|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 13, 2007 15:33:37 GMT -5
All,
I spoke with Kyle Hupfer this afternoon and he asked me to relay this information to you.
The following is an email from Kyle along with the proposed amendments to the Marion county anti-shooting proposal.
Woody:
Feel free to post the following and attribute to me:
After speaking to numerous hunters and gun owners on the issue of the proposed expansion of the prohibition of firearm discharge in Marion County, I reached out to Scott Keller a Republican city/county councilman and gun owner/NRA member. We discussed the ordinance in some detail. He passed my comments along to Angela Mansfield the author of the proposed ordinance. She gave me a call earlier in the week to discuss. I indicated that I only speak for myself, but it seems like she is working on a solution for a problem that does not exist. I told her that I knew of no hunting related injuries in Marion County during the last 5 years attributable to someone being shot (there may have been a tree stand fall or two). I suggested that the easiest fix would be to eliminate all of the language about the Sheriff inspecting and fees to be paid, etc., and instead simply provide a blanket exemption for lawful sport hunting. In the first call she indicated that she was studying the proposal and did not want to be punitive to hunters. She asked if there were any restrictions that would be acceptable short of a complete exemption, and I said I could not think of any at the time or support any, but would ask others and look at any proposals she makes.
I spoke to Ms. Mansfield again today and she has provided a copy of her proposed amendment. I have included a copy to be posted for all to have access to. Here is a summary of points and things she has indicated to me:
The committee meeting will take place on Tuesday at 5:00pm and she intends to offer her amendment and take public comments. As of today, she does not intend to take a vote Tuesday. Instead she would give folks additional time to review the amended version and bring it back to another committee meeting. Keep in mind that could change so it is important if you want to be heard to go on Tuesday.
She indicates a willingness to meet with hunters between now and the next committee meeting to discuss.
This amendment removes all of the sheriff related provisions for approval. Instead, it gives blanket exemptions for existing zoned ranges, conservation clubs and property zoned agricultural in excess of 5 acres.
She asked me my thoughts. I told her that I still believe a complete exemption for sport hunting is appropriate and existing laws and ordinances protect adequately against any hunter that acts in an unsafe manner or endangers public safety. I also indicated that waterfowl hunting on white river and potentially other bodies of water are not addressed in any way and still likely completely prohibited.
It appears that as written all archery hunting would be legal, but that needs further review and analysis.
I intend to do my best to make it Tuesday night and urge others who have an interest to attend as well. I am trying to get some safety statistics so we have some hard facts to support the record of safety in Marion County by hunters. I will check your bulletin board to see what others think as well. Thanks for working on this and let me know if I can be of any further help.
Kyle J. Hupfer
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 13, 2007 15:41:02 GMT -5
The proposal as amended...
CITY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL NO. , 2007
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY, INDIANA_______________________________
INTRODUCED: /2007
REFERRED TO: Rules and Public Policy Committee
SPONSOR: Councillors Mansfield, Gray, Nytes, Pryor and Bateman
DIGEST: A proposal for a General Ordinance amending Chapter 451, Weapons, of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County ____________________________________________________________________________
SOURCE:
Initiated by: Councillor Mansfield
Drafted by: Aaron E. Haith, General Counsel
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION: POPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE:
Subject to approval or veto by Mayor Adoption and approvals
GENERAL COUNSEL APPROVAL: _____________________ Date: March 2, 2007
CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. , 2007
A PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” Chapter 451, Weapons and adding new sections restricting the use and discharge of weapons in the Consolidated City.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 451 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” is hereby amended by adding the words and figures that are underlined and by striking the language that is stricken through, as follows: and by adding new sections thereto, specifically, Sec. 451-7 and Sec. 451-8, as follows:
Sec. 451-2. Firearms generally.
(a) Except as provided in this section and in Sec. 7 of this Chapter, Wwithin the police special service district Consolidated City and County, it shall be unlawful for any person to fire off, shoot at another person or otherwise use any dangerous weapon for any purpose other than in defense of his life or the life of another person, or the protection of his property or property entrusted to him by another person, that property being lawful to possess, or for practice at a range under the supervision and operation of a governmental entity, or without the prior written approval of the department of public safety Sheriff.
(b) This section shall not apply to the United States Army, Navy or other a Armed f Forces, the National Guard, or to any duly constituted and authorized law enforcement and peace officer of any governmental unit, or to manufacturers and to repair facilities for testing purposes within a private firing range.
(c) This section shall not apply to a properly zoned indoor firing range or a properly zoned retail gun dealer store.
(d) This section shall not apply to a conservation club organized and in existence as of January 1, 2007 whose mission includes education of safe firearms practices.
(e) This section shall not apply to activities on property that is at least five (5) acres and zoned for agriculture provided that the activities do not pose a danger to person, animal or property outside to the property's boundaries.
(f) This section shall not apply to private ranges which are restricted to the property owner's use or his or her immediate family and/or friends, for indoor use of air, spring, or otherwise activated implements, except anything activated by an explosive charge. However, the use of private property for such purpose may violate other Chapters of the Revised Code of the City and County.
Sec. 451-3. Discharge of weapons across public ways and in public places.
(a) It shall be unlawful to shoot across or upon any public street or place, or toward a public way from any private or public premises, any bullet, pellet, missile or object impelled from any gun, pistol, rifle or weapon operated by means of any explosive charge, or by springs, air pressure or other means, or impelled from a slingshot, or any other device having force directed by the user thereof.
(b) It shall be unlawful to discharge into the air from any location, except at an authorized firing range while shooting at trap or skeet and then with shot not solid projectiles, any of the weapons described in this section.
(b) This section shall not apply to activities in city-owned parks that are authorized by the department of parks.
SECTION 2. Chapter 451 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” is hereby amended by adding new sections thereto, specifically, Sec. 451-7 and Sec. 451-8, as follows:
Sec. 451-7. Shooting ranges.
(a) Not withstanding Sec. 2 of this Chapter and IC 14-22-31.5, it shall be unlawful to shoot any bullet, pellet, missile, or object propelled by an explosive charge within the consolidated city and county except at a shooting range as defined by this Chapter.
(b) A "shooting range" for purposes of this Chapter means an area designated and operated for the purpose of the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, muskets or similar firearms that are fired at silhouettes, skeet, trap, paper, still board, or other similar targets, which shooting range:
(1) does not constitute a danger to persons passing by or residing near the shooting range or to those using the shooting range facility;
(2) is structurally sound or designed so as to prevent stray missiles, bullets, arrows or other object impelled from a gun, pistol, or any type of weapon from escaping from the boundary or walls of the shooting range; and
(3) has passed a safety inspection.
(c) The sheriff shall develop "safety inspection" standards for and conduct such inspections to:
(1) determine if a shooting range is structurally sound and able to withstand the impact of any type of ammunition or other impelled object and to contain the same to the premises or within the walls of the shooting range;
(2) determine whether the conduct of shooting range activity on the site presents a danger to any person or property outside of the perimeter walls of the facility;
(3) the standards developed and enforced by the sheriff shall not be unduly rigorous and must be approved by the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee of the Council; and
(4) the sheriff or his designee shall inspect each such shooting range (a) annually and (b) before it is opened to the public, if new, newly re-modeled or expanded.
(d) Any shooting range that does not pass inspection shall be deemed an environmental public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 575 of the Revised Code of the City and County.
(e) Private ranges which are, restricted to the property owner’s use or his or her immediate, family and/or friends, for indoor use of air, spring, or otherwise activated implements, except anything activated by an explosive charge, does not constitute a shooting range under this ordinance. However, the use of private property for such purpose may violate other Chapters of the Revised Code of the City and County.
Sec. 451-8. Written Approval by the Sheriff for Private Shooting Purposes.
(a) A person may apply to the sheriff for written approval to shoot firearms on his/her property if his/her property is at least 15 acres for a limited period of time not to exceed one year. The application must contain the following:
(1) Name of the person who owns the property;
(2) Names of any other persons that the owner is permitting to shoot on his/her property;
(3) Address including boundaries of where the person proposes to shoot;
(4) Time period requested to shoot; and
(5) Purpose of the request to shoot.
(b) The Sheriff in his sole discretion shall determine if the shooting activity on the property presents a danger to any person, animal or property outside the boundaries of the property.
(c) The Sheriff may revoke the written approval prior to the expiration of the time permitted for shooting if the sheriff subsequently determines that the shooting activity presents a danger to any person, animal or property outside the boundaries of the property or is in violation section of this code, or of any applicable state or federal law.
(d). The sheriff may collect a fee of $100 from the applicant.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with I.C. 36-3-4-14.
The foregoing was passed by the City-County Council this day of , 2007 at : .m.
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Monroe Gray
President, City-County Council
____________________________________
Jean Ann Milharcic
Clerk, City-County Council
Presented by me to the Mayor this _____ day of ____________, 2007, at ___:___ a.m.
______________________________
Jean Ann Milharcic
Clerk, City-County Council
Approved and signed by me this _____ day of ____________, 2007
______________________________
Bart Peterson, Mayor
|
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Apr 13, 2007 17:01:38 GMT -5
I plan to be there. One thing I thought it started at 5:30 instead of 5:00PM. The amended Proposal is better, I still believe this is solution without a problem. However I believe if we fight this too hard it may seem to the none shooting public that "We" don't care about safety. If the amended Proposal was made into law I could live with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 13, 2007 18:14:10 GMT -5
Guys and Gals,
One of the reasons that Kyle wanted this posted here is to get feeback from hunters on the proposed amendment,.
So, don't be shy.. speak up....
|
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Apr 13, 2007 18:56:31 GMT -5
Iam not from Marion county but seems to me the present ordinance in place is fine. This is all about dont fix it if it is not broke.But if they must do something to look busy,the proposed amendment looks like a better deal.Is this all about an incident that happened several years past?.By the way, thanks Kyle for looking out for our interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 13, 2007 19:58:47 GMT -5
I have to agree.
This new proposal, and any further ammendments to it, will all still be a fix to a non existant problem.
The supposed issues are already dealt with under current laws.
This is at BEST an attempt to appease someone unwilling to listen to common sense, and at worst, simply one more tiny victory in the anti-everything-gun-related world.
That is my input.
I am still 100% against it as it offers nothing of value to anyone.
Time to email all the same people and make sure they know my feelings here.
These are the people you need to make your opinions known to:
rboyd@indygov.org
cpryor@indygov.org
kingro@sbcglobal.com
mgray@indygov.org
jmsanders@msn.com
schneider725@yahoo.com
rgibson@indygov.org
ikerand@iquest.net
angelamansfield@aol.com
vaughnforcouncil@gmail.com
CainforCouncil@aol.com
L8638@aol.com
jnytes@indygov.org
woliver@indygov.org
pbateman@indygov.org
sherronfranklin@yahoo.com
esalisbu@indygov.org
mpfister@indygov.org
keller@indy.net
mmadams@iquest.net
VABrown2022@yahoo.com
dmmahern@hotmail.com
susieday20@yahoo.com
jmilharc@indygov.org
lance.langsford@sbcglobal.net
m.speedy@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 13, 2007 20:02:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 13, 2007 20:03:23 GMT -5
I still have a MAJOR issue with Sec. 451-2, line E. - The 5+ acres must be already zoned as agriculture area to be exempt from this. I'm not up to speed on zoning laws, but I would think that if I owned a 5 acre woodlot that my home was on, that it would be zoned as residential most likely. It might seem like a small amount of land to hunt, but if that's all you have, than you should have to right to hunt it.....providing that you are doing so in a safe manner.
Kudos for striking the majority of this foolish proposal and getting it to where it is... but I still think it's unnecessary. There are plenty of laws on the books that prohibit reckless discharge of a firearm, which if this is REALLY about safety, than law enforcement should focus on those situations (ie. New Years Eve shooting into the air).
Sec. 451-3 addresses shooting across public ways and places.....the way this is wrote, it's vague enough to still end ALL hunting in the county. It states that you cannot fire a projectile TOWARDS any public area......So, if I am in the middle of a 100 acre woodlot, and shoot a weapon in the lawful pursuit of game, than I am ALWAYS going to pointing toward a public place....how can you not point in ANY direction and not be pointing toward a public spot EVENTUALLY? Trust me, that line is vague enough to enforce and prohibit ALL hunting as it stands. Also.....keep in mind that with this proposal, if Dennis the Menace pulled out his wooden slingshot at the local park, put a small stone in the leather pouch and shot a coke can on the ground....he would be breaking the law. Again, there are NO specifics, so therefore ANY such weapon would be illegal. God help us if David had to fight Goliath in Marion County, cause after he slays the giant, he will be cited for the use of his sling and stone.
Also, the changes do nothing to address the fact that waterfowling on the White will still be banned inside city limits. I agree with Mr. Hupfer that all legal sport hunting should be exempt 100%, with NO ADDITIONAL restrictions beyond what we already have on the books for hunters engaged in the lawful pursuit of game animals. One needs to look no further than the news in the past 2 weeks to see the need for hunting even in urban areas, with the coyote that wandered into a Quiznos in Chicago, and the coyote that attacked the toddler near Atlantic City, NJ. Repercussions are already being felt in regards to the goose situation out at Geist due to the lack of hunting. Hunting, when done safely, is NEEDED in all areas.......not just rural parts of our state.
Like I have stated before, if this really was an issue of SAFETY, more efforts would be made to enforce the existing laws that in essence would do what the author of this proposal has claimed that her intent is.
|
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Apr 13, 2007 20:15:09 GMT -5
It is 90% better than it was before.
As I understand it this was brought forth to answer a complaint from a resident that had a bullet hit her house.
That bullet could have came from anywhere, but I'd bet the ranch it wasn't from a hunter's gun.
Hunting has been proven to be a safe sport regardless of what the liberal press tries to portray.
The hunting accident statistics for Marion county should be readily available through the IDNR.
The people making the decision should attack the real problem and it is not hunting.
I agree with Kyle - exempt all hunting. It is NOT the problem.
Lack of hunting in Marion county could fastly become a problem with too many deer.
Theh what do we do?
Thanks Kyle for standing up for us and bringing this amended proposal to our attention
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 13, 2007 21:14:10 GMT -5
It is 90% better than it was before. As I understand it this was brought forth to answer a complaint from a resident that had a bullet hit her house. That bullet could have came from anywhere, but I'd bet the ranch it wasn't from a hunter's gun. Hunting has been proven to be a safe sport regardless of what the liberal press tries to portray. The hunting accident statistics for Marion county should be readily available through the IDNR. The people making the decision should attack the real problem and it is not hunting. I agree with Kyle - exempt all hunting. It is NOT the problem. Lack of hunting in Marion county could fastly become a problem with too many deer. Theh what do we do? Thanks Kyle for standing up for us and bringing this amended proposal to our attention As was originally stated, a 'Siding was damaged, and a bullet was found NEARBY'. . . . It never went on to identify the bullet, the type of bullet, or that it had actually done any damage to the house. It simply said it was found nearby. Im my experience, if it doesn't state the bullet actually damaged the siding, there is a reason. If it was highlu likely the bullet was responsible for the actual damage, the headline would have read more like: "Neighborhood home experiences damage from stray bullet. New proposal sought to make our streets safer." This is an agenda, not a misunderstanding. IMHO, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Apr 13, 2007 21:23:06 GMT -5
I'm don't live in Marion County either but I support the thoughts of Kyle Hupfer in full, and I think that hunters would be punished for something they didn't do in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtwal on Apr 13, 2007 21:26:46 GMT -5
Choose your battles. In most cases a blanket ban exists inside a Cities limits.
I don't care for the restriction on ranges to those supervised by the government, but I don't live in Marion Co. And I can think of a lot places better a lot suited to hunting than Marion Co.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 13, 2007 23:27:25 GMT -5
Choose your battles. In most cases a blanket ban exists inside a Cities limits. I don't care for the restriction on ranges to those supervised by the government, but I don't live in Marion Co. And I can think of a lot places better a lot suited to hunting than Marion Co. #1. Most city limits are a bit more city, and a lot less country. There is actually a lot of good and available hunting area from what I have been told. Not thousands of acres of course, but enough to make it worthwhile to fight for. #2. I am a gun owner and a hunter, and as such I do not have the luxury to 'choose my battles'. The anti's gain strength and momentum with EVERY peice of garbage they can get enacted. This is a battle involving us all, whether you choose to care about it or not. Its about banning guns, as always, not about safety or hunters. Bottom line: This type of outlook is what anti's count on. While on the one hand it can almost be counted as minor, on the other it is still wrong and another step closer to YOUR area's and rights. You know its wrong, but since its still OTHER hunters losing out, and not you, its no biggie. . . . . ? I hope you can see we can't survive as hunters if we go that route. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 13, 2007 23:28:19 GMT -5
Just click, type and send.... Woody, always making short cuts...... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Apr 14, 2007 1:50:09 GMT -5
I agree with everyone else, (I don't live in Marion Co. but I do work there) this is pointless and the only thing driving it is politics. Kyle's version is an improvement, however bsutravis has a point about sec. 451-3. We don't need any more laws; does anyone think this will really make Marion Co. any safer? This whole thing should be killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 14, 2007 3:01:21 GMT -5
If anything....... people cannot ignore the EXCELLENT hunting opportunities of the White River both in the Northern, and especially Southern reaches of Marion County. To ignore the waterfowl hunting on the White would be insane. For those not in Central Indiana, I understand the perception that Marion County might as well be mid-town Manhattan.....but it's not like that at all. What next, banning all fishing in the county as well?
This proposal was a push for a larger piece of agenda. Since the Dems control the County, Councillor Mansfield thought she could get this pushed through... luckily enough people are poking holes in this to show what a waste of time it really is. It's a shame that the City-County Council has wasted ANY time on this proposal from the start. It's no wonder that the wheels of gov't turn so slow when you have personal agendas trying to force through legislation when it's not needed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakeeye on Apr 14, 2007 4:48:32 GMT -5
I like the amended version of Proposal 174 better than the original. Up here in Pike Township, we have working farms, a lot of undeveloped land and wild spaces, so I'd like to see no hunting restrictions at all. I saw a dead deer along the road just last weekend, and I'm sure the person who hit it wasn't happy. This resource needs to be managed along with the nuisance geese. The varmints should be able to be controlled too. For example, there are livestock and horses up here living amongst the coyotes.
BTW, regarding this issue, I got my NRA Legislative Alert card yesterday which was nice to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 14, 2007 6:20:26 GMT -5
I agree with you 100%. The only way I could see this bill getting my support is to exclude hunting 100%. But that is already on the books anyways. There is a law about reckless discharge and that should cover all activities including hunting. Many cities/towns already have shooting ordances Including Indy. This proposal was a push for a larger piece of agenda. Since the Dems control the County, Councillor Mansfield thought she could get this pushed through... Don't pawn this off as just a democrat's agenda. It was the republicans that effectively got hunting stopped on Geist in Marion County. I just have a hard time ignoring that fact and I will remind anyone who starts to sling this as just a political party issue. Was it just last year or two years ago A Republican drafted the no hunting in Marion County side of Geist. Republican Speaker of the House Bosma publicly supported it even though he didn't have a vote on it. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 14, 2007 7:13:37 GMT -5
Duff..... you are correct. It was Ginny Cain that drafted that proposal, and indeed Speaker Bosma voiced support for it. I'd venture to guess that both of these Republicans got tired of hearing shotgun reports from their palatial Geist estates and put their personal feelings into that issue, rather than the view that most good Republicans would.  Don't build your home in the flightpath of an airport and then b*tch about noise from planes..... don't build your home next to a lake that co-purposes were for water supply and recreation and b*tch about the noise from those recreational activities. |
|
|
|
Post by blackduck21 on Apr 14, 2007 7:28:14 GMT -5
Although I don't live in that county, this message applies. All government officials should be required to take a class on problem solving immediately upon taking office. The basic guidelines used by successful businesses in the private sector:
1. Define the problem: What is the actual problem we need to fix. Use the 5W2H principle to clearly define the problem. Who, what, when, where, why, how, & how many.
2. Determine the root cause(s) of the problem. Analyze the problem to find the true root cause which needs to be countermeasured. ID the reason it occurred and why it was not detected as a problem prior to an accident or failure.
3. Implement a countermeasure which fixes the true root causes. What is this problem and what is the root cause??
|
|
