Tully: New gun law is prime example of bad legislation

[jpak]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/NEWS08/107010342/Tully-New-gun-law-prime-example-bad-legislation

Every July 1, a host of new state laws take effect. Essentially, that means that every July 1, a number of really stupid laws take effect.

Take, for instance, Senate Enrolled Act 292.

This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: "Preemption of local firearm regulation." This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state's urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don't live in those cities.

So, the legislature has decided that if Indianapolis wants to prohibit the carrying of firearms in its city parks, well, that's just too bad. If other municipalities want to prohibit licensed gun owners from bringing their weapons to city and town council meetings, well, that, too, is too bad. And, please, don't even try to tell people they can't bring a gun to a city-owned amphitheater in New Albany or a street department facility anywhere else.

<more>

more GOP/NRA Nanny State thuggery

yup

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

2. Democrats that deserve to be primaried

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. For supporting the protection of civil rights?

Not sure what party you are in if you attack the growing number of Democratic representatives who defend civil right.

[jpak]

13. For supporting the GOP/NRA Nanny State - and oh yeah lotsa of stupid Dems supported Bush's IWR

dumbasses

yup

[TheWraith]

17. I believe you have it mixed up: the nanny state is yours.

Where you believe that sane adults aren't smart enough or responsible enough to handle having rights.

[gejohnston]

3. this comment puts it best

Ravekid
5:02 AM on July 1, 2011
Well, until today, guns were banned on Indy Parks property, which includes the Monon Trail. How did that work out Matt? Even the lobbyist for cities and towns admitted the ordinances wouldn't stop someone intent on committing an armed criminal act. What is it with these blissninnies? They just sit around and think of ways to screw with law-abiding people? If an elected official is that scared of a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed handgun, maybe it is them who should change, not the law-abiding public? Is anyone forcing these elected "leaders" or employees to stay in their jobs?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It is a good law and fully appropriate. It protects the rights of all involved

[spin]

6. If those who oppose concealed carry can allow every jurisdiction ...

to impose different laws on where guns can be legally carried concealed, then they can effectively stop statewide concealed carry.

I may be well aware of the local laws in my area of Florida but if I decide to journey to Tampa or Miami and they have entirely different regulations, I could easily find myself in problems with the law.

"Preemption of local firearm regulation" merely sets the same standards are rules for carry across the entire state. If I can carry a concealed weapon in a city park in my area of northern Florida then I can also carry it in a city park in Tampa. I only have to know the areas where I can't carry a firearm in Florida which are:


Possession Restrictions

The following is a list of places where you are restricted from carrying a weapon or firearm even if you have a license. Please note that this is a simplified list. The places marked by an asterisk (*) may have exceptions or additional restrictions. See Section 790.06 (12), Florida Statutes for a complete listing.

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

Now of course, the writer of the article in your post would love to have all sorts of rules in every county and city that would make anyone who had a concealed carry permit reconsider carrying his firearm. Still the article does have this to say near the end:

In the end, I don't worry too much about this law, which affects licensed gun owners. As gun advocates rightly argue, most gun crimes in Indianapolis are committed by people who illegally possess them. Still, guns don't belong everywhere, and the legislature doesn't need to meddle in everything.

I agree that gun owners who have a concealed weapons permit should not be allowed to carry their firearms everywhere and the state should be allowed to establish a list of such places. Florida had done so but some local officials still chose to create their own laws, so this year the Florida legislature passed a new law to prevent such stupidity.

HB45: This law revised Florida Statute 790.33 (ie: the "preemption" statute), big time, however, the effective date is October 1, 2011 -- so there are a few months to go before it takes effect:

The background was that the Legislature was faced with a myriad of complaints about local governments and administrative agencies writing ordinances and rules that restricted firearms and ammunition use and possession – and substantially interfered and conflicted with the Legislature’s sole power to make laws concerning this area. So, while the previous version did hold that all ordinances dealing with firearms or ammunition were void and unlawful, the revision extended this to all administrative agencies and all rules and regulations of any type, including state agencies with the exception of regulations by the FFWCC affecting the taking of wildlife, and any ranges it manages; and also allowing governments to set regulations for employees while on duty. Moreover, another big change is that any citizen or organization that is affected by such an allegedly unlawful rule, regulation, or ordinance may sue in a court of law for injunctive and declaratory relief and/or damages – and if they win – not only do they get the ordinance or rule tossed out – they also get their court costs, attorney fees, and legal interest. If they lose – it appears the statute will likely bar attorney fees for the defendant unless the suit was utterly frivolous! Major stuff!

Again -- this statute only applies to firearms and ammunition -- not other weapons. However, local governments are still restricted from passing laws that conflict with Florida Statutes -- although those other local laws will be presumed constitutional unless overturned in a court of law.
http://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-2011-florida-pro-gun-laws.html

[MicaelS]

7. Prime example of excellent legislation

State Preemption laws are a great idea. Keeps local politicians from interfering in matters that should be left to the state legislature.

[aikoaiko]

8. Even fellow Democrats are abandoning your position on firearms.

Its getting lonely isn't it. Do you need a friend?

[Blown330]

9. Excellent legislation.

Author of article and OP are cry babies.

[SteveW]

10. In general, cities hold an inferior position with regards the state...

in which cities are incorporated. Said another way, cities cannot enact laws which are contrary to those of the state. (Neither can they enact laws contrary to the Federal government's laws.) As far as I can tell, the state in this instance is re-stating the obvious.

"The law is just another reminder of the legislature's perpetual inability to focus squarely and exclusively on the issues that truly matter to Hoosiers -- the economy and education, for instance. This year, lawmakers insisted on distracting themselves with a host of divisive political issues."

If Tully wanted to deal with "...issues that truly matter...," he might have chosen to let this go by, but he seems strangely drawn to the siren-song of that grand faux-liberal issue, gun-control.

[krispos42]

11. Yeah! Those NRA thugs!

And marriage license requirements should be decided city-by-city and county-by-county too!


If the city dwellers want to let men marry men or women marry women, that's fine, but why should the urban elites, who mostly don't live in the country, what's best for their communities?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Following the OP's logic, this town clerks' attitude is just fine and dandy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x180872

NY Town Clerk: "I won't sign gay wedding license"

[krispos42]

19. Local hands

Because constitution rights should be decided by majorities, right?

[Abq_Sarah]

12. Preemption laws

On the state level protect citizens state constitutional rights. It's no different than federal laws preempting state laws, this just prevents counties and local municipalities from curtailing the rights of the state's citizens.

[benEzra]

14. Most blue states have preemption laws---on guns, on abortion, on a lot of controversial topics.

Do you support the right of anti-abortion municipalities zoning abortion clinics out of existence? Or does your dislike of state preemption only apply to things you want harassed?

[gejohnston]

15. I am guessing that he never thought about it that deeply. nt

[Pullo]

16. File under Lashback

This is just a continuation of a decades long movement that was spawned by those who desired to severely restrict our 2A rights.

[ileus]

20. Tully is wrong....I suspect it's pretty common.

[PavePusher]

21. Gosh, a law that stops allocation of Civil Rights by Geography.... what's the problem?

Seems some people still endorse equivalents of "seperate but equal" and are willing to say so in public.

How very, very vile.