Posted on 12/05/2022 4:04:43 AM PST by marktwain
On November 23, 2022, Sheriff Martinez of Lake County, Indiana, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new state Constitutional Carry law, HEA 1296, as it banned people who are under indictment from carrying handguns. From kpvi.com:
The county’s chief law enforcement officer filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a judge to declare unconstitutional a portion of a new Indiana statute barring individuals under indictment from carrying a handgun in public.
House Enrolled Act 1296, which eliminated the need for Hoosiers 18 and older to obtain a state permit to carry a handgun in public beginning July 1, prohibits Martinez from doing the same because Martinez was indicted in January on a felony charge of resisting law enforcement and misdemeanor reckless driving.
HEA 1296 was signed by Governor Holcomb on March 21, 2022. As a way to overcome hostility by some in law enforcement, the bill mirrored several federal definitions of who are prohibited from possessing and carrying firearms.
In addition to citing federal law, HEA 1296 added those definitions and prohibitions directly into Indiana statutes.
Those included a ban on the legal ability to conceal, carry, or transport a handgun for those who are under indictment for a felony. From indy.gov:
8) Under indictment for a felony
“Indictment” means any formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting attorney in any court for a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment which could exceed one (1) year.
Indiana’s Lake County Sheriff is under felony indictment
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I don't think the sheriff would have gone after this if it didn't affect him personally.
And all you Freepers who cry "no restrictions on gun ownership!" can save it....I've heard it all before.
I agree, and recognize it can be abused (in either direction)- but just last week you have a guy , on video clear as day, walks into a bar and starts shooting at his ex-gf (before being jumped by other guys) - I have no problem taking away his guns while he is awaiting trial.
There has to be some common sense.
You are probably right.
But I am surprised that he filed the suit.
I would think that he would have his hands full just defending himself from the charges against himself.
The financial burden of legal defense is huge.
This is just a red flag law variant.
If someone is a threat to themselves or others, they need to be locked up.
And you can be locked up awaiting trial (with bond).
Common sense and history reveals that governments abuse its citizens.
Hence the US took the extraordinary step of forming a government that is not to deprive rights without due process.
An accusation is not due process.
It only looks like a lack of common sense now because we have the government generally following due process, which leaves the actual criminals having a temporary advantage to perform their own abuse.
But laws like those presented in the article will soon turn that table and you will see guns seized for trivial reasons at which point the wisdom of the due process rule will be painfully apparent.
And by then it will be too late and only rectifiable with revolution like had to do before in the face of government tyranny.
As for medical...chronic,long term schizophrenia can warrant a permanent ban,Parkinson's Disease can warrant either a temporary or permanent ban.
Yeah, we've heard all the self-absorbed and illogical opinions too, sadly even here on Free Republic.
Following your thinking, they shouldn't have access to automobiles, knives, illicit narcotics, bats, gasoline, pools, rope, wrenches, pipes, staircases, drain cleaner, their own fists, etc.
If they're not dangerous enough to lock up, indicting them is not cause to deprive them of their inalienable rights. Wait until your rights are stripped away based on a false accusation.
You would think that with all the stories of scummy Soros DAs loose in the world people would have more sense, on that last. The example of the McKloskeys in St. Louis being prosecuted for defending themselves and their home from a mob comes to mind, but there are others.
Point out the ‘moral rectitude’ clause in The Constitution for us, please?
Following your thinking, they shouldn't have access to automobiles, knives...
So you can't think of a *single* person who should be banned from driving at least for a while...or have access to a knife? Let me know where you live and I'll arrange for my crazy nephew to move next door to you. He just *loves* knives and very seldom takes his meds.
Sorry about the “heck of a man” thing.It’s from a thread yesterday about an Australian Navy hero.
No one else is to surrender their inalienable rights because your nephew can't or won't control himself. If your nephew is that dangerous, he needs to be locked up for his own and others' sake.
Indictment is not conviction. The Sixth Amendment insures a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Striking down this law might reinforce the Sixth Amendment.
I'm tired of clowns in funny costumes being treated as "super-citizens".
Hold him without bail, if he's that dangerous.
Yea yea. We've heard all of your stale crap as well, forever.
Agreed
It's OK, we know you don't really support the second amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.