Indiana Historic Sites Carry Ban

[eldirector]

Thanks for posting the response. Looks like it is time to forward this to our State reps, especially Senator Tomes (if you are in that district), for comment. I find it unsettling that a State division can simply "adopt" a policy without updating the Administrative Code or IC.

 

[jeremy]

I think when I talk to my Attorney next week I'll ask him what he thinks of this...

 

[SmileDocHill]

I received a reply to my inquiry to the DNR.

--------

Mr. Weyand:
Thank you for visiting T.C. Steele State Historic Site and for your question concerning the weapons policy there. Your inquiry to the DNR has been forwarded to me. On July 1, 2011, the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Division of the DNR became the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation (ISMHS), a "public body corporate and politic"--a separate instrumentality of the state (IC4-37-2-2). The historic site properties are still owned by the State of Indiana, but now managed by the new corporation. Rules directly relating to the former division and specifically referencing the Museum and Historic Sites division, such as 312 IAC 24, were transferred, along with all references in Indiana Code (IC) or Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) but again only if they specifically referenced the Museum and Historic Sites division, such as 312 IAC 9-2-11.

The Indiana State Museum building in Indianapolis is owned by the State of Indiana through the Indiana Department of Administration (IDOA) and the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA). They have significant oversight, along with ISMHS, into the management and security of the building. The eleven State Historic Sites are managed by the ISMHS in their entirety.

In 2006, the IDOA adopted the weapons policy to which you referred. Because of its oversight by IDOA/IFA the museum was considered part of the Indiana Government Center for security purposes and so fell under this policy. With the changeover to the ISMHS this policy was determined to be an appropriate way to deal with the weapons issue for all the property managed by the ISMHS, including the historic sites. This means one IDOA policy for all properties within the ISMHS.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again for your inquiry and your recent visit.

Bruce Beesley
Vice President for State Historic Sites
Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites

Rich, what was the actual wording on your inquiry? It might help to know what actual question he he had in mind when figuring out his answer.

 

[rich weyand]

Rich, what was the actual wording on your inquiry? It might help to know what actual question he he had in mind when figuring out his answer.

I sent the inquiry through the DNR on-line "Contact Us" widget on their website, not through my email server, so I don't have the actual inquiry. I did not know about the ISMHS Corporation yet (last Friday), so it was along the lines of:

I visited the T. C. Steele Historic Site today, and I saw a sign saying "No Weapons Allowed" or words to that effect. The roadside sign says this is a DNR property, and I thought 312 IAC 8-2-3 (a)(4) would apply. On what grounds is there no carry at the T. C. Steele Historic Site, or is this sign incorrect?

 

[indykid]

Funny, Indiana mandates we pay for a license to carry, then tells us we can't on certain Indiana sites. They trust us in some areas but not others?

 

[rich weyand]

My response to Mr. Beesley:

-------

Mr. Beesley:

Thank you for your response to my inquiry.

Of course, you realize that law-abiding citizens with License To Carry Handgun (LTCH) are no danger to your staff or visitors, and armed miscreants do not care about your rules or signs one bit. Efforts to create "gun-free" zones by people of good intent but with little understanding instead create "free-fire" zones, where criminals know the law-abiding will be disarmed and defenseless. This is why all but one of the multiple-victim mass shootings of the past 20 years have been carried out in such "gun-free" zones, including the Aurora theater shooting just last month. Criminals prefer to go where they know their victims will be unarmed.

I will see what I can do to get this rule overturned, so that you and your staff and visitors need no longer be subjected to the increased danger from criminal elements that results from such rules.

Thank you again for your response.

Rich Weyand

 

[jedi]

OP he and his staff even if you get the rule overturn will im sure still be under employee only rules.
Moreover he have no idea what stance that guy has. He was merely answering your questioned based on the policies of his employer. So you might have gone too hard on him.

The big question is is these sites legal yo carry n we can ignore the signs as just policy?

 

[rich weyand]

I didn't go hard on him. I don't think so anyway. I started out "Of course, you realize", giving him the benefit of the doubt. And I said I would try to get the rule changed for his own increased safety and that of his staff and visitors. As a favor. Just helpin' out, you know.

 

[rich weyand]

I just sent Mr. Beesley the following message.

--------

Mr. Beesley:

IC 35-47-11.1, as amended by SB 292 in May of last year, preempts firearm regulation by any political subdivision of the State of Indiana, including governmental corporate entities.

Please review ISMHS compliance with this statute in the context of handgun carry by an LTCH holder within the state historic sites.

Rich Weyand

 

[indybuell]

Any further response to the IC 35-47-11.1 reference? It would seem to me that their policy is against the aforementioned Indiana state law.

 

[cosermann]

I can't help but suspect the historical sites were spun off from the DNR specifically for the purpose of getting around the firearm carry rule changes.

 

[eldirector]

I doubt firearms are THAT important to them. More likely a funding issue. Follow the $$$$....

 

[Indy317]

I can't help but suspect the historical sites were spun off from the DNR specifically for the purpose of getting around the firearm carry rule changes.

It's ridiculous. So while they somewhat cleared up the issue of crossing county lines, park boundaries, etc. with recent legislation, they still have a bit of Swiss cheese effect going on, though much better than before. It is as bad as telling people they can carry in national parks, just can't carry into any of the visitor centers and the like.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Put it in yer pocket. Don't flash it.

 

[eldirector]

Put it in yer pocket. Don't flash it.

That still doesn't address the legality of carrying a handgun on this property, or the legality of them BANNING the carry.

 

[rich weyand]

Any further response to the IC 35-47-11.1 reference? It would seem to me that their policy is against the aforementioned Indiana state law.

I got no response of any kind from Mr. Beesley from my follow-up emails and questions. However, last week I spoke to State Senator Jim Banks, who was visiting Bloomington. He's an alum, and it was homecoming weekend. I emailed him Mr. Beesley's email after our conversation. He emailed me back that he thinks that I'm right, that they are "twisting the state law", and he has reached out to the Indiana Attorney General's office to see what he needs to do to request an official opinion. He will keep me informed, and I in turn will keep you all informed.

BTW, Jim Banks is working on a campus carry bill that would remove universities' (I assume just state universities) administrative authority to ban guns on campus. Currently, students can be expelled, and staff and faculty terminated, for violating such administrative rules. I also learned that ordinary citizens over whom the university has no administrative authority can apparently already carry on campus.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Hi:

I searched the forums for this and didn't find anything, so please excuse me if this has been covered.

I visited the T.C. Steele Historic Site twice this week (we had a couple of sets of visitors this week), and I noticed a sign on the office wall (where you sign up for tours) saying "Absolutely No Weapons Allowed" or something like that, with the state seal and "State of Indiana" below it.

The sign by the road where you enter the property says "Department of Natural Resources", so I figured 312 IAC 8-2-3(a)(4) (carry handgun on DNR properties with LTCH or other state CCW) would apply. I asked about the sign, and the fellow said he would ask his boss about it.

When we went back a couple days later, the same fellow told me his boss said that the historic sites aren't under DNR any more, they are now under something called the "Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation", and that they could ban weapons at the historic sites.

I looked up the ISMHS, and found the enabling legislation, and found this:
IC 4-37-2-8
Transfer of rules; references
Sec. 8. (a) After June 30, 2011, rules that concern the division of
state museums and historic sites that were adopted by the natural
resources commission shall be treated as rules applying to the
corporation.
(b) After June 30, 2011, a reference to the department of natural
resources in a statute or rule concerning the division of state
museums and historic sites shall be treated as a reference to the
corporation.

I found no references to firearms in the ISMHS legislation that would provide authorization for a carry ban. So it looks to me like the DNR rules transfer to the ISMHS, and 312 IAC 8-2-3(a)(4) should still apply, and this ban is ultra vires.

I wrote an email to DNR asking abuot it. I also wrote an email to Mitch Daniels asking about it. I also asked State Rep. Matt Ubelhor to look into it. No answers yet from anybody, but all this just happened in the last couple days.

Anyone have any insight into this?

Rich

All just part of privatising taxpay owned property and services.

 

[BravoMike]

I got no response of any kind from Mr. Beesley from my follow-up emails and questions. However, last week I spoke to State Senator Jim Banks, who was visiting Bloomington. He's an alum, and it was homecoming weekend. I emailed him Mr. Beesley's email after our conversation. He emailed me back that he thinks that I'm right, that they are "twisting the state law", and he has reached out to the Indiana Attorney General's office to see what he needs to do to request an official opinion. He will keep me informed, and I in turn will keep you all informed.

BTW, Jim Banks is working on a campus carry bill that would remove universities' (I assume just state universities) administrative authority to ban guns on campus. Currently, students can be expelled, and staff and faculty terminated, for violating such administrative rules. I also learned that ordinary citizens over whom the university has no administrative authority can apparently already carry on campus.

Thanks for keeping us updated.

Since he is pro-shool carry is there any chance you can ask Senator Banks if we could work on changing IC 35-47-9-1
to read as follows; (I plan on sending out an email myself to gauge if there is any interest in getting this passed.)

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who has a valid License to carry a handgun.
[STRIKE](A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.[/STRIKE]
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.
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.

 

[rich weyand]

Thanks for keeping us updated.

Since he is pro-shool carry is there any chance you can ask Senator Banks if we could work on changing IC 35-47-9-1
to read as follows; (I plan on sending out an email myself to gauge if there is any interest in getting this passed.)

I don't think he is "pro-school carry", but pro campus carry. The catch being that university students and professors are, by and large, adults; that is, they have reached the age of majority (18). That makes it much easier politically to tackle campus carry.

 

[jeremy]

First, thanks rich!

Second, baby steps guys, baby steps. Get them to add StateColleges and Universities to the list of places that cannot restrict carry. Then we can move against the next obstacle in Our quest for unrestricted carry....