ILNews

Debate over local gun laws continues

Jenny Montgomery
November 9, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

On Oct. 24, the Hammond City Council again declined to repeal ordinances introduced by Councilwoman Kim Poland that would modify local gun laws in order to align with new state laws.

Zionsville attorney Guy Relford, who attended that meeting, advised Indiana Lawyer on Oct. 27 that he has now moved for summary judgment in Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus, et al. v. City of Hammond, No. 45D11-1108-PL-00086. Relford originally filed the suit on behalf of a grandmother, college student and all people “adversely affected” by Hammond’s local gun ordinances.

In his most recent motion, Relford wrote, “Most importantly, the actual definition of the term ‘adversely affected’ contained in Ind. Code Section 35-47-11.1-6 does not contain any reference whatsoever to enforcement – only that a person be ‘subject to’ an illegal regulation, and a person is ‘subject to’ an illegal regulation if he or she merely ‘is or was present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.’ (Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-6.) That standard is easily met by Plaintiffs here.”

At the Aug. 22 Hammond City Council meeting, Mayor Thomas McDermott expressed his opposition to repealing local laws.

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.”

Rehearing "City council discusses gun laws" IL Oct. 12-25, 2011

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT