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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

    2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

    3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

    4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

    5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

    ADVERTISEMENT