IN - campus carry - legality

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Siderite

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Indiana
Working on a follow up letter to my university's administration and wanted to check the facts first. My reading of the Indiana Code is that university property is not considered "school property" and so the only prohibition is university policy.

Do others agree with this assessment?

If not, would the exemption under 35-47-9-1 Sec. 1. 2-A "(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by: (A) a school; ... to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school." mean that all university employees (faculty, staff, grad students, student employees) are exempted?

And yes, I know I'm asking legal advice online (which is worth what I paid for it), I'm just trying to figure out if I need to campaign for a campus rule change, or a campus rule change and a state law change.

Thanks,
Siderite


The relevant parts of the the Indiana code (that I have been able to find):

IC 35-47-9 http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch9.html
Chapter 9. Possession of Firearms on School Property and School Buses

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
35-47-9-1 Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to

or from a school or a school function.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.

IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
35-47-9-2 Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.
Click to expand...

and IC 35-41-1-24.7 http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch1.html#IC35-41-1-24.7
"School property" defined
35-41-1-24.7 Sec. 24.7. "School property" means the following:
(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by:
(A) a school corporation;
(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;
(C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or
(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:
(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.
(ii) A special education preschool program.
(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.
(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision

(1).
As added by P.L.296-1987, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.34-1991, SEC.27; P.L.9-1991, SEC.95; P.L.2-1992, SEC.880; P.L.81-1992,

SEC.38; P.L.1-1993, SEC.240; P.L.160-1994, SEC.1; P.L.1-2005, SEC.227; P.L.145-2006, SEC.370.
Click to expand...
 
"School" in chapter 9 means K-12. A "school corporation" is the township school (or a consolidated school).

If I have my story straight, this Indiana law (which prohibits guns on school grounds) was passed to get federal funding for K-12 schools which required it.

IU, IUPUI, and other Colleges and Universities have a no gun policy unless you are authorized by campus police to carry.

When (if?) campus police authorize a person to carry, they are NOT hiring or authorizing them to be a security guard. But, I can't imagine campus police actually authorizing a person to carry.

My personal feeling is that this is actionable, just like it was in Utah, but I no longer have standing. :)

And, as you say, my advise is worth exactly what you paid for it.

I really recommend you contact Brian Ciyou. He wrote the book. Literally.
 
Update

Talked with Brian Ciyou this past weekend (funny coincidence, we both happened to be at the same range) and it seems that the definition of "school" is vague enough that a state university in Indiana may qualify. This means that a legislative approach needs to be taken, likely similar to what Utah did with a state-level pre-emption.

I'll be gathering more information and then try to see if we can start a letter-writing campaign to the Indiana General Assembly.
 
I'm going to continue my efforts here at IUPUI. I'm coming around to the notion that I can't have VT in my mind as I argue, cajole, and inform. I'm going to move toward presenting the image of a woman on campus facing a violent situation be it a stranger intent on robbery or rape or an acquaintance such as an abusive boyfriend or (ex-)husband who is intent on harming her. The key question I'm going to ask the appropriate people in the Administration:

Who is responsible for her protection?

We should all know that the police are not. Two years ago the Supreme Court even ruled that the police have no constitutional duty to protect the individual.

I've gone through all the information available online to IUPUI students/faculty/staff dealing with campus, personal, and public safety. All of it boils down to the individual being advised to call the campus police or the campus escort service. (I think we can agree that this would be less than effective in any number of situations.) But behind this is the notion, then, that the individual is ultimately responsible for their own safety. Then, by banning licensed CCWs on campus, the Administration limits women in normally legal, effective ways of defending themselves against violent attackers.

Do y'all think that this approach (the 'gender' card, I guess) might work?

Wayne
 
BOB,

I like your approach, including the gender card, A LOT.

It is effective for those on the other side, you know, the side who lies, distorts, and plays on sheeple's unthinking emotion, so why shouldn't we use truth telling, clear speaking, women and women's issues?

"The key question I'm going to ask the appropriate people in the Administration: Who is responsible for her protection?"

BTW - GREAT question!!


BB62
 
I commend all for trying but I think that it is in vain. We've been down this block lots of times with IU. They are simply unrelenting on this matter.

I think it's quite a stretch to fit a college or university into the definition of "school property." IU's only hammer for those carrying legally on campus has always been limited to making life miserable for you if you are students, staff or faculty; or threat of a trespassing charge if you didn't leave their property with your gun.

You're absolutely best bet, which noone seems to want to try for some reason, is the state legislature.
 
I commend all for trying but I think that it is in vain...
Click to expand...

And we must be similarly unrelenting.

As for the legislature route, Indiana has a group called the Second Amendment Patriots, the leadership of which I met at the Gun Policy Rights Conference (name?), run by the Second Amendment Foundation. The meeting was in Northern KY, near Cincinnati.

They are fine folks. Indianans, check them out:

http://www.2ndamendmentpatriots.org/

Contact Jim Tomes.


BB62
 
Good effort

this is what we all need to be doing folks.

I do want to say that the bottom line here is that ANY law, statute, policy, etc. that infringes on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

What should be done by the families of the slain students and faculty at Virginia Tech and other places where firearms are prohibited and people are killed or maimed by gunmen is to sue the institution and/or government for liability and gross neglegence - they created an unconstitutional situation that prevented people from having the means to protect themselves and then failed to provide adequate protection for those people.

Strong argument - I don't understand why this hasn't been taken up.

We are in the right - legally and morally. We just need to have the same furor and energy as the socialists do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top