Wilson, here is your history lesson for the day...

Following is the opinion of Justice CJ Emmert in the case of
Matthews v Indiana, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/matthe...


"The people shall
have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the
State." It is to be noted that this constitutional protection is in
the identical language of the first clause of section 20 of Article
1 of the 1816 Constitution of Indiana. [footnote 1] The Indiana
constitutional right to bear arms is not based only in aid of the
militia as is the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution,
which states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed." Nor does the Indiana Constitution
guaranteeing the inalienable right of self-defense, specifically
grant the General Assembly the right to regulate the carrying of
weapons. [footnote 2] The constitutional right to bear arms in
Indiana is stated in clear and simple language, and neither this
court nor the Legislature, even when it enacts a Uniform Firearms
Act, has any right to disregard a single well-chosen word, nor
deprive an accused of a right granted by the Constitution. We
should "not bend the constitution to suit the law of the hour."
Greencastle Twp. v. Black (1854), 5 Ind. 557, 565. If
constitutional rights are to mean anything, they must protect the
guilty as well as the innocent. Batchelor v. State (1920), 189 Ind.
69, 84, 125 N. E. 773. We are not considering a constitutional
provision which may bring in a mixed question of law and fact or
the reasonableness of a regulation, as may be the case under the
Fourteenth Amendment; all that is involved in the appeal at bar is
a question of law.

The decisions from other jurisdictions are not uniform on the
right to keep and bear arms any more than the constitutional
provisions are stated in the same language. Few of the decisions
make any historical analysis of the cause for constitutional
guarantees of the right to bear arms being considered so important
by the Forefathers, nor do they consider the future effect of the
precedent being made as to the right of the Legislature to make
more drastic regulations and prohibitions. But the Supreme Court of
Michigan has well noted the constitutional right to bear arms in
America had its origin in the fear of a standing army as well as a
necessity of self-protection in st frontier society. See People v.
Brown (1931), 253 Mich. 537, 235 N. W. 245, 82 A. L. R. 341. The
English Bill of Rights (1688) had declared against the keeping of
a standing army without the consent of Parliament, and that certain
subjects should "have arms for their defense suitable to their
conditions, and as allowed by law." The British Parliament is not
restrained by any written Constitution, but the American theory of
government is that both the Legislative and the Executive must be
restrained and limited by a written constitution.

It seems too plain for doubt that out of the bitter
experiences of the French and Indian Wars and American Revolution
came the deep realization that the inalienable right of
self-defense should be protected by constitutional guarantees
beyond the power of any temporary majority in the Legislature to
circumvent or abolish. The Indiana right to defense is in almost
the identical language of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776
which stated: "That the People have a Right to bear Arms for the
Defence of themselves and the State; and as Standing Armies, in the
Time of Peace, are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept
up: And that the Military should be kept under strict Subordination
to, and Governed by the Civil Power." Section the Thirteenth,
Chapter 1, Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. [footnote 3] Although
the Pennsylvania Dutch gunsmiths in Lancaster County started their
production of guns by 1720, many on the frontier were without arms.
In 1775 Conrad Weiser had written Governor Morris of his attempt to
defend the Paxton people above Hunter's Mill, and reported that he
"gave orders to them to go home and fetch their Arms, whether Guns,
Swords, pitchforks, axes, or whatsoever might be of use against the
enemy." J. I. Mombert, Authentic History of Lancaster County,
Penn., p. 159. Nor was the situation much better on the frontier in
the Shenandoah Valley where Washington in 1756 found that for 200
Culpeper militiamen there were only eighty firelocks. Vol. 2,
Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, p. 185.

The Continental Congress on July 18, 1775, resolved that it be
recommended to the various Colonies that all able-bodied effective
men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into regular
companies of militia, but the difficulty of finding arms still
persisted. Many militiamen had arms unsuitable for use in the
field. It was easier to get men than to arm them. [footnote 4] In
the siege of Boston when the Connecticut militia returned home,
those who had suitable arms had them seized by the army with
arrangements made for compensation. But the historical evidence is
undisputed that before the close of the Revolution muzzle-loaded
flintlock pistols were being owned and used by some members of the
Continental Army; so the right to bear arms as first recognized by
the Forefathers not only included cutting swords, muskets, rifles
and shotguns, but also pistols. [footnote 5] Arms were not only
necessary for the equipment of the militia (see U. S. v. Miller
(1939), 307 U. S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206), but the
necessities of each man being in a position to protect himself and
his property were so obvious that the Forefathers chose not to rely
upon mere legislation to guarantee the right.

When our 1816 Constitution was adopted, the War of 1812 had
hardly finished. The militia of Kentucky and some from Indiana
Territory had fought under William Henry Harrison. Only a
comparatively few pioneers had settled in the southern part of the
State and along the Ohio state line. If the pioneer had money he
had to protect it himself, and if he wanted personal security for
himself, his family or his cabin, he had to accomplish it by self
help. Every free white able-bodied male, not a conscientious
objector, between 18 and 45 years of age, belonged to the militia.
Act VII, 1816 Constitution of Indiana. He had to have the right to
bear arms for his defense and the defense of the State; hence this
inalienable right was incorporated in the Constitution as it was
understood from the time of the American Revolution to 1816. Of
necessity, the guaranty also embraced the right to have ammunition
and the opportunity to become proficient in the use of arms so long
as no trespass was committed upon the rights' of others.

It was early held that the 1831 statute prohibiting anyone
except travelers from wearing or carrying concealed weapons was
constitutional. State v. Mitchell (1833), 3 Blackf. 229. The
militia was never on duty armed with concealed weapons. The bearing
of arms was unconcealed. This in no way limited the right to bear
arms unconcealed, and not until the present Uniform Firearms Act
has any statute attempted to abolish what the Constitution
protects.

Since 1816 this State has gotten along very well maintaining
law and order under the various statutes prohibiting the carrying
of concealed weapons, while at the same time the owners of pistols
had the right to take them hunting or target shooting unconcealed
without a permit and without being branded as a criminal. The 1925
Firearms Act (ch. 207, Acts 1925) did not prevent carrying
unconcealed pistols, and under it the crime rate for crimes of
violence was less than it has been under the 1935 Uniform Act. The
effect of such unconstitutional regulation as prescribed by the
latter Act has always been to disarm the law-abiding citizen, while
the criminal pays no attention to the law. Such legislation really
provides greater security for the outlaw.

It is often assumed in some of the cases that a change in the
constitutional right to bear arms must be made in the exercise of
the police power of the State for the protection of the health,
safety and general welfare of the people. The same argument could
be presented for the impairment of the constitutional right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which has roots in
the pre-Revolutionary Writs of Assistance used to oppress the
people of Massachusetts. What is overlooked is the obvious fact
that the constitutional right to bear arms is in itself an exercise
of the sovereign police power, and being a part of the
Constitution, the Legislature has been prohibited from legislating
any part of it out of existence.

Nor can it be maintained that the right to bear arms only
protects the use of muskets, muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns
[footnote 6] and pistols, because they were the only ones used by
the Colonists at the time. It might as well be argued that only a
house of the architectural vintage of the Revolution would be
protected against a present unreasonable search and seizure. Modern
guns suitable for bunting and defense are within the protection of
our Bill of Rights just the same as the owner of a modern ranch
house type home is protected against unlawful searches.

If the Legislature can prohibit the carrying of an unconcealed
pistol without a permit, with equal logic it can prohibit the
carrying of an unconcealed rifle or shotgun without a permit. The
advocates of a Police State by restrictive legislation or
administrative rules always seem around and busy trying to restrict
freedom and constitutional rights. Their plan is always cleverly
designed to take a small chip at a time, for "many strokes
overthrow the tallest oaks."

If we are to heed the lessons of modern history, it is
self-evident our Bill of Rights should be construed liberally in
favor of the individual and against restrictive legislation. When
the Boston Police Strike resulted in areas of local anarchy within
the city, the only protection for private property was the owner's
armed guard. We have often been cited to the example of England and
her restrictive firearms legislation as the cause for reducing
crimes. [footnote 7] But it is within the memory of most of us that
after Dunkirk, Americans with hunting arms were urged to give them
to England to rearm a disarmed population in order to repel
Hitler's planned invasion. [footnote 8] Had Hitler succeeded, the
population would have been disarmed again for Dictators can
tolerate no arms among the subject people. Modern History clearly
discloses a prime modus operandi of the Communist State is the
disarming of its civilian population.

Today, we read it is freely predicted that if we sustain an
all-out H-bomb war, we shall suffer 65,000,000 or more casualties.
No one can predict where they may be, or the extent of a resulting
breakdown in law and order. It may well be that the man who
survives near the target area will be the one who has prepared to
bear arms for his defense. It is never safe to ignore the lessons
of History, for too often they are repeated in a different form
under changed conditions.

It is a departure in constitutional interpretation to reason
that because the Indiana Constitution does not say "the people
shall have a right to carry pistols for the defense of themselves
and the State" that therefore the Legislature can restrict the
right to carry them unconcealed without a permit. With equal force
it could be argued that because the Fifth Amendment did not
specifically say no person should suffer a judgment against him
without notice, that the due process clause of the Amendment would
not be violated if a Federal statute authorized a judgment without
notice. Neither does our Constitution mention rifles or shotguns.
If the Legislature can restrict the carrying of a pistol
unconcealed without a permit, it can do the same for rifles and
shotguns. Moreover, since pistols are not named in the
Constitution, what is to prevent the Legislature from making it a
felony to have one at all? By the same reasoning there is nothing
to prevent the Legislature from making it a felony to own or
possess a shotgun or rifle. Of course the complete disarming of the
people is the ultimate objective of the advocate of the Police
State, whether he be a misguided reformer or a ruthless Dictator.
The greatest danger in the precedent made today lies in the future.
It will be used to justify further legislative encroachment on the
constitutional right to bear arms, including shotguns and rifles.

For 119 years there was no legislative attempt to abrogate the
constitutional right to bear arms as the term was understood in
1816 and at the time of the American Revolution. For 104 years the
Legislature never considered the bearing of arms unconcealed could
be made a crime. It is not for this court to substitute its
judgment for that of the Forefathers as to what the Constitution
should protect, or to indulge in Constitution making under the
guise of judicial construction. The philosophy that the end
justifies the means can only result in the progressive destruction
of constitutional liberties. Many more convictions could be
obtained if courts would construe away the protection against
self-incrimination and unreasonable searches, but Bills of Rights
were adopted to protect the individual against oppression by his
Government, whether he be guilty or innocent. If the courts ignore
well-settled precedents for the construction of constitutional
rights, they become government by judges and not by law. If the
constitutional safeguards are to be diminished, it should be done
by constitutional amendment, and not by validating legislation that
contravenes what the Forefathers and the people made the supreme
law of this State.

FOOTNOTES

1. The concluding clause of section 20 of the 1816 Constitution is,
"and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the
civil power."

2. "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing
herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the
carrying of weapons." Section 26, Article 2, Constitution of
Oklahoma. The Texas Constitution specifically gives its Legislature
similar power.

3. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 restated the prohibition
with a slight change of language. "That the right of citizens to
bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be
questioned." Section XXI, Article IX.

4. "If what he had observed in Virginia was typical of conditions
in the other Colonies, it was far easier to get men than to arm
them. Expanded manufacture of firelocks and explosives would be
difficult to begin and of doubtful issue." Vol. 3, Douglas Southall
Freeman, George Washington, p. 442.

5. "The men who carried these pistols [in the American Revolution]
came from three branches of the service and included some of the
most famous and colorful units of the war. There were the cavalry
of both armies, the navies, and selected infantry regiments." p.
31.
"The largest manufactury of pistols in America was the
Rappahannock Forge at Falmouth, Virginia." p. 32. Harold L.
Peterson, Pistols in the American Revolution. American Rifleman,
October 1955, pp. 31-33.

6. Boone at the Battle of Blue Licks in 1782 was fighting with a
shotgun loaded with ball and buckshot. John Bakeless, Daniel
Boone, p. 298.

7. This proposition is untenable, when the many causes, too
numerous to discuss here, are analyzed.

8. "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing
grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall
fighting the hills, we shall never surrender." Winston Churchill,
Speech on Dunkirk, House of Commons, June 4, 1940.

Just where did the State get the legitimate authority to force us to pay for permission to exercise our fundamental right to protect our lives?

TA: Are you making a case for mandated, universal pet insurance?

So, TA, because the gun permit doesn't say they are they aren't? ;-) Of course not.

Dave, the permits for dog parks specifically state the dog owner is responsible and liable for any injuries/damage.

No gun permit in America contains a similar proviso. Nice try, tho.

What else ya got?

If they discharge their weapon without just cause as outlined in the proposal, then they already have a law to work with. I'm betting dollars to donuts that there's plenty of other laws out there someone could sue if they were shot without just cause.

That said, I'd say that's something reasonable to add to the proposal. Not a reason to shoot it down.

The city has a permitting process for dogs & dog parks, but that's no insurance against dog attacks, etc. Are these owners & dogs sufficiently "trained," to protect other citizens / park users from their dogs?

Until this came up, many were unaware that legally permitted guns in city parks were illegal.

After all this education on guns I've asked for the paperwork to carry and conceal them (since no self respecting right wingnut would only carry the single piece). After getting the permit and, I guess, the guns, I intend to patrol about various parks in the City and hope that my concealment techniques are ineffective. Then, I suppose, Paul could be hired (with contributions from all the gun nuts, birthers, NRA sorts, and citizens concerned about safety) for the test case. I'm thinking summary judgement for the defense. Once I have the permit to carry concealed weapons I can carry them to safe places as well as unsafe places-there being no logical reason to make a distinction (that is for folks who tuned into the radio show this morning when our host was badgering the hapless libertarian with lawyereese tenditiousness logic chopping). The summary judgement will trump applied stupidity and the council can spend their time, as usual, looking for graft opportunities.

I realize that, Matt. And the intrigue is awesome--the Mayor picks a fight he doesn't need. I love that part of it because it just further demonstrates what a lousy mayor he is.

But for God's sake, these folks have huge unresolved issues on their plates. They meet twice a month. And they pick guns and cigarette smoking as their big-time issues?

Misplaced priorities? People seeking spotlights?

I don't know, but as a taxpayer, regardless how I feel on those issues, it seems like a colossal case of misplaced priorities. Are these folks adults, or what?

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember the second amendment saying that law biding citizens can carry guns except in certain area's.

You would be wrong. The Second Amendment to the federal Constitution says nothing at all about that.

Further, the Indiana Constitution rules in this state, and there are NO restrictions in the language of Article 1 Section 32:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

See? No restrictions, no ambiguity. Nice, clear, concise language that anyone except a LIEyer,LiaR or bottom feeding legislator could understand.

So you believe a citizen of Indiana should be permitted to carry a suitcase nuclear weapon into the Rotunda of the Statehouse with impunity?

You are an idiot

Putting aside your irrelevant personal insults, you still have not answered my very clear question. Do you believe a citizen of Indiana has the absolute constitutional right to carry a nuclear weapon ("arms") into the Rotunda of the Statehouse? If not, why not?

Read the history of what was meant by the term 'arms', and stop being an idiot.

However, if I wanted to carry my M4 or Colt .45 into the People's Statehouse, I should be able to do so without paying for permission to do so.

Once again ignoring your irrelevant invective, what about a citizen of Indiana carrying a loaded AK-47 into the Rotunda of the Statehouse without asking permission? Could a visitor from Illinois carry her M4 into the Rotunda? What about a citizen of Uruguay carrying a Colt .45 ?

"Once again ignoring your irrelevant invective, what about a citizen of Indiana carrying a loaded AK-47 into the Rotunda of the Statehouse without asking permission?"

What part of "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." don't you understand?

Stop being an idiot

I don't quite get your point about the Monon, Varan...but: it is the trailhead, the single-most-used portion of the trail. The trail is wildly popular, beyond the planners' original dreams. One of the most popular city trail parks in America. You must've visited during an infrequent down-time. The crossing point in front of Mark Pi's China Gate is hugely busy most of the time. There's a light and a pedestrian crosswalk there.

The issue to which I was referring, allowed a parcel of land to be used for a drainage swail by the developer. Because the Kroger plaza he built was too large for the parcel, by normal stormwater engineering standards. Remonstrators tried to point that out, but they were rebuffed. When the Monon land was taken, by easement, for drainage use by the developer, for free, the process used was entirely closed-door.

And when citizens objected, they were ridiculued by parks administrators. I kid you not. Sneered at. "We didn't have to do this in public" was the DPR attitude.

Why? DPR argued: Because the area given, for free, to the developer, was not "a transfer of value," there was no fiscal impact. Yet, if the city ever wants to take back that strip of land, during the 25 years of the easement agreement (automatically rewnewable), the City must pay the developer $350,000. You read that right. It went from "no value" in conveyance from the city to the developer, to three and a half large if we citizens ever need it back. No value, indeed.

This kind of cockamamee logic rules at DPR.

But still I support the Parks. Because these valuable pieces of land are generational gems, which can/will survive horrid stewardship that we endure in four-year terms.

So pardon me if I don't trust the DPR leadership, be it the DPR Board or the administration. I'll put my trust in the Council, whom we directly elect, and demand they be responsive to us. Even when I disagree with a proposed ordinance, like this one. At least it's being debated in a public forum where all of us can speak out, and the council knows how we feel. And if we disagree with their ultimate action enough, and we choose to use that one issue, we cna throw them out at the ballot box.

I'm a more global kinda person, and one issue alone won't shove me over the edge. But I heartily defend the right of any of you to make this your Waterloo, and vote for/against council members because of their vote on this issue.

Still, I wisih they'd spend this much time on some other important subjects. Time management.

I was driving, but it didn't appear to be well marked. And I didn't catch the offset crossing at all.

My point was that it wasn't well marked (to me), and that crossing where the trail runs would appear to be suicidal.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

TA, it's only been introduced and assinged a committee. Don't be surprised if it doesn't get a hearing for quite a while.

For those of you who don't believe in PAYING for a piece of paper showing government permission for you to exercise a basic RIGHT, dig this.

There is NO LAW in Indiana Code barring the carrying in public of long guns, such as rifles and shotguns.

There is NO PERMIT (permission) requirement to do this. Perhaps more people need to be in public with their rifles and shotguns -- thumb your nose at government officials when they start moaning and stomping on their hankies over the display of the big, bad guns.

You can even print-out the relevant parts of the Indiana Constitution and Indiana Code to show these government morons.

"This DPR administration is the worst ever, but they will be gone, if no later than two years hence."

There is the problem. If We the Fracked cannot remove these reprobates when We want to, who is really 'the Boss'...them, or us?

I think John Doe is right on target. Only thing I would do differently is let EVERYONE know just WHY I don't support Indy Parks...

Isn't it odd that government is supposed to support and defend our Indiana Constitution...yet tells We the Fracked that we cannot exercise our basic fundamental right to self defense in and on public property.

Lest anyone forget...this is the same mindset that gave us the "We are better than you" policy at our Statehouse. Remember, this is where We the Fracked are NOT allowed to exercise our Constitutionally-protected right to self defense, yet LIEyers, judges (aka LIEyers) and legislators are EXEMPT from this cute little 'rule'.

Let's see.....which provisions of our federal and State Constitutions are violated by this??? Anyone care to guess?

More than ONE, and ONE is TOO MANY.

Hot summer + guns in parks. Don't have to be a math major to figure the sums on that one.

An aside TA, I drove past the Monon Trail at 86th street over the weekend, and found that if you blink you miss it. Wow. Does anyone expect to cross 86th at the Monon Trail besides crazed, thrill seekers?

John, I understand your frustration. But please don't take it out on the Parks.

I am angry as hell over the Parks Dept.'s land stewardship. Their handling of the Monon Trail/Kroger land issue is nothing short of lame. Incompetent. Giving away our precious resources so a developer can save half a mil in drainage costs, and then goading citizens who protest. All the while proclaiming they're exempt from public input, because the deal was a private developer deal.

As much as I despise the current DPR leadership because they're arrogant and incompetent...I won't stop using and supporting the parks. THey need volunteers, and their foundation needs financial support.

This too shall pass, John.

But even when I'm angry, our parks are precious community jewels. Don't take it out on the parks. This DPR administration is the worst ever, but they will be gone, if no later than two years hence.

I have always been told that if you allow weapons, the streets will flow with blood. Remember when the assault weapons ban expired, we were told about the streets that would flow with blood. I recall how I had to jump over bodies and pools of blood when going to work. I had to get my car washed daily due to all the blood in the streets.
Then, permit holders were allowed to carry their guns in our state parks. Again, the gun grabbers said this would make things unsafe, that people would be shot. Wasn't Brown County SP that had like 100 people shot while inside the park last year?
Of course all of the above didn't happen. Carrying in a park by a law abiding citizen isn't going to change much of anything. Right now, we have people beaten on the Monon Trail, yet the few times I have used a trail, I never saw a police officer or park ranger. I see we have a made up news story of a kid shot in a park. Obviously this news story is false right? Guns are not allowed in the city parks so there is no way this shooting could have taken place. Oh wait, that's right, criminals just don't care.
The fact remains that law-abiding people are going to have to step over that line that criminals in this town step over every single day. The thugs could careless about the laws, so why should hard working, law abiding people have to live with the same rules that our repeat offenders laugh at. If you have a license to carry and want to carry in the parks, do so. Plan accordingly to keep it concealed. Only use the gun to protect yourself and your family. If you see someone getting attacked by a vicious dog, don't whip out your pistol, whip out your cell phone and call the cops. If you see someone getting mugged or beaten, don't whip out your gun, whip out your cell phone and call the cops. Chances are the victims in the above examples would love for you to be thrown in jail for doing nothing more than carrying an inanimate object. They don't want guns in the parks being carried by license holders, then they shouldn't reap the benefits that could possibly come with that. If you see something bad going down, get out of dodge, only using your gun to defend yourself and your family. No one else is worth getting arrested, especially when there is likely a 50% chance a person being victimized in some way would support you getting locked up for bringing that gun into the park. If they scream for help, yell to them to tell the robber that guns aren't allowed in the park, or to call 911 if they are being attacked by a dog(s). When it comes to you and your family, it is better to be judge by 12 than carried by six. Better yet, just don't support Indy Parks. Don't volunteer your time to plant trees, pick-up trash, etc.. Don't donate any money to any benefit groups. Instead, save your money and head out to one of our awesome state parks that actually don't treat you like a crazy who is going to snap at any moment and go around shooting people.

"While I believe you have the right to own a gun to hunt, for sport or to protect your family" Where does it say any of that in the 2nd Amendment? "Defense" is cited in our Indiana Constitution at 1-32.

"Like everything else in this world no rights are absolute and we put reasonable restrictions on lots of things." I have an absolute basic right to defend my life. However, I'm certain that there is a LiaR or two out there that would disagree. Is the "we" in your statement referring to lawyers?

"I have free speech, but I can’t libel or slander someone. I have freedom of religion, but I can’t engage in human sacrifice." Pretty disingenuous, Abdul. You CAN libel or slander. However, you might be held accountable for it. See our very own 1-9: "No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible." You cannot engage in human sacrifice because it would infringe on someone's right to live. Really poor examples.

"I can’t bring a gun into a school, a courthouse or a federal building and I don’t see how someone’s second amendment rights are being infringed for the few minutes they can’t bring a gun to a city parks and playgrounds."

Well, just WHO created the limits you cited? Politicians and LIEyers. Then you go on to cite the 2nd Amendment to the federal Constitution. ONCE AGAIN, ignoring our Indiana Constitution.

While some might say the language of our 2nd Amendment may be a bit ambiguous, our Indiana Constitution is extremely clear on the matter -- something that lawyers and judges cannot stand.

Allow me to rephrase Abdul's sentence: "I can’t bring a gun into a school, a courthouse or a federal building and I don’t see how someone’s basic human right to defend their life is being infringed for the few minutes they can’t bring a gun to a city parks and playgrounds."

No right is absolute? Hmmm.....would you say the same if someone 'infringed' on the provisions of the 13th and 14th amendments to the federal Constitution, or 1-37 of the Indiana Constitution? What if a court said that ALL property owners had the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to control their property...including who may come onto it, using any criteria they wish?

"I believe most gun owners are responsible people and I believe you have the right to own a gun, but you don’t have the right to take it everywhere you go."

What state are you in? You cite your OPINION twice in the above statement. This is fine. But then you make a flat assertion that I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT... You are wrong. Our Indiana Constitution says this at 1-32: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Where is the qualification that you assert? Sorry, but just because the Illinois Constitution allows government to 'regulate' this right, does not mean that our Indiana Constitution also permits this.

Alas, politicians and LIEyers have done with their mumblings what they couldn't do with an amendment to the people. Yeah, We the People have NOT changed the language of 1-32 since it's ratification in 1851 -- which is basically the same as our 1816 Constitution.

Nothing in our Constitution authorizes government to force We the People to 'buy' government permission to exercise our right to self defense. Ever wonder why a 4 year 'permission slip' costs $25 or so, and a lifetime 'permission slip' costs about $150 or so...yet the same type of background check is used?

REVENUE and CONTROL. These 'permission slips' are a snapshot in time. At the time they are issued, the government is saying you are not a felon, or you are not mentally ill. Yet, you could commit a felony the next day. You could have a mental breakdown the next week.

The same instant checks that gun shops use now could be used with us...no 'permission' required.

Of course, if government really cared about following our Organic Law, they would STOP legislating, regulating and interferring with 1-32 UNTIL they manage to get an amendment ratified granting THEM (you know, US against THEM) the power to regulate on our ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.

I keep seeing references in these posts to legal guns, etc.

Our Indiana Constitution makes ALL ARMS legal. For those who don't much care for our Constitution, and put their loyalty in Indiana Code, I offer the following for your consumption:


IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.

Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.

Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.

Thus, we see that we are to obey the federal and Indiana Constitutions, BEFORE we even look to statutes by the General ASSembly. But, what about 'case law'??

I don't see anything there about an affirmative duty to obey something called "case law". Do any of you people see that anywhere above?

Thus, ANY statutes of the General Assembly that are inconsistent with Article 1 Section 32 of our Indiana Constitution are void! ANY regulation, restriction, or fee to exercise a RIGHT are null and void.

Some here may not like this, but it IS what it IS -- until and unless the Constitutional language is altered via Constitutional amendment offered to the People for ratification.

Other States do not require any 'permit' (permission) to exercise the RIGHT to self defense, and blood isn't running in the streets. Other States have 'open-carry', and there are not shoot-outs at high-noon in the streets.

If you people countenance government regulation of the right to self defense guaranteed by Section 32 of our Indiana Constitution, I must wonder what other RIGHTS you are willing to allow government to interfere with and regulate.

I sure as hell didn't grant ANYONE the right to regulate my absolute right to the defense of my life.

Best comment of the day from Matt Stone, "The Republicans have had two years to do this. for some reason or another, they haven't. Someone else beat them to the punch, and you're accusing a bunch of (what you see as) disorganized losers being able to pull off this grand conspiracy?"

That's how I felt after 6 years of GWB and a Republican controlled Congress. All of those things you thought they stood for ... downsizing government, restoring liberty, cutting government waste, not being the policemen of the world, protecting free speech, fiscal conservatism ... and they didn't act on any of it. We got bigger more expensive government, no elimination of even some of Carter's old cabinet positions, larger deficits, more and different excuses for it all.

I understand when you inherit a lot of issues as Ballard and the Republican Council undoubtedly did in 2007 but there are always things that can be acted on.

And don't hand out $5 million in buy-off grants to private organizations one month, another million to "the arts" and then put everyone in panic mode the next to get a $4 million a year tax increase. How disingenuous.

One Republican State Senator recently communicated to me that he sees his role as "defensive". Huh-uh. Preserving the status quo doesn't cut it. The size, scope and expense of government needs to be aggressively scaled back and numerous functions need to work better and be made more accountable. Just playing for the defensive block is a cop out.

I believe Ballard has 2 more years to work with this council on rescinding Peterson's 65% local tax increase as was his campaign promise. We're down from 1.65 to 1.62%. Anyone holding their breath for the rest?

Tax increases, anti self-defense, sports venue bailouts, free speech restrictions. And people wonder why a lot of libertarians suggest there is a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties. The above items read like a Democrat policy agenda.

This is what it looks like when Republicans eat their young. Ed should've gotten the message when they took his committee assignments after he (sorta) left the caucus.

I'll give them credit--they're thorough. Ballard did the exact same thing on the smoking ordinance. There were two or three Repubs ready to vote for it. I know because they told me and others. The mayor had voiced support for a complete ban during his campaign. Put to the side however you feel about that ordinance--he said he'd favor it, he changed his mand late in the game, and then got tough with fellow Republicans.

Then, he changes his mind, calls in the GOP Council Caucus, and threatens them all.

I admire the political lock-step of the GOP. Ballard is their leader. Tee-hee.

And I try to imagine Monroe Gray or Steve Talley or Bart Peterson threatening the Democratic caucus to do anything during their presidencies.

Ain't politics fun to watch?

The Republican talking points are pretty good:

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=11919374

So because Coleman didn't send a memo and keep them up to date, it's held against him? They're acting like this is going to get a vote tomorrow. It hasn't even been assigned a date for the committee to discuss it. There's PLENTY of time for them to read all 6 or so lines of changes in the ordinance.

I'm sure the Republicans run all of their proposals past Ed and Democrats first. Not.

What's funny is I'm sure Ed had to think this was one that Republicans could easily support and would be helpful to them libertarian, conservative and Tea Party circles.

I know I absolutely didn't expect so much political posturing on their part. Wow.

The NRA's news feed has picked up Coleman's introducing of the legislation. Guess they haven't found out about the Republican Mayor planning on vetoing it.

http://www.nraila.org/

Wilson, unless I am misguided, based on your post, I think I see a catfight in the GOP over this. Delicious! They've picked a fight where none was needed. All over a Libertarian's proposed ordinance.
Bart made some political miscalculations but honestly, in terms of sticking a sharp stick in the eye of your base, this is a doozie. Maybe Hizzoner can perform a frontal lobotomy on the favored legal community next, if he's into self-(political) injury. What a dope.

Paul, this issue cuts across many political lines. And the court cases, as I'm sure you're aware, are equally fizzy, er, fuzzy.

By the way folks, it's not Parks Commission, it's Parks BOARD. Chaired by the Director of DPR. Chock-full of hacks. Unelected.

I guess it could be the Council's Parks Committee, chaired by Susie Day, a budding genious.

At least council members are elected.

Egad, we're screwed.

TA,

I'm telling you the Mayor is taking the position in court cases, including one that I'm an attorney on, that the City does not have to comply with the 2nd Amendment. That is in direct opposition to the position AG Greg Zoeller is taking in the NRA case in the 7th Circuit. There is nothing "fuzzy" about that. That's a fact.

He has also defended one of the most restrictive gun return policies in the Midwest in Court, again in a case I'm involved with That again is a fact. Nothing fuzzy about that.

As far as the politics of the issue go, I'll readily concede that the gun rights supporters on this issue are in the minority. But it doesn't matter - they all will go out and vote on this issue, while the people on the other side won't. Further, those angry gun rights people come straight from Mayor Ballard's political base. It was a stupid political move by the Mayor.

Here's what's confusing to me:

The Parks Board originally passed this on their own, and the CCC's Coleman is amending it?

But the Parks Board works on behalf of the Mayor. How can they pass ordinances like this? Any power they get must come from the CCC, right?

We need to make a lot of changes to the dozens of unelected boards we have in this town. Parks and City Market especially.

I am all about guns in parks. A young man was just shot and killed in Highland Park where I often take my son to play. Hypothetically, one would be wise to carry on the Monon and other areas such as Brookside and Spades. Some of us have chosen to be part of urban renewal and wish to raise our families in a diverse area but that doesn't mean we have to be victims. Too many suburbanites try to drive this issue when they don't deal with the thefts, burglaries and crimes of violence that are very real in "the swamp"

You can carry your AK-47 anywhere you want in Somalia !

Interestingly enough. In Somalia, the lack of government is not a source of violence but the competing factions trying to establish and be the government are.

IndyErnie's Most Favoritest Mayor in the Whole Wide World has just announced he'll veto the Guns-in-Parks ordinance should it pass the City-County Council.

And now Ernie is trying to say that the "losertarians" as he calls them are so brilliant as to have just done this as a plan to trap the mayor and Frank Straub.

WHATEVER.

Oh yeah. We all sit around in circles dreaming up schemes. Sometimes a good one will elicit oohs and aahs with a "oh yeah! That'll get 'em!!!"

OR, we just sit around and think about what needs to be fixed. How to restore personal and economic freedom. It's not our fault if some other politicians want to step on their own $*!@ when something like this comes up because they have to admit that they don't really mean the things they say.

Funny how when people feel like they have access to power, get their sense of importance from or are friends with the establishment that they'll become apologists for it even when it violates everything they claim to believe in.

Sean just how many candidates’ has your party gotten elected in Indianapolis?

"IndyErnie wrote, in response to seanshepard:

Sean just how many candidates’ has your party gotten elected in Indianapolis?"

ERNIE? As I recall in 2007 Libertarians helped get your candidate Ballard elected. Who do you think organized those street protests, tax rallies, and tea parties? The Republicans? ***laughs***

Mel you have a valid point.
How many of your parties candidates has your party elected to office?

Ernie, we've not elected any of our candidates so far to office.

We inspired one Republican (so far) to defect from the herd of RINOs.

And you could say that the Libertarians got some strong recruiters the past couple years like Bob Grand, Tom John, Carl Brizzi, Joe Loftus, Ballard, and Ryan Vaughn.

Don't get too cocky, Ernie. Remember what happened to Peterson when he did?

Would you rather get a Libertarian or a Democrat? Cause the creeps in your party are scaring off the people and you're gonna lose the council majority and the mayor's office next time round.

Mel your right again...Ed Coleman was a RINO and we are glad hes gone.

Ernie wrote, "Ed Coleman was a RINO and we are glad hes gone."

LMAO. Yeah, he was far too much against high taxes, taxpayer subsidies of millionaire sports hobbies, too interested in actually following the Constitution and too interested in not being told how to vote all the time?? Was he too conservative for ya Ernie? ;-)

Actually there has been elected Libertarians in Indiana. I believe there was a judge in Hagerstown who is a Libertarian and has been elected twice. There are several other people I know in both political parties who describes themselves as Libertarians and runs as a Democrat or Republican candidate because they admit that the system is rigged that that there is really one way to get elected and that is to run as a major party candidate. Currently, there are hundreds of Libertarian-leaning candidates springing up throughout the USA and running for a whole series of different offices and leading their races or posing serious threats to take that seat. The Tea Party movement is still growing and becoming more powerful with each passing day. The Campaign for Liberty has nearly 250,000 volunteers working behind the scenes and is now a major fund raising arm to endorse & provide campaign dollars to liberty leaning candidates who will defend the Constitution and put the government back in its place.

If the Republican Party continues to ignore this ever growing base, it will be at it's own demise. If the Democrat Party doesn't get real and recognize that over half of America has declared themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals (i.e. Libertarians) and continue to railroad more wasteful bills through Congress, then they will lose their races. I do not see any of the major parties getting real and I see the rise of the Libertarian movement take hold. There will be competition in our system and it's time to start booting out political thugs and media hacks from the their perches of deceit.

Statewide there are 3 or 4. Of course, in Indy, Republicans are lucky to win anything anymore because the city (like most major metro areas) leans left now.

I think what is important is that it takes a Libertarian presence like Ed Coleman's to make pro-self defense proposals, oppose tax increases and oppose sports team bailouts the way most conservatives would expect Republicans to do.

Winning may be the only thing in politics, but when it is at the cost of your soul and your principles than, well, I guess you haven't really won after all just created the illusion of such.

Glad to know you're willing to set aside the 2nd amendment in order to play partisan politics.

What if Amos Brown came out and said that some Republican legislation was bad just because it wasn't run by the Democrats first? How would you feel about that? You'd call him crazy, and rightfully so.

So why is it different now? The Republicans have had two years to do this. for some reason or another, they haven't. Someone else beat them to the punch, and you're accusing a bunch of (what you see as) disorganized losers being able to pull off this grand conspiracy?

Good legislation is good legislation, regardless of party. Too bad others can't see it that way.

On another note, how's it feel to know you and Wilson agree on something :) ?

Matt as much as I disagree with Wilson I admire his dedication to his party.
I have little respect for martyrs who stand on the sidelines and criticize others who try to make a difference.
Talk is cheap, action speaks volume, and whiners are just crybabies who do nothing and get in the way of progress.
What has any libertarian done for us lately except whine? Ed’s grandstanding doesn’t count.

Ernie. Now be fair. Just as I know you often are, you have seen folks like myself, Tim Maguire and Chris Spangle at CCC meetings, tax protests and quoted in newspaper articles.

What have libertarians done? How about taking the lead in opposing that smoking ban in bars that a few so-called Republican council members were supporting? How about publicly opposing last year's Republican tax increase? How about organizing protests across the state to oppose high property taxes in 2007? How about organizing to oppose Peterson's 65% local tax increase in 2007? How about libertarians accurately predicting the economic failings of the past couple of years and the sub-prime market bust (ref: Peter Schiff, Ron Paul).

How about properly explaining what happened economically in books (ref: Tom Woods), where our rights and our Constitution went to (ref: Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano).

And I don't know about lately but libertarians (aka: "classical liberals") gave you your country in the 18th Century.

So. Just a few things I guess.

Sean the smoking ban was dead meat from the beginning. With or without your party’s opposition the ban would have failed. The majority of the R's apposed its passing.
As far as the organization of the tax protest, I recall a large republican & democrat presents at these rallies.
I know that libertarians were involved with the organization but I don’t think its fair for your party to take ownership.

You asked him what LPIN has done. He answered, and his answers are correct. In no way was he taking 100% credit for them, but they were actively involved.

You obviously had an answer already in mind, so why even bother asking?

Ernie? It IS right for THIS Libertarian to take ownership, cause guess what?

I'm the chick that got off her butt, got pedaling on my bike for more than 10 hours on a Sunday to round up my neighbors for a protest on July 4th 2007 that choked off Meridian Street traffic for a couple hours.

Interestingly, a Republican said he would help. Instead, he flaked out on me.

So THIS Libertarian hit the trail on her bike all alone.

And guess who came to help me after they found out that I rode house to house gathering my neighbors in protest of taxation?

Well, that would have been Andy Horning, Mark Rutherford, and Sean Shepard. MORE Libertarians.

I am the one that insisted we make it a non-partisan thing about Fair Tax and not about a party.

Ballard showed up to ride the coattails and pretend for a few months that he was "with" us.

And I think that sums it up.

I was hoping you would jump in here, Melyssa, and take credit for the great work you did back in 2007 with organizing not only the local events but some others around the state.

And Sean...I also hope that Ernie doesn't forget that it was a LIBERTARIAN who organized the contentious city council protests including that big one when Peterson locked us out of the meeting.

I still see news footage once in a while from those days.

BUT for the work of THIS media savvy LIBERTARIAN, I doubt Ernie would have had many TV cameras in filming his "Bart Lies" signs.

America is tired of partisan politics and America is tired of LIES and phony promises from politicians.

Ernie will see come the next council and mayoral election.

No more GOP council and no more GOP controlled mayor's office.

Mark my words.

You're right, talk is cheap.

"Well, Ed didn't tell us beforehand"- cheap.

Ed submitting the proposal: Action.

Oh wait, you dismissed the action of legislation YOU AGREE WITH because of blind party loyalty. If Ballard and co can't claim credit for the amazing idea, then you MUST be against it, full force, nevermind that the Republican Party has traditionally stood for gun rights.

you do know, Ernie, that you guys making them martyrs is a GOOD thing, right? Not to mention I have no idea what you're talking about. Ed is an elected official, Chris Spangle and Sean are both high-ups in the Libertarian Party and I know Sean has run for office before. That's not sitting on the sidelines.

Tell ya what, when the Republicans on the CCC and Mayor Ballard propose legislation like this instead of sitting on their thumbs, let me know. I would really like to support them, and there's no reason they couldn't have done this 2 years ago.

Instead of throwing a fit about it, you should be ashamed of your party being beaten to the punch by a political party that has one representative on the council. You guys have what, 15? Plus the mayor? And nobody in two years thought state parks and city parks should have the same gun policy? We aren't talking about something extremely complex. It's literally a few lines amending already existing law.

We already knew that Weasel...err Wilson. Try a little harder will ya your getting sloppy in your old age. I really expect better of you.

Wilson, how does it feel to be on the same side as Mayor Ballard?

Link, for those who haven't read yet: http://www.indystar.com/article/20100202/LOCAL/...

Not too much of a surprise to me. His speakign of it on WXNT wasn't leaving very high hopes.

Once again, Ballard receives stupid political advice.

I predict his next stop is to take on pro-lifers. He's trying to alienate all the loyal Republican groups out there.

I support the right to carry in public parks but...I believe that the real intent behind this proposal is a direct assault on Mayor Ballard and Frank Stout by the Libertarian Party.
Ed and those who pull his puppet strings within the Libertarian Party are out to embarrass Mayor Ballard and Stout by trying to force Stout into a public statement as to his position on the right to bear arms.
The Parks Commission have the authority to amend the statue to allow those with permits to carry in the parks, new legislation isn’t needed.
Ed Coleman and the Loseatarians just want some media attention. So what do they do? They try and press an issue with the mayors office....good luck Chris. Look for more coup attempts down the road.

IndyErnie, you don't think Republicans are opposed to Mayor Ballard's hostility to gun rights? I guarantee you it is not just Libertarians.

Mayor Ballard takes the position that the City doesn't have to follow the 2nd Amendment, a position directly at odds with our Republican Attorney General. He supports the most restrictive gun return policy in the Midwest. He has expressed support for NYC style gun registration.

In your world, we should just look the other way and not complain when Mayor Ballard's actions make a lie of his claim that he supports gun rights. That's exactly why we have the situation we have now - a Mayor who has turned his back on virtually every Republican principle there is.

Paul I'm going to type real slow so that you can understand what I'am about to state...Mayor Ballard is not hostile to gun owners or to thier right to carry.

Sorry should be.. Frank Straub.

Ballard could've pushed for this legislation at any other time, or if the Parks Commission has the authority, he wouldn't even need to do that. He would've just had the Parks Dept. do it for him.

If this was a calculated attempt at embarrassment, Ballard could've prevented it from even being an issue, at any time. It'd be real simple. "We're going to make city parks policy on firearms fall in line with state and national policy."

Pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about executive branch leaders and waiting for them to do something, but I'd rather have people I vote for make these decisions than some committee that's far removed from the public's influence.

And I don't even OWN a gun.

Ernie, The mayor has nothing to be embarassed about if he protects the rights of legal gun owners. This is an opportunity for him to show everyone that he's none of the things people say he is.

I would hope that folks would thank the Libertarians for looking out for their rights and freedoms.

And Ernie? If I'm ever in trouble on the Monon, there is no one I'd rather see at that time of crisis packing heat, than YOU.

I am not sure if the "city law has been enacted by the Parks Board," but given the Parks Dept.'s land stewardship lately, anything they do ought to be viewed suspiciously.

I thought it was an ordinance, thus it would have been enacted by the City-County Council. We elect those folks. It is a good point to research. Some of these administrative baords are completely off the reservation, enacting things they have no business enacting. And we don't elect them. And get this, if you didn't already know: that specific department's director, in this case Stuart Lowry, is chairman of the Parks board. What a complete borass. If someone had an independent thought, they'd get railroaded. This entire "board" thing needs probed.

That said, I do know, from personal experience (I got a ticket once), that all city parks close at dusk. The park rangers are fairly liberal with enforcement, most of the time, but I got a ticket a few years back because I parked my car in a particular spot, jogged for an hour, then got back to my car after dark. Mostly because I was tired and didn't jog very fast back to my car.

It was $37.50 plus court costs. I think it was 2003 or 2004. The ranger was very nice, but said he had strict orders. By his calculation dusk was 30 mins. prior to my arrival at my car. I've researched this, because it made me madder than hell, and the only allowbale exceptions are: ranger's discretion, golf courses with bars/restaurants, and attendance at an activity where a valid permit was issued (say the Riverside indoor pavillion or something similar) which could keep people in the park after dusk.

I was told at the time, that park rangers basically assume anyone in a park after dusk, is up to no good. I think it's reasonable for the public area in Broad Ripple, that's technically a park, to come under the "officer's discretion" noted above.

But they're fairly serious about after-dark activity. I don't know why that line is drawn in the sand, but it is. I was told the rangers issue hundreds of tickets per year for this "offense."

No, I don't pack heat. Anywhere. But if most of the crime in parks occurs, as I've been told, after dark, some parallels can be drawn there.

Just sayin'.

Name, it's actually an amendment to an established ordinance. It basically makes exceptions for two groups of people: law enforcement officers and legal gun owners who also have the right to carry (which I believe is a SEPARATE permit. Maybe some of you know: Does Indiana allow concealed carrying?). And you still can't discharge your weapon unless it's some sort of emergency.

This isn't some revolutionary piece of legislation. It's simply bringing our city parks in line with state and national parks.

On another note, I think it's slightly ridiculous to ban people from walking on the Monon past dark, especially in the areas of commerce (IE Broad Ripple) that get tons of night traffic. At least within the Broad Ripple strip, it's fairly well lit and there's no reason people shouldn't be able to use it.

Can we look at this from another angle or two.

Most who carry with permits are property owners. Property owners pay property taxes. The property taxes fund our parks. Why should gun owners not be allowed to use the parks? Do the lawmakers in Indianapolis honestly believe that our city parks are going to be turned into shooting ranges? Do they believe that the Grandma's who carry are going to expose their firearms to children in playgrounds? Do our city leaders expect our parks to become hunting grounds for small game?

Another point, if a person with a carry permit is driving east on Brookside Parkway in front of Spades or Brookside Park and an accident forces police officers to redirect traffic through the park should/can the driver who is carrying be cited?

This city law has been enacted by the Parks Board and it should be rescinded.

I like the oldest post under 'name' (except for the slap at Ed). There are no protesters with signs in the streets and no one staging sit-ins or feigning death on the Capitol lawn to repeal the current ordinance. To this point, this is low-hanging fruit. There is no need to make a splash in the water in order to find some sort of self-relevance so just lift the antiquated restriction imposed on the 2nd amendment by our big brother friends and move on.

Rico raises a good point. What exactly are the poark crime stats? It would be helpful to know.

And, I'd bet many of those crimes occur after dark. By ordinance and practice, all city parks close at dusk, unless you're attending a permitted event.

Ed is a goof. I don't think that's in doubt. But lately, it's hard to tell the council goofs from the sane ones. Seriously.

They need to spend time on the important issues. Period.

It's illegal to be on the trail after dusk. So if you are there, you'll get chased off and there are patrols after dark. Definitely no one should use the trail after dark. Only an idiot would be on the trail at night. I'm talking about DAYTIME crimes and you really don't understand until you spend a summer commuting on the trail.

I'm not saying I agree with my father's use of the trail after dark, but it's kind of a toss between some dangerous traffic on College (especially if the drunks from Broad Ripple are out) and the Monon.

It also helps that he bikes a LOT, never carries much on him besides equipment, and usually is in a group of at least three.

Name,

Even though parks close after dark, people still use them. Parks like Broad Ripple, Holiday, and Eagle Creek only have a handful of entrances and usually have cops there over night. But small, neighborhood parks and the Monon, White River Trail, etc... are easily accessible. There might be a cop car that goes down the Monon right after dusk hits, but that's it. I know my father uses the Monon to bike at night unless an officer kicks him off. Then neighborhood parks ar ee just that. There's one right across the street from my dad's in Broad Ripple. It's easy enough to access, and I often see teenagers gathering there at night in the warmer months.

I'm very curious to know the number of violent attacks that take place each year in parks. I would assume the number is very high. The way I look at it is this: I will protect and defend myself or others in whatever manner I choose, and they can sort it all out later.

Why, Melyssa, what would you ever do if someone came up from behind you on the Monon? I mean, everyone is avoiding that profound question? And, darn it, if word gets out that a white guy can make the record books by doing violence on the Monon won't you feel guilty for egging the limited IQ guy to commit a crime for the history books?

I didn't ride my bike to work at all last year. Honestly, it scares me to use the Monon. It's very creepy south of 38th. I have not decided whether or not to use the trail this year. I might if I can find some friends to ride to work with, but even then I don't think it is safe.

Outlawing guns is not going to keep the thugs and guns off the trail.

We should be encouraging law abiding citizens to pack heat on the trail. It is THAT dangerous. Seriously.

This weekend I noticed Methodist Hospital very prominently prohibits firearms on the premises -- is this OK ?

Methodist Hospital is privately owned.

A better example would be the City-County building. Now, even though citizens probably aren't allowed to carry in there, AT LEAST they have adequate security, and the Sheriff deputies there are armed. It is not the case with city parks.

Last I knew, in New Hampshire you could open carry into their State House. Seems to work okay as everyone has stayed safe so far. Although, I think some of their legislators are getting skittish as one of them introduced a bill to try and prohibit them in their last session I think.

I guess if I was knowingly undermining the liberty and freedom of people every day I'd be skittish too?

The problem with the City County Building is the courts are there. Most people don't want guns allowed in court rooms.

Personally, I'm ticked off every time I have to take my belt off just to get in the building (supposedly someone might hide a razor blade behind the buckle?) ... seriously? Are we that afraid?

Sean, try having a pacemaker and not having a choice of just walking through the metal detector. TSA searches are fairly unprofessional at best. I never thought I'd praise the Sheriff Department, but I feel better being searched by the deputies than by the nincompoops at the airport.

Every hospitial prohibits firearms.

If Methodist is Private property and not government owned property than it might be okay. Private property owners have rights to set rules on their property.

The government; however, should be barred from infringing on natural rights to life, property, self-defense, speech, etc.

For example. As a home owner I have a right to set policy for that property as it is not the government creating the restriction. NOW, if I were to accept government subsidy for that property then it could be argued that I became a branch, division, arm or agent of the government and then required to consider things in a different light.

Using speech as another example. The government cannot censor and people have a right to free speech. BUT, a private employer can certainly boot your ass if you say something that embarrasses them or their organization.

Usually, local governments are more in touch with the people than state or federal. In this case, BOTH are beating our city to the punch. You can carry your LEGAL FIREARM into a state park, soon national parks, but that park in your own neighborhood? No way.

Interesting note. According to the current ordinance, no one can carry firearms into city parks. Unless it's covered by another ordinance or state law, that includes LEO.

Some of the worst and most deadly episodes of gun violence over the past decade or two have occurred in places where firearms were banned. Virginia Tech and Columbine being two examples that come immediately to mind.

Imagine the impact just having one armed teacher, professor, administrator or visiting adult could have had in cutting short one of those massacres.

You can't make everyone safer against criminals by ensuring they are weaker. The criminal is already ignoring law to commit crimes, not carrying a gun to a park is not consequential to their thought or intent.

A law abiding, permit having citizen whom we trust to otherwise carry their weapon in so many other places having one available to them in a park (whether on their person or in their glove box) has the potential to save lives.

I've got my lifetime LTCH and plenty of everything that goes with it and I don't mind not carrying in schools, parks and churches (choice).
If the property owner says "NO GUNS" then it is no guns including, his parking lot that my car is on as well.

"A person can kill another with pretty much anything including a bat, rope, chain, brick, glass bottle, unopened can of food or soda, computer cord, legal pocket knife (or butter knife if you're having a picnic) or numerous parts of the human body;"

Then why carry a gun? No I'm not a "pinko commie", Ive got my lifetime LTCH and plenty of goodies. I don't mind not carrying in parks, schools, and by choice church. To me it is not a big deal either way. I do like the mantra's. "Can't carry a cop" lets see more of the "blood of patriots", "tree of liberty" stuff. Let's not forget the credits Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin blah, blah blah, though.

Wino,
Let's say you witness some thugs knock me off my bicycle to rob me and beat me up and maybe kill me. It's violent and they've got guns.

Are you going to try to protect me with a glass bottle or a chain when they've got guns?

And don't count on a cop to help me because I'm lucky if I see one a week on the trail.

If we send a message to the criminals that the law abiding citizens are armed, I think we'll see a reduction in crime.

Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll see even more thugs on the trail because they know the law abiding citizens are defenseless.

Just curious, you say you want a gun with you while you ride the Monon Trail downtown to work. Do you work somewhere that allows you to take your gun inside with you? I can't imagine there are many workplaces that do, but I bet there are some (unless there is a state law that allows it, I admit to not knowing). So, my question is, where are you going to put your gun if you can't take it with you to work?

I don't carry a gun because I don't know how to use one. I like the idea of other law abiding citizens having them on the trail because it would be more likely that I would have help if someone jumped me. I'm not going to get any help if the only people on the trail with guns are the thugs, am I?

I like the idea of the thugs knowing anyone on the trail (even a woman on her bike) could be armed with a weapon.

A guy like Ernie would not think twice about helping someone who was getting robbed on the Monon if he witnessed it. And he'd have a better chance of rescue with a gun. Not with a bottle or a chain!

I think to reduce crime, we should have the cops give free gun safety lessons to the ladies (especially seniors) and advertise the the classes on the news constantly.

The next time some thug thinks he wants to victimize one of our seniors, he might think twice if he thinks there is a chance she's armed.

I have to say, Ernie and I disagree on much and I think he sometimes falls into the trap of being this Republican administrations apologist and propagandist (their version of the Democrat's Wilson?); BUT, I absolutely would feel safer knowing that people like Ernie, Pony-Tail Paul, Bob Davis, Jerry Titus and others I know from conservative and/or libertarian circles were allowed to carry and might be in a position to be of assistance.

I have no doubts that folks like that would come to someone's aid and be capable and qualified to do so.

Though it may be cliché, “I’d rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six.” The police can’t be everywhere but, I can take my weapon most places. I choose to not go to parks, to avoid being accosted by perverts. I avoid places that may require the use of a weapon. But, in today’s world, one never knows. So, I’d rather go to court for having my legal weapon at the ready, than have my family mourn that I didn’t.

I don't recall ever reading a news story about an honest gun owner with a permit using his weapon illegally to harm another in a park or elsewhere.
Those who carry are made into lawbreakers if they just drive through a city park, that's insulting. Do you really believe that the drug slingers and gang bangers will leave their heat at home while they shoot hoops in the park?
I agree that Ed Coleman is a goof but...even a broken clock is right twice a day and Ed can be right now and then. Ed sponsoring this proposal is right on.
Sorry Abdul on this subject your argument is weak.

It is like the poster here who says that "I know many people who have been jacked on the trail." There have been isolated incidents and not all below 38th Street I think is urban legend based on ignorance and racism.

You are right, a lot of the crime happens up in Broad Ripple. I spoke specifically about the trail south of 38th street because that is the part of the trail I use when I commute downtown to work. It has nothing to do with race, although 100% of the crimes reported to me by my friends were done to them by blacks. No one has reported any crimes to me on the Monon done by whites.

Don't try to play the race card on me. I live where I live because I like diversity.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people; the gun is just one tool in the murderers arsenal. A person can kill another with pretty much anything including a bat, rope, chain, brick, glass bottle, unopened can of food or soda, computer cord, legal pocket knife (or butter knife if you're having a picnic) or numerous parts of the human body; when will they be oulawed from being in the park? I find it disingenuous for the anti-gun crowd to always use the few times a lawful citizen flipped out and used their weapon illegally while wholly ignoring the fact that criminals who will commit a crime aren't worried about the lesser offense of carrying a gun inside a park (or wherever) when they're trying to commit a robbery/rape/murder. This is a common-sense ordinance that needs to pass.

The Monon Trail is not safe south of 38th. As a woman who commutes to work by bike sometimes alone, I would feel better if I had a licensed pistol on me to protect myself or anyone who is being victimized by criminals.

I know of MANY people who have been jacked on the trail.

I believe that the criminals would think twice about victimizing people if they knew law abiding citizens with legal guns could be anywhere at any time.

I'm not afraid of legal guns. I'm afraid of the criminals who don't show any sign of going away. And there are not enough cops around to keep me safe on the Monon.

Melyssa...luv ya, but what is a "legal gun" ??? There is no gun registration in Indiana. Felons and Domestic Battery convicts are barred by statute from having guns. Are these the 'illegal' guns?

Personally, I strongly disagree with the inclusion of so-called 'domestic battery' being included in legislation to deprive someone of their right to self defense.

DB can be nearly anything. You could simply 'push past' someone in a heated moment, and BANG, you could be charged and convicted of 'domestic battery', which is a misdemeanor that somehow rose to the level of a felony.

The problem isn't with Ed's proposal. The problem is that some jack-ass (or group thereof) decided that one solution to crime might would be to eliminate the rights and ability of lawful citizens to protect themselves. In case you haven't heard, just as a position of authority doesn't an honest man make, gun control laws don't prevent crimininals from accosting victims.

As for you revisionists who have responded as though Ed is coming from left field (hence the revision), do us all a favor: Save the focus on your pet issues and petty complaints until AFTER our legitimate and lawful rights have been restored. You all are typical of the kid who refused to eat his meal until after he was served his dessert. Digest something of lasting value first.

If any of you believes that a "limited" right is still a right, you might want to sit back for a few moments and consider which pill you've decided to swallow.

The bottom line is that lawful, honest, and ethical government begins with establishing a solid foundation of law. In this country, the US Constitution has been agreed upon as the primary governing document from which all other lawful actions eminate. It establishes the roles of national and state government, and it specifically calls out what rights the government can not infringe. Any law that is implemented in a manner that is contrary to our Constitution is neither lawful, honest, or ethical.

If you believe that you can talk your way around some of those based on some criteria or other, then I strongly recommend that you go back to my earlier statement regarding the limitations of individual rights and figure out once again which pill you've decided to swallow.

And for those of you who favor ad hominem or disingenuous responses, save it for an audience who cares.

Excellent post, as usual.

We have a president, of sorts, who is always talking about imaginary folks, "Some would say....It is said by some...). These are always, nameless, faceless, and probably just a rhetorical trick to mask his ignorance of reasoned propositions. Are there any names and faces and reasoned propositions from the critics, if any, of Mr. Coleman's proposal? Have they any evidence to support their "reasoning"?

The whole gun argument is a fair one. On both sides. It really is a close call. But here's a different twist on this:

Who on that council, paid one ounce of attention to Ed prior to this? Exactly. Not a soul. He's a 14K goof.

Now he throws a stink bomb in the room. It attracts people who want to run toward it, and it pushes some people away. This issue always does, like abortion and the death penalty.

Tell ya what, Ed...and listen up, councillors: when you fix these things, you can spend your valuable and fleeting time on divisive issues like this: 1. Potholes the size of Argentina on the southside (yeah, I've called the MAC...a complete waste of time) 2. The Parks Department's complete lack of professional administration 3. The City Market budget fiasco 4. The apparent lack of proper screening of some IMPD applilcants 5. The duplicitous budgets of the sheriff and IMPD 6. Same as No. 5, with multiple fire departments and IFD. 7. The stupid amount of time you spend at your twice-monthly meetings on resolutions. Some of you really ought to look at yourselves on Ch. 16 before you monopolize so much time recognizing every human being on the map. Some recognition is OK, but geeeesh.

Time is valuable. These folks have maybe 3-4 comomittee meetings a month and two council meetings. They spend so little time on the actual budget that I doubt many of them could pass a 10-question quiz.

And they want to spend time on THIS? Was there a hue and cry from the public to deal with this?

Ed, crawl back in your hole. Is there a parliamentarian to rule on the germane aspect of this ordinance? Please don't tell me it's Elrod. If so, we're in for some long meetings wasted on this.

To be fair. Lots of stuff gets talked about and I know Ed has a backlog of things he would like to introduce.

A considerable amount of time was spent talking about education in one meeting; but, the state really runs all of that and the city government has very little influence.

I would have to think that Ed (someone would need to check with him) would love to address some of those issues.

My immediate thoughts are (1) Call your councilors, e-mail them with photos even [including the at-large like Coleman] if the MAC isn't getting it done, (2) sounds like the Mayor's issue to address??? (3) City Market should be sold and privately owned and operated (4) were these recent applicants or ones under Anderson/Peterson? (5) there are some things that need to be looked at there but it gets political instead of logical (6) isn't the fire dept(s) thing still evolving over time and just finished one or two consolidations? (7) I hate sitting through all of that before the council gets down to serious business as well.