Current Indiana law creates dangerous traps for people exercising their Second Amendment rights. More than one in nine adults in the Hoosier State have a license to carry a handgun. Carrying handguns in Indiana has become common, legal, and safe. Unfortunately, Indiana still has some archaic laws that were created when gun control was more in fashion and these laws create traps for the law abiding gun owner. One such trap is the inadvertently constructed “roving school zone” . . .

Under current law, students who go to a facility for educational purposes create a “roaming school zone” where firearms are forbidden. The zone stays around them as they move about. A legal gun owner could be minding her own business, sitting on a bench in a zoo, for example, when a group of students on a field trip approaches. She has just committed a felony because she now possesses a firearm in a “roaming school zone“.  A proposed law, SB229, removes this absurd construction.

Another trap is the school parking lot. If an adult goes to a school parking lot to drop off or pick up a student, or for any other reason, and have a firearm with them, they have committed a felony. The reform clarifies that the school parking lot is not the school, eliminating that trap.

One last section of the law prevents public funds from being wasted by destroying valuable assets (firearms) for political theater. Instead of being destroyed, guns received by public agencies would be sold and the proceeds used for public benefit.

The reform bill, SB229, passed the Indiana Senate on 28 February 28-21. It then passed the House on March 3 with a 74-24 majority and some minor changes. A good way to tell the effectiveness of the bill is the fact that it’s being strongly opposed by the old Indiana Media as well as the local chapter of Moms Demand Action.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Recommended For You

52 Responses to Reform of Legislative Traps for Indy Gun Carriers Goes to Conf Committee

  1. It is ironic that Watts comes from one of the most gun-friendly states in this country. Kind of explains her desire to stick her nose in every other state’s business.

    • I shall sleep soundly tonight, wrapped up in the knowledge that fräulein Watts likely is having fits over the entirely sensible actions of her state’s legislature.

  2. Indiana FTW. Hoping this passes, because right now my university uses the school zone excuse to ban firearms since there is a K-12 nearby that has a partnership to use university buildings.

  3. The picture of that kid holding a sign sickens me. There’s no way he has an opinion (or at least not a valid one that was formed independently), he’s just there because his parents made him go to that rally. Despicable. Using their children as political weapons….

      • As do the people of the gun; the “We stand with CT” pic with the 2 9 year old daughters was touching. It was also the same thing you’re bemoaning. Those who live in glass houses….

        • Yep, and it’s just as disgusting. The one thing I’ll give to the gun photo is that there are plenty of kids who like holding and shooting guns, so it’s not as foreign as holding up a sign at a protest, but it still shouldn’t be used for political hay.

        • I don’t know, when I was nine I knew that I enjoyed shooting. If someone tried to take it away I’d be a bit pissed. I think it’s fair to say I had an independently formed Pro-2A opinion.

        • K-Bizz…THANK-YOU!

          Children are more than capable of not only forming their own thoughts in complicated topics but also to voice an opinion to Mom or Dad about “Yes I want to be in this picture” or “No, I don’t want to do that.”

          The Stand Strong CT pictures I’ve seen have smiling children that don’t look forced or coerced in any way.

          I think some folks just like making mountains out of mole hills…as if there are not enough real enemies against which to guard.

    • Agreed,
      sounds exactly like Richard Dawkins’ complaint about calling a newborn child a Christian, Muslim or Hindu child.
      Unless beliefs are genetic.
      Ten years from now the kid may ask, ” mom, why did you make me do this?”

      • Richard Dawkins is the last person ANYONE should take ANY advice on on ANY topic.

        He’s an embarrassment to those of us in science that actually believe in a little concept called “scientific integrity.”

        He worships at the church of Ontological Naturalism, and his “god” is his self importance.

    • What is (sort of) funny about it….. we already have background checks. The kid is supporting the status quo.

      I know what they think they are saying, but words have meaning and I’m not letting them get anything for free.

    • So, do tell … at what age does a child begin to think for himself?

      There is an interesting trap we have created for ourselves culturally…we deny children ALL adult behaviors (by mimic or any other method that they would learn them), and then magically when they turn 18, 21 or 26 (take your pick), we expect them to behave as adults.

      That’s pretty stupid.

      To the point: You don’t KNOW what this child thinks. ANY child is going to have SOME bias toward what their parents teach them. That’s a good thing. Here we have people whining about it…and yet, all the pro-educators say “get the parents more involved.” If the parents are involved in educating the child, everyone screams “But they are not teaching what/how *I* want them taught.”

      In other words…I kinda wish you all would shut the hell up on this topic. These kids, the CT kids, etc…are NOT YOUR KIDS. You raise your kids how you wish and leave the parents to do their own thing with theirs.

      Otherwise, you are just as statist (in philosophy) as the most rabid gun grabber…freedom of thought exists beyond your own thinking.

  4. Maybe Shannon will decide to home school her 5 “children”? Oh wait. 4 of the 5 are GROWN and out of school and the last one is a teenager and her stepkid. Just sayin. Comment Moderated. Again. Or not. 🙂

    • Only Indiana has it, that I am aware of. It is clear that most legislators who voted for the “roaming school zone” bill did not understand the effect that the bill would have. MDA and other anti-second amendment groups are opposing even this reform! I think it really hurts their credibility What little they have, that is. There is quite a bit of action in the 40 mostly free states passing gun law reform bills. The old media has difficulty squelching several reforms all at once. The concentration on Governor Brewer in Arizona to veto the religious freedom bill likely removed pressure from some other areas.

        • I like you deliberately put words in my mouth instead of replying to me directly, and I know you did because I did not add the second paragraph.

          That aside, discrimination is only a good thing to a degree. Could you imagine the furor that would arise from say, an Atheist shop owner telling Christians or Muslims or Hindus to go elsewhere? I wouldn’t want it to happen to me, and that would undoubtedly work both ways.

        • Sorry about that, I was sure I hit the “reply” button. The edit button is close, but the boxes look different. Probably just an error on my part.

          I meant to reply.

          The media characterized it as a right to discriminate, when it was a religious freedom bill. The two are somewhat intertwined in that there should be freedom of association, which is a right to discriminate.

        • Actually, I think an Atheist would not be hit as hard as Christians are, certainly not in the media. But freedom of association works both ways. Businesses that discriminate lose business. Racial discrimination in the South only worked because of laws that enforced it.

        • The License to Discriminate Bill does apply to only businesses, not individuals. Discrimination in the South worked primarily because there were, at that time, a whole lot of racist business owners. All the Jim Crow laws did was protect those people from prosecution. It shouldn’t be able to work on the grounds of sexual orientation, either. It doesn’t directly or even indirectly affect them (or anybody else for that matter) at all in any way, shape or form. Not mentally, physically, emotionally, or spiritually.

          Anyway, an Atheist business owner discriminating against religious people would soon be out of business, even in most liberal areas.

        • You act as if getting service from a private organization is a right. It is not. I do not have to serve you, even if you offer payment. Is that a good policy? Well, probably not. All this bill did is make it so that business owners could say “I didn’t want to make a cake for their homosexual/muslim/christian wedding” etc. But even without the bill, when asked why they refused service, the business owner simply has to say “He/she was an a-hole and I didn’t want to make a cake for them. My best friend smokes pole.”

          Or they could just “forget” to make the cake, or otherwise give them poor service until they left. All they would have to do is not mention their dislike for whatever.

          It goes back to “making it illegal doesn’t stop criminals…”

    • Your comment gives me the impression that you live in Nevada and have no real idea what the gun laws are. Assuming this to be true:

      I could write a whole article on Nevada gun laws, but I believe in an ability to understand such important maters on one ones own. If you had done the due research, you would know the answer, to the question, and if reference for clarity was need, or the desire to double check ones memory arose, it would take but a couple minutes of your time. Also there is no more accurate answer to be gained than from the Nevada Revised Statutes themselves. An example of such: even the certified Nevada CFP instructors themselves will lie to you. Here, I’ll lend a hand. Try starting here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/

      And finally, for those who will inevitably find this to be “overly harsh”, I have but this to say. “Give a man a fish…”

      • “Give a man a fish…..”

        I see and agree with your point but…..It’s easy to say but at times difficult to accomplish when you factor in the over abundance of information on the internet. Type in the words “how to fish” and find me the BEST way to fish…. It seems like an absurd task because the “best” way to fish is subjective.

        Now if you apply that to gun laws you find that there is actually at times ONLY one way to be in accordance with the law shrouded in MASSIVE amounts of information.

        Just yesterday I got tickets to an event at a venue I am unfamiliar with and have never been to. Upon getting the tickets I started checking the specific “exemptions” and “special rules” in the local gun laws that apply to this particular venue and have spent HOURS trying to find out if it would be legal to carry there…. I still can’t find a definitive answer and HAVE found directly conflicting statements on state vs. local vs venue websites.

        If I fish wrong I may go hungry, if I get this wrong…..jail sucks.

        • I say that is a fair point.

          @michael nieto Thus the answer is no, there is no roaming school zone law in Nevada. But don’t just take my word for it, back up my claim with hard evidence. There will always remain the possibility that I missed something.

          Along those lines, Nevada in particular is pretty straight forward and clear. Interpreting the question as objective, the answer is easy to find. Considering the possibility of a subjective or interpretive question, multiple approaches to thought should always be welcome.

      • Also… Head of security for the venue told me “the law isn’t clear so I wouldn’t advise it here”.

        Not exactly the clarification I was hoping for.

        • Liability. Even if he does know he doesn’t want liability.

          Ex. My Nevada ccw law instructor taught that it was illegal to carry in both in N. Las Vegas and Pahrump NV. However, Nevada has State preemption of all subsets, making him wrong, and the subset laws null. Whether the local police decide to enforce null laws is another matter and whether to “temp fate” is a personal choice.

        • Well put… “Tempting fate” is another sticky subject around here though. The myriad of conflicting gun laws in my area set up a kind of “best lawyer wins” scenario at times. Sometimes even knowing the laws doesn’t help if it costs more in defense than you have access to.

          I, for instance, am an Indiana resident right on the border of Kentucky that owns/runs a business there(KY).

          While IN/KY share reciprocity it’s still extremely difficult to figure out where that reciprocity begins or ends because of quite a few “exceptions” written into local law. Add to that the apparently abysmal training officers in the area get on ACTUAL firearm law and you have a seriously confusing situation that could cause real and serious problems.

          The real point I’m trying(failing) to make here is that I shouldn’t be forced to give up or hinder my right to self defense because of fear(imprisonment,loss of rights,cost,hassle) or because of needlessly complex gun laws that do nothing to address the real problem.

        • Ya, no kidding. Sounds like you got a double dose of complicated to deal with. They say ignorance is no excuse. If we’re to do our due diligence to understand and follow the law, they have an obligation to make such laws clear, concise and simple.

  5. Wow! That looks like a record turnout for a MDA rally. Is Bloomberg upping the cash flow to hire some stand-ins?

  6. Just to clarify, you can take a gun with you when you pickup or drop off a kid for a school event but if you step out of your vehicle it’s a felony

    • Thanks for the clarification. I believe that is correct for permit holders currently. My reading of the bill indicates that it goes a bit further, and allows people who may legally posses firearms, but who do not have a permit, to also store the firearms in their vehicle while visiting a school. I understand that people in Indiana do not need a permit to possess a long gun or non-cartridge handgun in a vehicle.

      • As long as you operating you vehicle you can have a gun in there if you can legally have a gun, step out of your vehicle and it’s a felony, this bill will allow people that can legally have a gun to store it out of sight in their car when they go into the school

    • +1, Indiana’s law is already middling permissive. If you’re there only for the purpose of transporting a student to or from school you can have a firearm in the vehicle. Just don’t get out of the car. Also, you can carry on school grounds if you have permission. This bill would expand what’s allowed. I saw so much bad reporting about what the law already was that I had to go back and reread the statute to make sure I understood it correctly the first time.

      IC 35-47-9-1
      Exemptions from chapter
      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 may legally possess a firearm and who has been authorized by:
      (A) a school board (as defined by IC 20-26-9-4); or
      (B) the body that administers a charter school established under IC 20-24;
      to carry a firearm in or on school property.
      (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.
      (4) A person who is a school resource officer, as defined in IC 20-26-18.2-1.
      As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11. Amended by P.L.172-2013, SEC.12.

    • I live in Indy and I have asked one lawyer and two cops. The letter of the law actually goes so far as to allow a packing CCW inside of a school so long as the carrier takes the shortest distance to his or her destination to conduct business, pick up a kid, see teacher, etc… This isn’t something that I plan on ever testing. I’ve tried to make sense of the statutes and cases but I have found that most people (including LEOs) are pretty tolerant of packing and as long as you keep your tools on the DL, there isn’t much to worry about.

  7. This collection of rocket scientists are killing the very people they want to protect. Tough laws against criminals with harsh sentences will save the lives they want. Instead they are enablers by going after the wrong people.

  8. It narrowly passed the state Senate, easily passed the state House. I think the Governor will most likely sign it.

  9. The guy to the left in the picture looks pissed. He probably wanted to buy an AR and now his wife drags his sorry ass to these events and forbids him from even glancing at a gun.

    • So, he’s basically been neutered and wants everyone else to feel the pain? Sounds pretty typical of the sexist, racist, anti-rights, obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex if you ask me.

    • worse – the woman in red is his wife and he is asking himself where he went wrong in his life. regret is a mother . . . . .

  10. I like how “Background Checks” is in quotations. Jokingly, I feel like it’s saying “background checks…riiiight.” *wink wink* using that pretense to lead to unrelated uncommon sense laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *