Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Clarksville, IN band weapons for a day!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    6

    Clarksville, IN band weapons for a day!

    Clarksville now bans weapons for a day. Jeffersonville bows out.

    http://m.newsandtribune.com/newsandt...tguid=sr45fby2

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Anybody in the area going to open carry for the event?

    I can send my lawyer's contact info, but won't be able to join you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Indiana Code Section 35-47-11.1 Specifically Prohibits a Unit of Government from Regulating Firearms, Ammunition for Firearms, Firearm Accessories, Firearm Components, and Firearm Supplies.

    There is NO Exception for The 'Thunder' Event.

    The Law is Clear, and Violations of This Law by a Unit of Government are Recoverable through Court Action for Damages, and other Relief.

  4. #4
    Regular Member ICBM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    McCordsville, IN
    Posts
    72

    Red face

    First post here.

    I read up on the law and found something contradictory.
    First is the law your referring to...

    "IC 35-47-11.1-2
    Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and
    firearm accessories prohibited
    Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political
    subdivision may not regulate:
    (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
    (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation,
    registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and
    firearm accessories; and
    (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition,
    and firearm accessories."

    Yet later its states...

    "IC 35-47-11.1-4
    Not prohibited by chapter
    Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the
    following...)
    (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.
    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."

    ... So it's legal if you have a permit, okay I get that. But isn't that statement redundant, since it isn't legal to carry without a permit? Or is it leaving the possibility to be charged with another crime IF they carry at an event without a permit?...

    Also, yes suing a "political subdivision" for violation of state law is even stated in the chapter, which is surprising.

    "IC 35-47-11.1-5
    Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations
    Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure,
    an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political
    subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court
    with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
    (1) declarative and injunctive relief; and
    (2) actual and consequential damages attributable to the
    violation."

    "IC 35-47-11.1-7
    Civil actions; recovery of damages, costs, and fees
    Sec. 7. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 5 of this
    chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the
    following:
    (1) The greater of the following:
    (A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
    (B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's
    attorney's fees.
    (2) Court costs (including fees).
    (3) Reasonable attorney's fees."

    So basically, if you sue and win you are legally entitled to ALL of these. "Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees" sounds like a nice vacation!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Yes, the part about having a license is redundant.

    Yes, there have been several individuals who have sued under 35-47-11.1 and things turned out well for at least one of them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •