Jeffersonville successfully bans weapons in city for 1 day.

[Harleyrider_50]

Funny thing about today. I carried my gun concealed today in Jeffersonville. The weirdest thing happened after I put it in my holster...it stayed there all day. It didn't magically grow wings and fly out and shoot anyone! I had a great day with my wife and kids and ruined nobody else's. Simply a miracle, I tell ya. I thought all the libs said that it would absolutely endanger everyone there.

......Amaze'n......ain't it?........yeah......mines stay'd in it holster out'n public fer.....?........dang near 35 yrs now......

 

[Djangotarantino]

Just a miracle, I tell ya'!

 

[Djangotarantino]

Here's a picture of the sign on PUBLIC property in Louisville.

http://m.wave3.com/#!/newsDetail/25227341?orgId=31

 

[David D]

I was casually floating between Clarksville and Jeffersonville amongst the crowds (including children) for 11 hrs today, and both of the guns I carried were boring all day. I didn't wave them around to show my buddy my new n82 tactical holster, nor did I feel the uncontrollable urge to go looking for a fight. All in all, a beautiful day with my friends and family.

 

[Destro]

Destro, like the Hammond Justice on the ICA panel, wants the second sentence of IC 35-47-11.1-6(1)(C) to just go away or better yet, to never have been there in the first place. Problem is, all the judicial wishing in the world is not going to make that sentence go away.

But nobody was subject to anything! Local regulations are void and nobody enforced invalid regulations.

 

[Destro]

If a sign or an ordinance keeps anyone from exercising a right for even a day I would say that it has caused harm.

I believe if one is going to engage in an activity that is subject to some type of regulation, it is the duty of said person to be aware of the laws that surround the activity.

 

[darinb]

How can they ban anything without legislating it? Seems like a politally charged unexforceable statement to make the sheeple happy to me. Its amazing how people think a rule or something someone in authority says is against the "law". I had a reserve LEO tell me that its illegal to carry in theatres after asking why and where that law is he said "they all have signs saying saying it is". Correct me if Im wrong but isnt only airports and schools illegal to carry?

 

[cobber]

I believe if one is going to engage in an activity that is subject to some type of regulation, it is the duty of said person to be aware of the laws that surround the activity.

And if they're not, the State can walk all over them? So no Miranda advisement. No Pirtle warning. No warrant requirement. Unless the citizen asks? Very convenient for the State, wonder why they didn't think of that before! (Oh that's right, King George III did... how'd that turn out again?)

Here's a picture of the sign on PUBLIC property in Louisville.

http://m.wave3.com/#!/newsDetail/25227341?orgId=31

A sign at the entrance gate to the Great Lawn restricts concealed weapons, but it won't be enforced for those who are legally able to have them. Louisville Metro police said they weren't the ones who placed it there. Thunder Over Louisville organizers said they didn't either, but they hope people will comply.

So who placed it there, exactly, and why wasn't it removed? What if someone placed a "no blacks allowed" sign? The authorities would simply profess ignorance, wring their hands and move on?

 

[level0]

How can they ban anything without legislating it? Seems like a politally charged unexforceable statement to make the sheeple happy to me. Its amazing how people think a rule or something someone in authority says is against the "law". I had a reserve LEO tell me that its illegal to carry in theatres after asking why and where that law is he said "they all have signs saying saying it is". Correct me if Im wrong but isnt only airports and schools illegal to carry?

There are other places where it is illegal to carry - riverboat casinos for example. Here is some reading on the subject: http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

In the interest of accuracy, a person with the express permission of the local school board can carry in a school.

It is not illegal to carry at the movie theatre.

 

[Destro]

Destro stated that a court is within its "rights" to not follow the law. How so? Aside from the fact that courts don't have rights to begin with...

The Indiana Supreme Court decided 5-0 to not take on the case, The ISC has the option (since you have a problem with the word right) to refuse to transfer jurstiction on a case, which they did in this case, which is well within established law. If you believe I am in error, can you please explain how?

 

[cobber]

The Indiana Supreme Court decided 5-0 to not take on the case, The ISC has the option (since you have a problem with the word right) to refuse to transfer jurstiction on a case, which they did in this case, which is well within established law. If you believe I am in error, can you please explain how?

When a jury doesn't follow the law, we call it nullification and jump up and down. When a court doesn't, or makes its own law, we think that's fine? Okay...

And courts don't have "rights". Citizens qua citizens have rights.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse for the State, either.

 

[Destro]

And if they're not, the State can walk all over them? So no Miranda advisement. No Pirtle warning. No warrant requirement. Unless the citizen asks? Very convenient for the State, wonder why they didn't think of that before! (Oh that's right, King George III did... how'd that turn out again?)

There is no law or regulation that requires political subdivisions to change their regulations and signage.

 

[Destro]

Are you are talking about the Indiana Supreme Court?

yes

 

[cobber]

I believe if one is going to engage in an activity that is subject to some type of regulation, it is the duty of said person to be aware of the laws that surround the activity.

There is no law or regulation that requires political subdivisions to change their regulations and signage.

With respect to your broader statement, it is not my duty to know the Constitution. It is the duty of the State not to violate it.

With respect to your second statement, yes they do, regardless of what the courts have opined. By leaving (as you put it) "void" laws on the books, they intimidate citizens from the free exercise of their Second Amendment rights. Not all citizens are warriors, or have great Google Fu. But the State is well-situated to know the law and stop misinterpreting it on TV and in print.

Whether the courts got this one right or not... what's your take on Plessy v. Ferguson? Did the courts get it wrong? (I don't care if they later changed it; simply put, courts interpret the laws, but they don't make this or that action 'constitutional' per se.) Unlike the Pope, the lesser lords in black dresses are not infallible.

 

[level0]

I don't get all the hubbub about signage. I think it's garbage that government entities can post any signage they wish, however they can - get out and vote if you don't like it, make calls, emails, letters. It's our responsibility as citizens to know applicable laws. And, the gun preemption that we are mostly focused on is a relatively new law. It cost money to replace signs, who wants to foot the bill? Step right up.

Regarding why we aren't seeing "No Women Voters" or "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" signage - convince a town to put one up and you'll see why. And with good reason. The political climate, relative to guns, isn't the same.

I think it all sucks AND blows, but it's where we are. Just familiarize yourselves with the laws that pertain to you or interest you. I'm familiar with Indiana gun law, driving laws, homeowner and property laws. I'm not familiar with in ground gasoline storage laws, C-Corp tax law, nor air pollution laws. But for all those I know and don't know, I know how to do the research and find answers. For gun law, INGO is a great resource.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the authorities and courts should know the law, follow it, and hold those who don't accountable.

Speaking of which, BTW, Destro stated that a court is within its "rights" to not follow the law. How so? Aside from the fact that courts don't have rights to begin with...

I think there is some confusion on the whole signage issue. Let's assume for this paragraph the authorities and courts do know the law with regard to signage - and the law is, as I understand it, that local governments can post whatever signs they wish. Let's pretend there is a "No Jumping" sign. So there is a no jumping sign, but I know the law and there is not a jumping restriction, so I am going to jump to my heart's content. Johnny Law shouldn't hassle me about it, but if they do to any extent then that is actionable on my part.

Again, personally, I think it's pure garbage that the gov can post any signs they wish, regardless of the veracity of the verbiage. My opinion is signs of that nature should be truthful and accurate. I'm going to email my local congressman and tell him about this particular law and my feelings on it. If I get bothered enough by it, I'll express my opinion with my vote and more emails to more folks.

In the end it is my responsibility to know the law.

 

[cobber]

In the end it is my responsibility to know the law.

In the end it is the State's duty to know the law, and not intimidate law-abiding citizens. The Bundys knew the law in Nevada. That only got them so far...

 

[Destro]

When a jury doesn't follow the law, we call it nullification and jump up and down. When a court doesn't, or makes its own law, we think that's fine? Okay...

And courts don't have "rights". Citizens qua citizens have rights.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse for the State, either.

So let’s look back at the merits of the case:
Point 1.
The court asked who the “adversely affected” person was, and the theory was that the Hammond ordnance, by virtue of being in place, was adversely affecting people. The plaintiff’s themselves were obviously not adversely affected because they were well aware of the law, so they were suing based on what “could” or “might” happen, and not that something actually happened. The court decided that, since nobody could be identified as adversely affected, nobody had been adversely affected.
Point 2.
The court asked for, and did not received any type of evidence, reasoning, etc. regarding the legislative intent of the law as it relates to the law surrounding local regulations. The court, I believe, correctly decided that it was not the intent of the state legislature to require repeal of local regulations and replacement/removal of signage. If that was the intent, it could have easily been written into IC.
To be clear, im a supporter of constitutional carry, and oppose all regulations on firearms as they are an infringement of our second amendment. But every time the courts make a decision regarding firearms it sets a precedent. Even D.C. vs Heller has been used to trample our rights. Real change starts with our family, friends, and society vis a vis legislative action, I fear doing it piecemeal in the courtroom is going to have unintended consequences. Regardless of how STUPID it is to keep the law on the books and signs up

 

[cobber]

So let’s look back at the merits of the case:
Point 1.
The court asked who the “adversely affected” person was, and the theory was that the Hammond ordnance, by virtue of being in place, was adversely affecting people. The plaintiff’s themselves were obviously not adversely affected because they were well aware of the law, so they were suing based on what “could” or “might” happen, and not that something actually happened. The court decided that, since nobody could be identified as adversely affected, nobody had been adversely affected.
Point 2.
The court asked for, and did not received any type of evidence, reasoning, etc. regarding the legislative intent of the law as it relates to the law surrounding local regulations. The court, I believe, correctly decided that it was not the intent of the state legislature to require repeal of local regulations and replacement/removal of signage. If that was the intent, it could have easily been written into IC.
To be clear, im a supporter of constitutional carry, and oppose all regulations on firearms as they are an infringement of our second amendment. But every time the courts make a decision regarding firearms it sets a precedent. Even D.C. vs Heller has been used to trample our rights. Real change starts with our family, friends, and society vis a vis legislative action, I fear doing it piecemeal in the courtroom is going to have unintended consequences. Regardless of how STUPID it is to keep the law on the books and signs up

Again, where a constitutional right is concerned, the courts need to be particularly sensitive to the effect a law can have on deterring citizens from the exercise of a right. If the law is on the books, it can be enforced and you could be convicted. Theoretically a court should strike down the original suit, or do so on appeal. But in the meantime, you are required to defend yourself.

Maybe it doesn't happen, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief and thank our Masters the State for not trying to enforce an illegal law. But I find it the height of arrogance that ALL municipalities in Indiana do not purge their firearm ordinance NOW. To me it shows intent to prosecute some PDB in the future. Otherwise they don't need it there any more.

What unintended consequences are you concerned about, when a citizen takes a duly-enacted law to the courts to force the State out of an area it no longer has jurisdiction in? Do you think the legislature is going to repeal pre-emption when citizens sue local units as the law allows them? Or somehow the Moms Demand Action are going to twist this in some way and get the Legislature to enact registration?

Again, a law that is "void" and remains on the books serves no other purpose than to confound and intimidate the citizenry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I believe if one is going to engage in an activity that is subject to some type of regulation, it is the duty of said person to be aware of the laws that surround the activity.

That said person might assume the city/county/state would not put up signs that claim laws and rules that do not exists. Is it unreasonable to think if my city started posting up ordinances around town that they might actually be real? Or should it just be assumed they are lying and I should see what the state has to say about it?

 

[actaeon277]

So I guess if a sign was put up that said, "No women allowed", at a polling place, everything would be ok. As long as it wasn't enforced.
The fact that some women turned away, well, shame on them for not knowing the law.