IN: A gun ban?

[HerrGlock]

A gun ban?

OUR OPINION

You can't blame city employees, who sometimes must deal confrontationally with the public, for wanting to exclude guns from the equation. Picture yourself as an animal control officer defending the decision that took away an armed dog owner's pet.

City employees earlier this month asked the South Bend Common Council to consider an ordinance banning people from entering their offices carrying firearms.

It's not that people have pulled guns on city employees, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Bodnar said in a Tribune report of the meeting; it's that an irate member of the public carrying a gun can be intimidating.

Municipal employees who deal with a flood of residents on sometimes difficult issues deserve to feel safe in their workplaces.

The Common Council, however, is prudent to study how to best achieve the desired result.

The city of Seattle recently banned concealed weapons on city property after three people were injured in a shooting during a festival at the city's civic center. Not only are Seattle officials facing potential legal challenges, they are continuing to sort through how to enforce the measure. Will there be pat-downs and bag searches at park entrances, some have asked?

South Bend officials already have rightly expressed concern about the ramifications of their workers dealing with those who would violate such a policy.

These are serious issues that need to be settled before the council proceeds with any plans for a gun ban in city offices.

(Comments link at the bottom of the page)

Letters to the editor
VOP@sbtinfo.com

[Yellowfin]

Please tell me people are working to get those responsible for such a proposal removed from their positions.

[WIG19]

OUR OPINION...

These are serious issues that need to be settled before the council proceeds with any plans for a gun ban in city offices.

Letters to the editor
VOP@sbtinfo.comThe got a twofer with the Coyote...

[Bren]

freedom is scary...you don't get to live free and safe at the same time.

[Captain Bligh]

When I worked in South Bend in county government, we had a receptionist draw down on a mouthy citizen at her desk. Wonder what they are going to do about city ee's carrying on the job?

[G36Packer]

They are going about it the wrong way. We all know some are going to ignore the ban. They should require the employees to carry rather than ban only lawfully carried weapons.

[Averon]

It's not that people have pulled guns on city employees, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Bodnar said in a Tribune report of the meeting; it's that an irate member of the public carrying a gun can be intimidating.


Not if they don't know it's there.

[Warp]

Not if they don't know it's there.

True, but in IN it could legally be carried openly.


The gun ban in question, however, would NOT be legal due to Indiana's pre-emption laws.

[Duncan223]

in Florida, you can't carry your gun into government meetings, etc.

See Section 790.06 (12), Florida Statutes for a complete listing.

o any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
o any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station
o any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse
o any courtroom*
o any polling place
o any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district
o any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof
o any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
o any school administration building
o any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption*
o any elementary or secondary school facility
o any area technical center
o any college or university facility*
o inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport*
o any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law

[INJoker]

True, but in IN it could legally be carried openly.


The gun ban in question, however, would NOT be legal due to Indiana's pre-emption laws.

+1

We are still working on getting pre-emption to apply to college/university carry as well. Hopefully it will happen in January 2009!

[Warp]

+1

We are still working on getting pre-emption to apply to college/university carry as well. Hopefully it will happen in January 2009!

Yes, hopefully it will.

And to clarify for those unaware: It is legal to carry on colleges and universities in IN. It is however, of course, against policy...and it really shouldn't be against policy at a state school with the preemption laws that are in place...

[shotgunred]

True, but in IN it could legally be carried openly.


The gun ban in question, however, would NOT be legal due to Indiana's pre-emption laws.

well open carry is legal in Washington. Washington state also has pre-emption laws on the books.

Why would any of that stop a dem from protecting you from yourself.

[Warp]

Why would any of that stop a dem from protecting you from yourself.



Too true. :upeyes:

[NateIU10]

Actually guys, they can do this if they want to. The preemption local has an exemption for property owned by local governments. No they couldn't ban guns within the city but they can on city property. This preemption law would need to be changed at the state to fix this issue as the Mayor and the city council have no logic when it comes to gun laws.

[Yellowfin]

It's not that people have pulled guns on city employees, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Bodnar said in a Tribune report of the meeting; it's that an irate member of the public carrying a gun can be intimidating.
Good! That was the point of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, so that if local government weren't on their P's and Q's they might have something to fear and thus be ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. I personally want legislators, city council folks, etc. to make sure they don't do anything that would give me reason to give them fear. That's called liberty.

[Yellowfin]

It's not that people have pulled guns on city employees, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Bodnar said in a Tribune report of the meeting; it's that an irate member of the public carrying a gun can be intimidating.
Good! That was the point of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, so that if local government weren't on their P's and Q's they might have something to fear and thus be ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. I personally want legislators, city council folks, etc. to make sure they don't do anything that would give me reason to give them fear. That's called liberty. If you're not a criminal and not threatening my well being or that of my family and staying well within your boundaries you have nothing to fear from me.

[HandyMan Hugh]

I sent this letter to the editor. Lets hope that they have the stones to print it.

To the Editor: I just read that there has been a
proposal to ban the legal carry of handguns in
South Bend city owned buildings. That’s a
terrible idea. First, there has NOT been any
problem with legal carry in city buildings. Just
someone’s irrational fear of being intimidated
by an irate citizen. What you have here is a
solution looking for a problem! That is just
plain wrongheaded oppressive government.

You can’t strip citizens of their rights without
due process of law.

Second, Indiana has a strong statewide
preemption law that makes it very plain that
only the state legislature has the power to
regulate the carrying of firearms. It looks
like the action taken by Mayor Nickles of
Seattle may have been ill advised. It is a
direct violation of Washington’s preemption
law and will end up in court, at great expense
to the taxpayers of Seattle.

If the government fears the citizens, that IS
the way things should be. Not the other
way around! I agree that no one should be
intimidated by an armed individual. But unless
that happens, the government has NO business
disarming honest citizens!


Sincerely, Hugh Coombs
Hallstead, PA.

[Fenway]

I think Nate is right on about this unfortunately.


Actually guys, they can do this if they want to. The preemption local has an exemption for property owned by local governments. No they couldn't ban guns within the city but they can on city property. This preemption law would need to be changed at the state to fix this issue as the Mayor and the city council have no logic when it comes to gun laws.

[zbusdriver]

Municipal employees who deal with a flood of residents on sometimes difficult issues deserve to feel safe in their workplaces.come on GLOCKTALKERS, you're missing the whole point: the antis don't want to be safe -- they just want to FEEL SAFE? :upeyes: