LEAVE YOUR GUN IN THE CAR

Here’s another sign from the grounds of the Lake County Government Complex. The sign’s location is just inside the East entrance from Main Street/SR 55. The bit of roofline visible in the background is from the Administration Building.

“Leave your gun in the car.” That caveat is part of the standard advice that I give to new clients with a court date as I explain entry to the courthouse and the security station that they will encounter. The trouble is that the sign above seems to prohibit firearms from the entire complex, including the parking areas. Can the County do that? Of course not, but Lake County is remarkably unconstrained by law.

Chapter 131 of the Lake County Code of Ordinances is titled “Weapons” and “Lake County Courthouse and Public Buildings.” The term “weapons” is defined as including firearms, stun guns, and knives, but not the chemical sprays referenced in the featured sign. Here is the general prohibition from § 131.02 with quotation marks and emphasis added:

§ 131.02 RESTRICTIONS.

Except as provided in § 131.03, a person shall not possess on or about his or her person a “weapon” within Lake County Courthouses and public buildings. (Ord. 1241C, passed 7-8-2003; Ord. 1276A, passed 7-13-2006)

By its terms, the County Ordinance does not appear to ban “weapons” in any outdoor spaces. Accordingly, the Ordinance does not support the featured sign’s ban on weapons in vehicles or outdoor spaces.

What about state law? IC 35-47-11.1 is titled “Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories” but has more to do with state preemption than local home rule. IC 35-47-11.1-2 bans firearm regulation by “political subdivisions” “except as provided in Section 4…”

IC 35-47-11.1-4(5) then allows local government to prohibit or restrict possession of a firearm in any building that contains a courtroom. There is no provision in this state law that would allow a local government to ban the (otherwise lawful) possession of a firearm in any public building that contains no courtroom or in the parking lots and outdoor spaces adjacent to public buildings.

Given that the prohibition of weapons (described in the featured sign) is unsupported by law, why is it still there? Given the illegality of the County Ordinance’s prohibition of weapons in all public buildings, why hasn’t it been repealed or amended? You might want to ask your Commissioner about the sign, and your Councilman about the Ordinance.

With respect to invalid gun ordinances remaining on the books, there is (unfortunately) some local precedent, as revealed by the COA in Dykstra v. City of Hammond, 985 N.E.2d 83 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013) (Transfer Denied). In August of 2011 there was before the Hammond Common Council a proposed amending ordinance to bring one existing Ordinance (no. 132.073 respecting guns in public buildings) into compliance with the cited state law. Against Mayor McDermott’s threat to veto the amending Ordinance, the measure failed to the effect that Hammond knowingly kept an invalid gun ordinance on the books. As of November 11, 2015 the City’s online Municipal Code still contains unamended, invalid firearm prohibitions relating to possession in public parks (no. 99.28) and possession in public buildings generally (no. 132.073).

A Second Amendment crusading lawyer from downstate filed suit against the City of Hammond on behalf of two locals who claimed to be “adversely affected” by the noncompliant Hammond Ordinances. Remarkably, the trial court (Jeffery J. Dywan, Judge) and the unanimous COA panel ruled against the plaintiffs on grounds that they were not “adversely affected” by Ordinances that were not being enforced (due to their invalidity). I smell bad law here surrounded by bad public policy. One natural result of the recalcitrance of the City of Hammond and of Lake County is that they each lack any clearly valid Ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings housing courts.

Caveat: This Article is not about weapons bans under state law or under federal law. Do not go thinking that I have recommended firearm possession in (for instance) a post office.