[Southsider2k12]

I didn't much care for Mr Espar using the tragedy in E St Louis to help this bill, but it is something worth considering...

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52155.16

ity May Prohibit Weapons From City-Owned Property

Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - A proposed ordinance prohibiting deadly weapons on property occupied, owned, leased, controlled or managed by the city will go before the Michigan City Common Council.

The council's Public Health and Safety Committee recommended Thursday that the proposed ordinance be sent to the council with two amendments.

Second Ward Councilman Marc Espar, who co-sponsored the effort with Fifth Ward Councilman Willie Milsap, said the ordinance is a public-safety issue.

"This ordinance is being introduced to take the situation where we remove the instrument that could cause harm from entering into a situation where matters may get flared and where otherwise harm wouldn't be caused but for the gun being in place," Espar said.

The ordinance, he continued, actually was introduced prior to a recent shooting at a city council meeting in St. Louis where a gunman fatally shot five people and injured others.

"It was almost like I introduced the ordinance and two days later someone in St. Louis, Mo., decided to walk into a city council meeting and open fire," Espar said.

The ordinance, though, wouldn't prevent someone from entering a city building and causing harm.

"Somebody could come into any building, find a way in, and cause the harm that they're hellbent on doing," Espar said.

The amendments to the proposed ordinance included adding knives of a certain length in the description of a deadly weapon.

City Attorney John Espar said the description of a deadly weapon does beg for greater specificity.

"An amendment along the lines has been suggested to specifically include knives and further defining that as a knife or dagger with an overall length exceeding 2 1/2 inches is eminently reasonable," John Espar said.

Another amendment is an exception to an individual with a legitimate fear as a result of a domestic issue should be entitled to defend themselves by carrying a concealed weapon.

"I think you should put certain criteria to the exception, such as that individual has gone through the requisite procedure through a court of law to secure a protective order," John Espar said.

Whether metal detectors would be installed in city hall remains to be seen.

"I have not had that specific conversation with the mayor," John Espar said. "I cant say there's an expectation that metal detectors would follow the implementation of this ordinance."

Third Ward Councilman Ron Meer said he is not sure how the proposed ordinance will reduce the chances for someone to bring a weapon into a city building.

"They're probably going to conceal it (a weapon) pretty well. It's not going to stop a maniac from coming in here that is bent on retaliation," Meer said. "I think that basically we're doing something that's just symbolic."



Contact reporter Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@ thenewsdispatch.com.

[edgeywood]

I didn't much care for Mr Espar using the tragedy in E St Louis to help this bill, but it is something worth considering...

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52155.16

Don't see how it could be enforced.

The fact is, this state allows concealed carry. If Marc Espar is serious about accomplishing something in this realm (and I have my doubts about that), he should propose a ban for the entire city. If it's that dangerous out there, why are only city officials and employees afforded the protection of a weapon free environment? Does Espar have the guts to do that? I have my doubts.

They are already arguing about amendments; e.g. domestic violence cases allowed to carry, knives included in the ban, what a waste of time.

YMMV...but I think it is grandstanding.

[lovethiscity]

Don't see how it could be enforced.

The fact is, this state allows concealed carry. If Marc Espar is serious about accomplishing something in this realm (and I have my doubts about that), he should propose a ban for the entire city. If it's that dangerous out there, why are only city officials and employees afforded the protection of a weapon free environment? Does Espar have the guts to do that? I have my doubts.

They are already arguing about amendments; e.g. domestic violence cases allowed to carry, knives included in the ban, what a waste of time.

YMMV...but I think it is grandstanding.

I have a feeling, with the added knife ban. Mr. Espar just put an end to recreational as well as charter boat fish cleaning.

[Dave]

I could see a weapons ban in city owned, operated, etc. buildings (heck, I require guests to check their guns at the door at my house ), but property? It seems to me that is someone is legally carrying, they should be able to carry.

Good catch, LTC. If no knives on city property, then no knifes in any of the parks, which means no knives in the marina. I can't imagine going fishing without a knife for cleaning fish or cutting lines.

[Southsider2k12]

I understand the sentiment of the bill, but tell me this. If a person is bent on killing a bunch of people, is he really going to get to a public building and read a little sign informing him on the weapons ban, and think...

"Damn, I was going to mass murder people senselessly, but because of the weapons ban, I think I will stay home now."

Its nice in theory, and probably is a good idea. In practice, the effects are negligible.

[Dave]

I understand the sentiment of the bill, but tell me this. If a person is bent on killing a bunch of people, is he really going to get to a public building and read a little sign informing him on the weapons ban, and think...

"Damn, I was going to mass murder people senselessly, but because of the weapons ban, I think I will stay home now."

Its nice in theory, and probably is a good idea. In practice, the effects are negligible.

Well, heck, Southsider, I know that would keep me from taking an Uzi to a city council meeting!

In the article above...

City Attorney John Espar said the description of a deadly weapon does beg for greater specificity.

Did he ever do any criminal work as an attorney?

240 IAC 9-2-1 Definitions
Authority: IC 10-11-2-28
Affected: IC 10-11-2-28; IC 35-41-1-26.5; IC 35-41-1-29.4; IC 35-47-1-5; IC 35-47-8-1; IC 35-47-8-2; IC 35-47-8-3; IC
35-47.5-2-4
Sec. 1. The following definitions apply throughout this article:
(1) "Deadly weapon" means any of the following:
(A) A loaded or unloaded firearm (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5).
(B) A destructive device, weapon, device, taser (as defined in IC 35-47-8-3), electronic stun weapon (as defined in IC
35-47-8-1), or stun gun (as defined in IC 35-47-8-2), equipment, including knives, chemical substance, or other material,
that, in the manner it is used, or could ordinarily be used, or is intended to be used, is readily capable of causing serious
bodily injury.
(C ) A biological disease, virus, or organism that is capable of causing serious bodily injury.

Looks to me like the State of Indiana has pretty thoughly done the defining.

[JHeath]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=55825.28

2/20/2008 10:24:00 AM
Weapons Ordinance May Not Survive

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The City Council likely will shoot down an ordinance to outlaw weapons in city buildings because many members say it would be impossible to enforce, and would take away a fundamental American right.

"If I carried a gun in my purse when I came in here, how could you tell?" 4th-Ward Councilwoman Pat Boy said. "We don't have a guard at every door. I just don't think it will be a practical thing."

In what became a somewhat heated discussion during Tuesday's City Council meeting, several council members debated the proposal with its author, 2nd- Ward councilman Marc Espar, who said he introduced it to keep people safe.

The ordinance would prohibit people from bringing weapons, including guns and knives, into city-owned buildings, including Washington Park Zoo and the park office.

Espar said the ordinance would stop people from bringing weapons into city buildings by placing signs on entryways and simply by being in place.

"People are going to know that weapons are prohibited and (they) won't bring them in," he said.

Espar said he's not advocating placing metal detectors and security officers at every city building "at this point," but added such measures weren't likely needed to force people to adhere to the ordinance.

"They could be detected by sight," he said of ways to know if someone is carrying a gun.

Council president Ron Meer said the ordinance would only disarm law-abiding citizens and wouldn't stop those intent on doing harm to someone inside a building.

"If we don't secure the buildings, people then have the right to protect themselves," Meer said. "The person who's going to violate the law don't care about (the ordinance)."

At-large councilman Bob McKee agreed enforcement would be nearly impossible, and said he doesn't believe the ordinance, as proposed, would make anyone safer.

"If someone comes through that door bent on shooting one of us, I don't think a fine will impede their intent," McKee said. "My hope is that someone in here has a gun and stops the killing. I'd prefer to take my chances knowing someone out there has that ability."

The council will hear the ordinance on third and final reading in two weeks.

[Southsider2k12]

The bill is nice and all, but this is just naive...

Espar said the ordinance would stop people from bringing weapons into city buildings by placing signs on entryways and simply by being in place.

"People are going to know that weapons are prohibited and (they) won't bring them in," he said.

He doesn't really think that if someone wants to do someone harm that it will stop them from doing it, does he? Yes it will stop law abiding people from bring weapons into banned areas, but those aren't the people I am worried about!

[The_Mikester]

The bill is nice and all, but this is just naive...
He doesn't really think that if someone wants to do someone harm that it will stop them from doing it, does he? Yes it will stop law abiding people from bring weapons into banned areas, but those aren't the people I am worried about!

He is thinking "Ahhh, if we just outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns...." but the reality is that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns! I heard that an "associate" of John Gotti's said that he really liked tough gun laws because then he could be pretty sure that the folks he was mugging didn't have them!

[Southsider2k12]

DOA

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...23&TM=55042

Council Says No To Ban Of Weapons

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The City Council killed an ordinance Tuesday night aimed at prohibiting citizens from carrying weapons into city buildings, despite an eloquent attempt by one councilman to persuade council members to jump to his side.

"I'm not fooling myself. Opposition is strong to this," 2nd-Ward Counc-ilman Marc Espar said. "There are arguments that it will deny the citizens their 2nd-amendment rights and would make buildings less safe.

"I'm not an advocate of any of those arguments."

Espar wrote the ordinance - which failed 7-2, with only him and 5th-Ward Councilman Willie Milsap voting in favor - more than a month ago with Milsap's support.

The two feel by letting the community know weapons are illegal inside city buildings, people with evil intentions will think twice about bringing a gun inside. Seven of the nine council members, however, disagreed.

"It's my firm belief that the ordinance won't gain one ounce of ground in creating a safer situation," at-large councilman Bob McKee said. "The only people who will suffer from this are those seeking to defend themselves. And we'd be letting the criminal element know that there is less resistance if the ordinance is passed."

Fourth-Ward Counci-lwoman Pat Boy, who also opposed the ordinance, said her issue with the proposal is its lack of enforceability. She said without placing metal detectors at doors, it would be impossible to spot someone with a gun.

Mayor Chuck Oberlie disagreed, saying the most important aspect of the rule is the policy statement it would make.

"We just don't want them," Oberlie said, before admitting that sooner or later, the city would likely need to buy metal detectors. "I've seen strange actions in this building before."

Boy argued Oberlie's point.

"You could put up signs then," she said. "You don't need the policy."

When he knew the ordinance didn't have enough support to pass, Espar said the contention a lack of guns inside buildings would make them less safe is untrue.

He called the belief that people carrying guns would have stopped shootings like those at Columbine and Northern Illinois "fantasy."

"The meaning of the Second Amendment (which allows citizens the right to bear arms) is one of the most understood," he said. "None of our rights are absolute. Dull reality loses out to pretty fantasy every time."



Contact Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.