| Author | Post |
|---|
concrete dog
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
the law to carry a gun on indiana school property is clear but what about banks, post offices,stores,parks,restaurants and other comon places
|
ralphb72
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
concrete dog wrote: the law to carry a gun on indiana school property is clear but what about banks, post offices,stores,parks,restaurants and other comon places
Hmm.. I am not a lawyer, in Indana:
Banks ok, post office debatable but not a wise choice (fed property? Some peaople say ok some say no) stores ok, parks by state law can be regulated by the city if municipal property (I've heard Indy parks are a no-no), State parks OK (recently changed to OK) restaurants and bars OK.
You should check out http://www.handgunlaw.us/
There is also a great book by Bryan Ciyou called Indiana handgun law.
|
jaramia20
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan City |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
ralphb72 wrote: post office debatable but not a wise choice (fed property? Some people say OK some say no)
You may not Carry into a Post Office . This is Fed Property and has sings up everywhere . No Carry of any kind in any " Fed Building " , I.E. Cort House , Post Office , City Hall ..... As an Armoried Car Driver , even we would have to disarm before picking up the mail .
|
Skippy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indianapolis |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
jaramia20 wrote: ralphb72 wrote: post office debatable but not a wise choice (fed property? Some people say OK some say no)
You may not Carry into a Post Office . This is Fed Property and has sings up everywhere . No Carry of any kind in any " Fed Building " , I.E. Cort House , Post Office , City Hall ..... As an Armoried Car Driver , even we would have to disarm before picking up the mail .
Post offices are not always Federal property. There is considerable discussion as to the legality of carrying in a Post Office. Most people don't want to be the test case, though.
Also, unless it's a Federal court, courts are not Federal property, nor is City Hall. Unless the city has an ordinance against carrying at those locations, it's (generally) legal to do so.
|
cock&lock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Skippy wrote: jaramia20 wrote: ralphb72 wrote: post office debatable but not a wise choice (fed property? Some people say OK some say no)
You may not Carry into a Post Office . This is Fed Property and has sings up everywhere . No Carry of any kind in any " Fed Building " , I.E. Cort House , Post Office , City Hall ..... As an Armoried Car Driver , even we would have to disarm before picking up the mail .
Post offices are not always Federal property. There is considerable discussion as to the legality of carrying in a Post Office. Most people don't want to be the test case, though.
Also, unless it's a Federal court, courts are not Federal property, nor is City Hall. Unless the city has an ordinance against carrying at those locations, it's (generally) legal to do so.
Post Offices are NEVER federal facilities. Definintion of a "federal facility" is as follows:
18 USC 930(g)(1)
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part
thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, [u][b]where Federal[/b][/u]
[u][b]employees[/b][/u] are regularly present for the purpose of performing
their official duties. |
The Postal Service is a private entity and not part of the Federal Government; also its employees are definitely NOT federal employees.
|
Skippy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indianapolis |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
cock&lock wrote: Post Offices are NEVER federal facilities. Definintion of a "federal facility" is as follows:
18 USC 930(g)(1)
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part
thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, [u][b]where Federal[/b][/u]
[u][b]employees[/b][/u] are regularly present for the purpose of performing
their official duties. |
The Postal Service is a private entity and not part of the Federal Government; also its employees are definitely NOT federal employees.
Sounds like you're volunteering to be the test case, then. Make sure you OC so they know, or it's not a true test! 
Last edited on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 10:22 pm by Skippy |
tattedupboy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Gary, Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 411 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Here are the places that are listed as off limits under Indiana law
1. In or On School Property.
2. On a school bus
3. In or on property that is being used by a school for a school function
4. Private School(IC 20*9.1*1*3) & (IC 35*41*1*24.7)
5. Head Start (IC 35*41*1*24.7)
6. Preschool (IC 35-41-1-24.7)
7. IC 35*47*9*1Allows the carry of firearms by persons permitted to possess and who are transporting a person to or from school or a school function.
8. On an aircraft
9. Controlled access areas of an airport
10. During annual State Fair 80 IAC 4-4-4 (Must lock in vehicle)
11. Shipping port 130 IAC 4-1-8 (Controlled by Indiana Port Commission)
12. A riverboat Casino
As for post offices, federal law would apply, not Indiana law. Federal law dictates that firearms may not be carried into post offices except for "official purposes." The term "official purposes" has been subject to much interpretation, and since I'm not a lawyer and can't say one way or another if self defense counts as an official purpose, I would CC there.
|
Beau
Regular Member
|
tattedupboy wrote:
As for post offices, federal law would apply, not Indiana law. Federal law dictates that firearms may not be carried into post offices except for "official purposes." The term "official purposes" has been subject to much interpretation, and since I'm not a lawyer and can't say one way or another if self defense counts as an official purpose, I would CC there.
I love the "official purposes".
Officially I'm carrying to protect myself from the next crazy ass postal worker who decides to go on a shooting spree.
How's that for official.
We really need a lottery winner to test this.
|
cce1302
Regular Member
|
Here's what the US Code has to say about "Federal Facilities" and carrying weapons in them.
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
From the parts that I put in bold it looks to me like it's ok to possess a firearm in a federal facility as long as you are carrying for lawful purposes.
Carrying with a state-issued license or permit for the purpose of self-defense would appear to be a lawful purpose.
As mentioned by others, though, I wouldn't want to be the test case.
Last edited on Fri Jan 30th, 2009 05:51 pm by cce1302 |
crazychick17
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
i think we should be able to carry guns anywhere.
tell me what u think
|
CathyInBlue
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
The bathtub? Wouldn't that promote corrosion?
|
squarepeg
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Indiana |
| Posts: | 96 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
not in a Glock, don't you know they are made entirely of tupperware and are impervious to moisture
|
newindy05
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Camby, Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Hi i never disarm for anyone or anybody, And as a Armoried Car Driver and massager i alway have my gun with me at all times.....
|
cce1302
Regular Member
|
newindy05 wrote: Hi i never disarm for anyone or anybody, And as a Armoried Car Driver and massager i alway have my gun with me at all times.....
Well, it's still a good idea to not carry a gun if you're getting on a commercial aircraft.
|
newindy05
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Camby, Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
You can't carry it with you on a aircraft, just under the plane...
|
Prometheus
Regular Member
|
newindy05 wrote: You can't carry it with you on a commercial aircraft, just under the plane...
Fixed it for you 
|
GLOCKMAN40
Regular Member
|
sscce1302 wrote: Here's what the US Code has to say about "Federal Facilities" and carrying weapons in them.
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
From the parts that I put in bold it looks to me like it's ok to possess a firearm in a federal facility as long as you are carrying for lawful purposes.
Carrying with a state-issued license or permit for the purpose of self-defense would appear to be a lawful purpose.
As mentioned by others, though, I wouldn't want to be the test case.
"Law is order, and good law is good order", Aristotle said. I to beleave that the post offices is not a federal building or part of the Federal Government, and as it says here in the code you have offered, or is it just because they use the word " federal " with "Post office " making them off limts to carry ? Which is it ?
|
Phoenixphire
Activist Member
|
In regards to Post Offices:
There is literally tomes of opinions, speculation, and psuedo-legal musings on this subject.
At the end of the day, it would appear that carrying a loaded firearm on Post Office property is a violation of Federal Law / Regulation / Rule / Some Other Crap.
The defenses to such violation require very careful and tedious parsing of phrases, words, ideas, etc.
I would not recommend carrying a loaded firearm on federal property. If you choose to do so, be aware that if the wrong person gets a "hair up their ass", you most likely would be dealing with an expensive legal case.
|
aikidoka
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Carrying with a state-issued license or permit for the purpose of self-defense would appear to be a lawful purpose.
I would agree with that, but I'm willing to bet that the federal govt. will say that no federal law has licensed concealed carry, so from a federal view, it isn't lawful carry.
It's unfortunate that a test case, and the risk inherent to the person invovled, is needed to sort it out.
|
Phoenixphire
Activist Member
|
aikidoka wrote: Carrying with a state-issued license or permit for the purpose of self-defense would appear to be a lawful purpose.
I would agree with that, but I'm willing to bet that the federal govt. will say that no federal law has licensed concealed carry, so from a federal view, it isn't lawful carry.
It's unfortunate that a test case, and the risk inherent to the person invovled, is needed to sort it out.
Actually, a test case is not needed...
One can ask for a Declaratory Judgment.
Most states provide for the means to petition the court to provide guidance in clarification of the law.
For example, Indiana provides http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar14/ch1.html
|
aikidoka
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Phoenixphire wrote:
aikidoka wrote: Carrying with a state-issued license or permit for the purpose of self-defense would appear to be a lawful purpose.
I would agree with that, but I'm willing to bet that the federal govt. will say that no federal law has licensed concealed carry, so from a federal view, it isn't lawful carry.
It's unfortunate that a test case, and the risk inherent to the person invovled, is needed to sort it out.
Actually, a test case is not needed...
One can ask for a Declaratory Judgment.
Most states provide for the means to petition the court to provide guidance in clarification of the law.
For example, Indiana provides http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar14/ch1.html
Thats good to know, thanks for the info.
|
