Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. They don’t want what they consider to be an attack on the status quo and what they consider to be an increase in liability should anything happen.

    Might affect their bottom line.

  2. The Colts depend on the po-po to keep the guns out of the stadium. This legislation would switch the responsibility to the Colts, which might mean that they will have to pay more for it and the taxpayers less.

  3. Maybe someone should ask the guy why he thinks that people from Indiana are so stupid, dangerous, or morally suspect that he needs to disarm them. Then they need to ask him how he feels about suddenly being on the hook for the safety of all the people that he has disarmed.

  4. Who owns the stadium? If it belongs to the Colts, it’s private property and they can make whatever rules they see fit (including a ban on guns) for any and all who want to use it, regardless of State Law, as long as they do so in a non-discriminatory fashion.

    Surely they’re smart enough to KNOW that, aren’t they?

    Considering all this to be rather obvious, what is their REAL objection?

  5. Here in Oregon we have had a state pre-emption law for many years, and we can carry into any place we want except the federal building and most courthouses (and our original law allowed the courthouses unless the presiding judge specifically took steps to bar them). We haven’t had the bloodbaths that the antis predicted. I’d also be curious if the stadium was at least built with public funds. Our main arena was built mostly with public funds, but was technically privately owned which allows them to ban firearms via their own rule (but of course a violation is then just a reason for them to kick you out and not a crime unless you refuse to leave if discovered).

  6. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Colts’ ownership to ban firearms on their property. However, it is going too far when they demand that the ban, their personal anti-gun prejudices, be enshrined as State law. If, in spite of common sense, the ban is put into the law, then also include a provision in the law making the Colts or any other private entity banning guns on their property responsible for the safety and well-being of any licensed CCW holders disarmed by the policy. Get robbed or mugged between the parking lot/garage and the stadium? Colts management pays restitution, hospital bills, and even death benefits if appropriate for the person they required be disarmed. If they wish to claim they desire to assure safety then make them legally responsible for providing that safety.

    • That idea makes no legal sense or common sense. It presumes both that injured parties would have been armed and that arming would have prevented any injuries. Neither presumption is warranted, obviously.

      Your proposal also makes the Indianapolis Colts responsible for the actions of criminals. As an opponent of gun control, how would you like to be held legally and financially responsible for the thousands of gun crimes and accidental shootings each year?

      Clearly, the owners of the Indianapolis Colts are entitled to a voice in the process just like everyone else. Your objection is based only on the fact that their views disagree with yours.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here