South Bend, Indiana ordinance could ban guns on all city property

[ServiceSoon]

An ordinance banning guns on South Bend city property could be passed by the Common Council.

The ordinance would extend a firearms ban to all city property, regardless of state-issued gun permits.

The ordinance received a favorable recommendation in a committee meeting early Monday.

Under the proposed ordinance signs would be posted at buildings as well as at parks.

City leaders say the ban is needed for the protection of all city employees.

“This is really a safety issue for our employees who work in a variety of facilities where people might come in under duress or be angry about something. If they're carrying a firearm we feel that’s not safe for our employees,” said South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke.

As it's written now, violators would be fined 50 dollars for a first offense, and 250 for a second. However, Committee members talked about making those fines even steeper before giving it the okay.


Source:

What do you think?

Note: I see this getting moved to Activism, but wanted the opportunity to network in the general forum first.

 

[George C Morrison]

It's sad.It seems city leaders learn nothing from recent events.Yesterday Seattle, today South Bend.
Will they ever understand GFZ's just create more victims?

 

[SJG26]

Buildings/Property - Trouble

http://www.opencarry.org/

Preemption Complete state preemption of firearms law except localities may regulate the carrying of firearms in land, buildings, or other real property they own or administer.

NOTE: Almost all states allow local regulation of the discharge of firearms

 

[11c2v]

Steve Luecke is an idiot. If something were to happen on city property because a fruitcake knows the people are defenseless, does anyone think he would stand up and accept any responsibility? Nope. He would just point out how smart he was foreseeing the inherit violence in firearms. MORON

 

[Match14]

South Bend also restrictions on "Assault Weapons" too. I could never seem to find these on the Indiana State Police website, but they are on the BATF website here.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/26thedition/indiana.pdf

 

[damien]

Brady's site says Indiana has preemption on local laws except laws that were already passed by a certain date. This would be a new law and would be illegal. The mayor is buying himself a shiny new lawsuit.

 

[Standing Wolf]

“This is really a safety issue for our employees who work in a variety of facilities where people might come in under duress or be angry about something. If they're carrying a firearm we feel that’s not safe for our employees,” said South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke.

The fact that some people might be angry means law-abiding citizens need to be disarmed?

Mao might have understood, but I sure don't.

 

[El Tejon]

South Bend also restrictions on "Assault Weapons" too. I could never seem to find these on the Indiana State Police website, but they are on the BATF website here.

No, they do not. Match, the South Bend ordinance is void via state preemption.

 

[starshooter231]

Well that sucks. I am glad in Michigan the state has complete preemtion when it comes to firearms laws.

 

[ServiceSoon]

IC 35-47-11
Chapter 11. Local Regulation of Firearms

IC 35-47-11-1
Applicability of chapter
Sec. 1. (a) Section 2 of this chapter applies to all units (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23). All other sections of this chapter apply to all units other than townships.
(b) This chapter applies only if a statute expressly grants a legislative body the authority to adopt an emergency ordinance under this chapter.
(c) This chapter does not affect the validity of an ordinance adopted before, and in effect on, January 1, 1994.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.13.

IC 35-47-11-2
Regulation of firearms by units other than townships
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding IC 36-1-3, a unit may not regulate in any manner the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5) or ammunition except as follows:
(1) This chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit, except highways (as defined in IC 8-23-1-23) or public highways (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-14).
(2) Notwithstanding the limitation in this section, a unit may use the unit's planning 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.
(3) Notwithstanding the limitation in this section, a legislative body of a unit other than a township may adopt an emergency ordinance or a unit other than a township may take other action allowed under section 6 of this chapter to regulate the sale of firearms anywhere within the unit for a period of not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the regulatory action takes effect.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.13.

What this means is the article I posted isn't news

 

[Match14]

"No, they do not. Match, the South Bend ordinance is void via state preemption."

El Tejon,

What I am referring to is not recent, although I don't know if it was passed before '94 or not. But a law passed since IC-35-47-11, like the one the OP stated would be void.

 

[DWFan]

Just out of curiousity. If person has a CCW permit but takes off his weapon to obey a "no carry" zone and is then shot by someone, can the people who created the no carry zone (either legislators or business owners) be held legally responsible for denying the permit holder the means to protect himself (which is the reason for having the permit)?

 

[ServiceSoon]

I don't believe there is case law to answer that question DEFan. All I have seen at THR is people throw that idea around but nobody has done their homework to prove it by law. The only thing I can remember related to this question is there was a shoot out in a diner in Texas and that is why they have their gun permit system.

 

[gtmerkley]

I live in Dubois Co IN and I hope SouthBendites dont spread
cough! cough!

 

[ServiceSoon]

IC 35-47-11-2.........(1) This chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit

Actually, it appears that South Bend can ban firearms on city property?

IC 36-1-2-23
"Unit"
Sec. 23. "Unit" means county, municipality, or township.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1.

 

[Orange_Magnum]

It's so typical that left wing politicians want to disarm the people. If left wing politicians instead had a better politics they wouldn't constantly fear retaliations from the public. And this is also why the Democrats want to disarm the Americans; they know the Americans will be taken for a ride toward Communism and that could be looked upon as "upsetting" by the Americans.