ILNews

Lawsuits test gun restrictions at polling places, local regulations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Can you carry a gun to the ballot box? With a few narrow exceptions, the answer appears to be yes.

A lawsuit filed last month in St. Joseph Superior Court could clarify further whether a 2011 law that voids local firearm regulations would make efforts to keep guns out of voting precincts illegal.

Zionsville attorney Guy Relford filed a lawsuit on behalf of Clay Edinger against the St. Joseph County Election Board, commissioners, sheriff’s office and local township officials.

The suit alleges that when Edinger walked into a Warren Township fire station in North Liberty with a holstered handgun for the May 8 primary, his rights were violated when election officials and law enforcement officers took him out of the fire station that housed the polling place and told him he couldn’t vote if he carried the firearm. He insisted he had broken no law, but he was not allowed to vote.
 

guns06-15col.jpg Zionsville attorney Guy Relford provides firearm training at Eagle Creek gun range in Indianapolis to Vicki Roberson. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Relford, who also operates Tactical Firearms Training LLC and is a firearms instructor who’s built a reputation defending Second Amendment matters, said Indiana Code 35-47-11.1 put an end to nearly all local firearm regulations that exceed the scope of state law.

Edinger’s experience, he said, “is really the perfect example of what the Legislature had in mind when it enacted the pre-emption statute.”

“If local government (and) police officers can make up the rules as they go, no one can predict where it’s legal to carry a gun and where it’s not,” Relford said.
 

relford-guy-15col.jpg Relford has sued on behalf of a St. Joseph County man who was not allowed to vote in the May primary because he openly carried a holstered gun to the polls.. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Whether a licensed gun owner is permitted under the law to carry a firearm to the polls may hinge on where the precinct is located. If a polling place is in a building that houses courts or is in a school, for instance, the pre-emption law provides exceptions that would restrict firearms. A precinct on private property also may be subject to gun restrictions.

Dale Simmons, co-legal counsel for the Indiana Election Division, said he was made aware of the situation involving Edinger on that primary election day.

Simmons said the pre-emption statute seemed clear, but that statute didn’t specifically address polling places. Finding that no other statutes addressed the question, Simmons on primary election day contacted Indiana State Police General Counsel Lt. Mark Carnell.

In an email reply, Carnell advised Simmons, “the authority of local units to regulate firearms, including handguns in public buildings, was sharply restricted when IC 35-47-11.1 became law last year. Local units can still, under certain circumstances, bar firearms if the building contains a courtroom or if certain fairly burdensome procedures are followed,” such as in public buildings requiring metal detectors staffed by law enforcement officers.

“We’re free to engage in activities unless they’re prohibited,” Simmons said, while acknowledging that the sight of a voter carrying a gun might raise alarm. “Some people perceive these things differently based upon their sensitivities.”
 

tomes Tomes

Indiana Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Evansville, sponsored the pre-emption bill and said he sees no need to further address whether guns are permitted in a polling place. The bill provides a few exemptions where local units of government may forbid firearms, but he said adding further exemptions would muddy the water.

“The purpose of the law was to say no more are cities and towns going to write their own laws, and we’re going back to the uniformity of state law,” Tomes said.

“Our society has come to a point where so many people are afraid of anything that moves anymore, and their reaction is what we see here,” he said. “We are talking about citizens who have applied for these licenses and who have proven themselves to be proper citizens, and they’re not to be feared.”

Relford said Edinger, who served in Iraq as a Marine and now is in the U.S. Navy’s chaplain development program, gave no cause for alarm when poll workers and then law enforcement officers confronted him.

“He was very mild-mannered. He didn’t even raise his voice and there’s no contention that he did,” Relford said.

He said enforcement of existing laws that restrict guns from falling into the wrong hands makes more sense than enacting laws or trying to enforce unwritten policies that would penalize law-abiding citizens.

“There are three kinds of people who shouldn’t have guns: kids, criminals and crazy people,” Relford said. “What we don’t need is a patchwork of local regulation.”

James Groves of the South Bend firm Lee Groves & Zalas said he will be representing at least some of the defendants in the case. Groves said he had yet to file a response to the Edinger petition and said it was too soon to offer an analysis of how the case may be defended.

Fighting city hall

Edinger’s suit is the third that Relford has filed against units of government that he says are in violation of the pre-emption statute.

He sued Hammond after the city council defeated a council member’s proposal to remove local ordinances that didn’t comply with the law. The case is Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus, et al. v. City of Hammond, 45D11-1108-PL-00086. A Lake Superior judge ruled for the city, and the suit is pending before the Court of Appeals.

Hammond City Attorney Kristina Kantar said the city was successful in winning summary judgment at the trial court level because it hadn’t infringed on anyone’s rights.

“The city’s position is that we never actually enforced any ordinance against the person laying claim,” Kantar said. The question of whether the city must remove the ordinances from its books is moot, she said, because the state law already does that.

“The city’s position is once the ordinance became void, we didn’t have to do anything,” she said. “It hasn’t come up, other than Mr. Relford.”

But Relford said as long as Hammond’s four local firearm ordinances stay on the books, the city’s failure to remove them gives legal standing to anyone to bring action against the city. “People are still subject to those (ordinances) because they simply live on” in the city code, Relford said.

Relford also sued Evansville on behalf of Benjamin Magenheimer. The lawsuit says Magenheimer was removed illegally from the city-owned Mesker Park Zoo & Botanic Garden after a zoo employee saw him carrying a gun and called police. Magenheimer was taken from the zoo after police said he caused a scene.

Bryan Lee Ciyou, an attorney with Ciyou & Dixon P.C. in Indianapolis, is author of “Indiana Firearms Law Reference Manual” and said Indiana is one of 43 states where pre-emption laws govern firearm regulation.

He said the pre-emption law settled the question of whether a licensed owner may carry a gun to the polling place, unless it’s in a building such as a courthouse or school that is exempt.

“I don’t think there’s a legal question about it,” he said. “I think it’s a moral question.”

He said the suits also highlight how poorly local officials, including law enforcement, are educated about gun laws.

“I think the average person carrying openly into a polling station would do it because (the Second Amendment) is the reason they’re voting,” Ciyou said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Police
    Rich, I used to live in Greenfield. Really nice place. Absolutely STUPID police!
  • Guns
    Get used to being harassed. Liberals under Obama are committed to ridding this country of any weapon. All for the "GREATER GOOD" so we can all be exactly equal! as slaves. You voted for him,
  • Law Enfocement Ignorance
    I am amazed how someone who deals with guns and gun laws can be so ignorant. The local police and authorities should be experts on the laws they are enforcing and have the correct authoritative resources to answer questions of law. It's embarrassing when a gun owner knows the laws better then the authorities.

    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. The voices of the prophets are more on blogs than subway walls these days, Dawn. Here is the voice of one calling out in the wilderness ... against a corrupted judiciary ... that remains corrupt a decade and a half later ... due to, so sadly, the acquiescence of good judges unwilling to shake the forest ... for fear that is not faith .. http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/09/prof-alan-dershowitz-on-indiana.html

    2. So I purchased a vehicle cash from the lot on West Washington in Feb 2017. Since then I found it the vehicle had been declared a total loss and had sat in a salvage yard due to fire. My title does not show any of that. I also have had to put thousands of dollars into repairs because it was not a solid vehicle like they stated. I need to find out how to contact the lawyers on this lawsuit.

    3. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

    4. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

    5. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

    ADVERTISEMENT