sure that 12 mirrors other language that was meant to protect gun stores under the AWB. I have no clue how to read 4 and 12 together though, unless the idea was to say the same thing in 2 different places, while making it look like there might be slightly different things being said. Then it makes complete sense.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thoughts?

Honestly? As laws go, it isn't very well written from a practical perspective. From a political perspective, it is very well written, because it can mean different things to different people.

My biggest problem with it is that there is so much CONTEXT around so many of those sub-issues, that it can't be read in a vacuum. But, to read it properly, you need to know a bunch about a whole bunch of other laws.

Ultimately, we won't know until it is tested.

As to the zoning thing, you are right that a bicycle shop and a gunsmith shop are basically interchangeable from a zoning perspective. But, not a gun range. And note, "use" of firearms isn't included, and is pretty much exempted from application of 292. Gun ranges are really just use of guns in a controlled environment. On a good day.

As to 4 and 12, that gets back to context. I'm pretty sure that 12 mirrors other language that was meant to protect gun stores under the AWB. I have no clue how to read 4 and 12 together though, unless the idea was to say the same thing in 2 different places, while making it look like there might be slightly different things being said. Then it makes complete sense.

The thing that has me confused is that 4 specifies that they cannot use P&Z powers to restrict by location and 12, in the same section, says they can.
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
...
(4) ...A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
...
(12) A unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
...

Very puzzling. The next question, of course, is what a court would do with this discrepancy.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Point and giggle.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Point and giggle.

Probably, but I meant when they had to consider and rule whether someone was right or wrong to attempt to enact such an ordinance or zoning policy.

 

[T.Lex]

heh heh I was talking about that, too.

Unfortunately, that will take an actual case to be decided, which will require someone to take the (expensive) risk of trying to get clearance for a gun range.

Zoning is a very complicated area of law by itself. Introduce the now-changing area of 2d AM law and it only gets worse.