ILNews

2 cities face gun-compliance lawsuits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At opposite ends of the state, two cities are facing lawsuits over a revised Indiana gun law.

Zionsville attorney Guy Relford filed both suits – one in Evansville, on behalf of a man whom police removed from a city zoo after he refused to conceal his handgun. The other is a class action suit, Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus, et. al. v. City of Hammond, No. 45D11-1108-PL-00086, which seeks relief for a grandmother, a college student, and all people “adversely affected” by Hammond’s local gun ordinances.
 

relford-guy-mug.jpg Relford

On July 1, 2011, Senate Enrolled Act 292 became effective as Public Law 152, preempting local firearms regulations. While the law does not say specifically that cities and towns must repeal local laws that conflict with PL 152, it does say they “may not regulate” possession and carrying of firearms, among other provisions. The law also allows plaintiffs to seek monetary damages if they are affected by local, contrary ordinances.

The Indiana Associ-ation of Cities and Towns posted this advisory on its website:

“We urge you to repeal all local laws that are in conflict with SEA 292. Even though SEA 292 declares all local laws in conflict as being void, the bill also states that a person has grounds to sue when he or she is subject to an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule or policy of the political subdivision simply by being present within the boundaries of the political subdivision. Damages that can be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff are severe to the violating entity.”

Hold-out in Hammond

Relford said that he knows some communities have worked quickly to change their local laws.

“I haven’t just run off and sued any municipality that appears to be lagging behind,” he said. But he said that Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott’s “open defiance” of the state law is what motivated him to file suit.

McDermott, who is also a lawyer, signed an executive order ordering police to not enforce any of Hammond’s gun ordinances. But Relford said that order isn’t sufficient; as long as those local laws exist, people may still be “adversely affected” by them.

Relford said that people legally eligible to own a gun – even if they don’t own guns – who have been in Hammond at any time after July 1 could file suit against the city for its refusal to repeal its local laws.


poland-kim-mug.jpg Poland

At the Aug. 22 Hammond City Council meeting, councilwoman Kim Poland introduced a motion to repeal Hammond ordinance Chapter 132, Section 132.073, which bars guns in civil city public buildings. Poland told Indiana Lawyer that Hammond city attorney Kristina Kantar – who answers to the mayor – asked her to introduce the motion so the city would be compliant with state law.

At the meeting, the mayor expressed his opposition to the motion.

McDermott, facing the council, said: “I can tell you I have every intention (of) not signing this ordinance if we pass it. I don’t think it’s a good policy to set, and if it’s state law, then let’s let our legislators explain it, why they think it’s safe for us to carry weapons in city buildings.” He indicated that one of the problems in Hammond is gun violence, and said the message here is “let’s carry more guns.”

When Poland asked for Kantar to speak again, the mayor said, “No, we’re done here. I can speak on her behalf.”

Councilman Robert Markovich addressed the mayor, saying, “Mayor, even though you may not like it as it is, it’s a state statute, and that’s what they wanted. I mean, it seems like our hands are tied. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t on this one.”

But Markovich, along with six other members of the council, ultimately voted against repealing the local ordinance. Poland, the council’s lone Republican, voted in favor. At IL deadline, Poland said she intended to reintroduce the motion at the council’s Sept. 26 meeting. However, she said she did not expect the council members or mayor to be in favor of the motion.

“They won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole, because he told them not to,” she said.

Ejected in Evansville

In Benjamin A. Magenheimer v. the City of Evansville, et. al., No. 82C01-1109-PL-476, Benjamin Magenheimer claims that on Sept. 10, four city police officers forcibly removed him from Mesker Park Zoo & Botanical Garden when he refused to conceal his handgun.

Relford said that police later claimed Magenheimer caused a scene after being asked to conceal his weapon, but that it’s clear that police violated state law by telling him to conceal his gun.


ciyou-bryan-mug Ciyou

Bryan Ciyou, attorney and author of the Indiana Firearms Reference Manual, said while Indiana law does not require handguns to be shielded from view, it is the generally accepted practice among gun owners.

“Among the people that are respected in the community that know anything about guns, they would say that 99 times out of 100, carrying it concealed is the right way to go about it,” Ciyou said. He said the obvious exception would be for security and law enforcement personnel, whom most people assume are carrying guns anyway.

“I suppose the unconcealed carry at the zoo could be for a reasonable purpose. However, if it was done to set up a suit, it is the type of ‘lawful behavior’ that empowers anti-gun camps,” he said. “Just because something is a legal right does not mean it should be exercised, or make its exercise right.”

Relford called the incident in Evansville “egregious,” which he said sets it apart from other innocent violations of state law that may naturally occur as a result of outdated local ordinances.

“I have been contacted by a number of potential clients who are complaining about other jurisdictions,” Relford said. He did not indicate if further suits would be filed in the immediate future.

Dryer attorney Kevin Smith also represents the city of Hammond. He said that because the Hammond City Council had not passed the motion to amend its ordinance, Mayor McDermott was not obligated to further explain why he said he wouldn’t sign it, if passed.

“At the end of the day, the issue is whether or not the city has violated state law, and I don’t think it has,” Smith said.

Ciyou said that in any Indiana community, issuing an executive order to halt enforcement of local gun ordinances could be seen as a short-term solution, until officials have time to figure out how to revise their laws.

“And practically speaking, that would have to work, because there was so little time between the passage of that bill and enforcement date,” Ciyou said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT