HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Bill of Rights]

ok thanks bill!! i feel this will be an important issue to look into because we could all be in danger of commiting felonies unknowingly if like you said, a school bus pulls into mcdonalds while we are there and carrying. i hope this isnt the case, it would suck

None of that is changed as a result of any bill this year. We have a tough road ahead if we're going to be able to remove the school exemption as Utah did ten years ago without any problems since. If we can lose that, we'll be down to only two demerits from the Brady Bunch.
If INGO is any yardstick, fighting for OC without LTCH is going to be an even harder battle, to say nothing of Alaska-style carry.

With guys like Jim Tomes in the Senate, though, I think we may have a chance of doing it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JBusch8899]

does this mean if you work at a job where children take field trips to that the employer has a right to not let you keep a gun in your car? for example conner prairie? could they prevent their employees from keeping guns in their cars due to school funtions being held their?

IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.

Nothing within the statute indicates that the school must have exclusive use of any property. So to answer your question by the strict text of the law: Yes.

 

[Bill of Rights]

IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.

Nothing within the statute indicates that the school must have exclusive use of any property. So to answer your question by the strict text of the law: Yes.

You're right, there is nothing in the statute, however, I believe it is in case law that this has been determined. LEOs or attorneys, if anyone knows for sure and can give a reference (or at least where/how to look up such a case), I would appreciate it.

It simply does not make sense that someone could be charged, let alone convicted of an offense s/he had no way to avoid committing. To avoid all places that any school student might possibly be while engaged in some school-purpose activity is impossible, as the McDonald's example shows... not to say that the law must always make sense.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsgolfman]

The mcdonalds is not being used by the school for a school function.

 

[dburkhead]

The mcdonalds is not being used by the school for a school function.

It is if they're stopping there for lunch on the way to/from a field trip.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The mcdonalds is not being used by the school for a school function.

It is if they're stopping there for lunch on the way to/from a field trip.

Especially if they do so in a school bus and the students and teachers/chaparones all get out of the bus and come in together.

Or at least it could be so claimed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function;

I would remain armed since the McDonalds is not being used by a school nor is their mere attendance a school function. Same with a field trip to a zoo, museum, etc.

I'll be that test case.

 

[dukeboy_318]

That would only apply if McDonalds had been rented by the School, just stopping there to eat after a field trip does not make Mcdonalds part of the school function. If that was the case, an arguement could be made that anywhere students go is considered school property. Id remain armed, not a dang thing legally can be said about it

 

[Roadie]

I would remain armed since the McDonalds is not being used by a school nor is their mere attendance a school function. Same with a field trip to a zoo, museum, etc.

I'll be that test case.

Actually, could this not be construed as two different situations?

If a school puts out permission slips for the Museum for a field trip, then the Museum is the documented destination for a "school function" and could in theory be used against a gun owner.

If they just randomly stop at a fast food joint on the way home, then I would think it would not be seen as being used for a school function, as it was a random stop on the way home, and i would think the gun owner would have more of a leg to stand on legally.

IANAL, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Select last nite

 

[LPMan59]

Actually, could this not be construed as two different situations?

If a school puts out permission slips for the Museum for a field trip, then the Museum is the documented destination for a "school function" and could in theory be used against a gun owner.

IANAL, but to me it seems the museum would have to have something posted at the entrance in order for this to occur (ie WARNING: School field trip in progress. Firearms are not permitted). i certainly dont have ESP when it comes to knowing when the school trips are and i wouldnt think i could be arrested for not being psychic.

 

[Eddie]

You're right, there is nothing in the statute, however, I believe it is in case law that this has been determined. LEOs or attorneys, if anyone knows for sure and can give a reference (or at least where/how to look up such a case), I would appreciate it.

It simply does not make sense that someone could be charged, let alone convicted of an offense s/he had no way to avoid committing. To avoid all places that any school student might possibly be while engaged in some school-purpose activity is impossible, as the McDonald's example shows... not to say that the law must always make sense.

Blessings,
Bill

Did a search of case law looking for cases with I.C. 35-47-9-2 in the text. Only four came up and none of them dealt with school buses stopping somewhere where a person was otherwise legally carrying. Unless another code section defines what "property being used by a school for a school function" means then the words are given their plain meaning. In other words the statute says what it says and it is open to argument until an appellate court rules on it or the legislature makes a definition.

 

[miguel]

If INGO is any yardstick, fighting for OC without LTCH is going to be an even harder battle, to say nothing of Alaska-style carry.

What is "Alaska-style carry"?

 

[Roadie]

IANAL, but to me it seems the museum would have to have something posted at the entrance in order for this to occur (ie WARNING: School field trip in progress. Firearms are not permitted). i certainly dont have ESP when it comes to knowing when the school trips are and i wouldnt think i could be arrested for not being psychic.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. However, living in a State that confiscates legal handguns during traffic stops, and detains LTCH holders, sometimes prone on the ground, JUST for OCing, I have no problem seeing a gun owner getting screwed over for carrying in a public building, when a school trip was in progress.

 

[E5RANGER375]

the zoo wont even let off duty police carry guns. their security is retarded anyways though. just keep em covered up and they will never know.

 

[Roadie]

What is "Alaska-style carry"?

I am assuming that reference is regarding the fact that in Alaska you don't have to have a License or Permit to carry a gun.

 

[mk2ja]

I am assuming that reference is regarding the fact that in Alaska you don't have to have a License or Permit to carry a gun.

I interpreted it one step further than that. Since Vermont also doesn't require a permit to carry (either concealed or open - both OK), I thought the reference to Alaska would also reflect that a permit may be issued because Alaska will issue a permit for the benefit of reciprocity in other states while Vermont has no department or office that issues any kind of carry permit.

Probably doesn't really matter, and may not have been what he meant when he called it "Alaska style", but those were the thoughts that went through my mind when I first read it in this thread.

 

[LPMan59]

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. However, living in a State that confiscates legal handguns during traffic stops, and detains LTCH holders, sometimes prone on the ground, JUST for OCing, I have no problem seeing a gun owner getting screwed over for carrying in a public building, when a school trip was in progress.

sad but true.

 

[Roadie]

I interpreted it one step further than that. Since Vermont also doesn't require a permit to carry (either concealed or open - both OK), I thought the reference to Alaska would also reflect that a permit may be issued because Alaska will issue a permit for the benefit of reciprocity in other states while Vermont has no department or office that issues any kind of carry permit.

Probably doesn't really matter, and may not have been what he meant when he called it "Alaska style", but those were the thoughts that went through my mind when I first read it in this thread.

I could be wrong, that is what I get for ASSuming

 

[Bill of Rights]

What is "Alaska-style carry"?

Alaska issues a CCW permit (or whatever they call the equivalent of our LTCH), but they do not require it. Anyone who may lawfully possess a firearm may carry it, openly or concealed. The permit is for reciprocity with other states and nothing more.

Blessings,
Bill

ETA: Yeah, what they said. Teach me to answer without reading the rest of the thread. Thanks for having my back, guys!

 

[Fargo]

Did a search of case law looking for cases with I.C. 35-47-9-2 in the text. Only four came up and none of them dealt with school buses stopping somewhere where a person was otherwise legally carrying. Unless another code section defines what "property being used by a school for a school function" means then the words are given their plain meaning. In other words the statute says what it says and it is open to argument until an appellate court rules on it or the legislature makes a definition.

I've done a few searches as well and the closest I could come is to some analogous language in drug manufacturing/dealings statutes which was defined by the courts. Those cases give a very expansive definition of school/used by a school.

However, I would argue that that definition is not proper to the handgun permit statute since the drug violations are considered evil in themselves (malum in se) rather than a constitutionally protected right like the right to keep/bear arms.

That said, unless you are causing trouble or run across a real @$$ of a cop+prosecuting attorney, the issue of a school bus pulling up isn't going to come up. Generally, the cops/prosecutor have better things to do than fight losing battles against people who are not causing trouble.*


Best,

Joe

*This however does not really apply to Lake, Allen, or Marion counties. They have and will do this crap from time to time.