Gun bill advances without exemption for Indy venues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would allow gun-permit holders to carry their weapons into most public places is on track for approval without a major exemption for the Indiana Convention Center and other city venues.

The Capital Improvement Board, which runs the Indiana Convention Center and the city’s professional sports venues, had hoped to get an exemption to Senate Bill 292, which pre-empts local government rules about where people can carry guns.

Instead, the CIB expects to see an amendment that says it may enforce rules set out by promoters in their leased areas. The upshot would be that the National Football League (and the Indianapolis Colts) could continue to ban guns at games, and convention promoters could put bans on guns in their contracts. However, a ban would not apply to the convention center’s common areas, which are open to the public, and two conventions operating side-by-side could have different rules about guns.

The bill’s author, Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, said his goal was to eliminate the patchwork of local ordinances, which could ensnare unwitting licensed gun holders. He said he wasn’t especially concerned about Indianapolis.

“We gotta realize we’re talking about an entire state here,” Tomes said. “We just want to quit oppressing the legitimate citizen and focus on criminal activity.”

When the bill was first introduced, it prompted protest by Colts owner Jim Irsay and concern among CIB members. The CIB’s general counsel, Toby McClamroch, lobbied for an exemption, but didn’t find much support.

McClamroch told the board in a meeting Monday he was confident the weaker amendment would be made before the Wednesday hearing by the House Public Policy Committee.

“Most of the changes to the bill are clarifications," said the committee chairman, Rep. Jim Davis, R-Portland.

In other business Monday, the CIB accepted a new three-year contract that expires July 1, 2013, with Teamsters Local 135, which handles some housekeeping, setup and groundskeeping duties for the CIB.

The contract gives full-time Teamsters a raise of 34 cents per hour, retroactive to July 1, 2010, and 33 cents per hour each year going forward. The 43 full-timers will make $16.15 per hour now, and $16.81 per hour by the end of the contract.

Part-time Teamsters will get a 10-cent raise, to $10.27 per hour. The setup crew, which fluctuates in size, will make $18.37 per hour after a 20-cent raise and $18.77 per hour by the end of the contract.


  • No way Doc!
    Don't worry - if U R an ER Doc you already work in the most dangerous area of the city. Many a shooting victim as well as their assailants & friends never had a gun permit but know how to get a gun and shoot up an ER - no law stops them. Same can be said about bats,clubs,knives etc. which can also be used. Get any cutting victims lately?
    It is possible that an armed visitor will save the lives of one of those bent on killing others in the hospital or elsewhere.

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them asideââ?¬Â¦Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of themââ?¬Â¦" ââ?¬â??Thomas Paine, Writings of Thomas Paine, at 56,1894, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
  • Fear
    I'm convinced that folks that do not own weapons are afraid of them oftentimes, and maybe rightly so. They should be respected. But this doesn't change the facts.

    Doc --> The fact is that there is a greater likelyhood (with the Bill passing) that you will get seriously injured in a car accident than a gun wound.

    If you want something to fear, you can think about the higher probabiliy you will die in a car wreck.

    And additionally, this will NOT increase your chances of being shot. You need to realize how many people... thousands! are carrying a weapon with them at this very moment, loaded with bullets!!

    Result: Nothing.
  • Sorry for the hospital workers
    I really hope that this gets amended to exclude hospitals. Otherwise I feel sorry for all the doctors and staff that will get shot at and/or threatened when a normally reasonable person looses control in an intensely high pressure situation like losing a spouse, parent, or child. I have seen numerous nice, every day people who'd never hurt a fly have to be removed by security when a loved one is dying and they don't understand we're doing everything we can, now they can just shoot us and take over themselves. Super!
  • Joe
    your assumptions and facts are unfounded... nowhere did I say "everyone" should be provided... also please give me a documented instance of a situation where a law abiding citizen with a gun accidently killed three people? also, gun owners know that if they have to pull their weapon it better be a life or death situation... also, nowhere did I say that criminals "always" kill... and you're argument regarding alarm systems is not valid... I can give you several examples where someone with a gun deters further criminal activity. Ask a police man or women. The one thing I do agree with you is that my solution is very American. You almost make it sound like "very American" is a bad thing.
  • indypaul...
    your logic is dangerous. You are saying that because one person may chose to kill, you suggest that everyone should be provided a gun to carry so in a situation that escalates, 3 people may get killed instead of you being robbed? If what you say that criminals will always kill, then where is the improvement by letting more people, generally untrained, use guns? This will add to the death rolls, not decrease violence. Alarm systems in homes haven't decreased home break ins. Your solution is very american, react and conquer..........seems smart!
  • Pass the Bill
    If you think what goes through a criminal's mind before he commits a crime is: "Gee... I wonder if carrying a gun is legal in this venue," then you are mistaken. This gives legal gun carriers the right to protect themselves.

    A crazy person isn't going to abide by gun zoning laws if his/her intent is to kill. And I do believe it still is illegal to shoot people.
  • Wadesville
    I've unwittingly driven through Wadesville frequently over the last 50 year on State Road 66. I've completely missed it. I'll be sure to avoid it in the future.
  • Farce
    I'm sure Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, has a lot of "criminal activity" to worry about.

    Wadesville is an unincorporated community in northern Center Township, Posey County, Indiana, United States. It lies along State Road 66 northeast of the city of Mt. Vernon, the county seat of Posey County.[2] Its elevation is 479 feet (146 m), and it is located at 38°6�9�N 87°47�10�W / 38.1025°N 87.78611°W / 38.1025; -87.78611 (38.1025438, -87.7861367).[3] Although Wadesville is unincorporated, it has a post office, with the ZIP code of 47638.[4]

    Is it the NRA or someone else, Jim, who's lining your pockets to promote crap like this???

    • Stunned
      Really? You are hoping for a bloodbath in the City-County Building? What kind of person thinks like that?
    • But.......
      All the supporters claim they will be safer now that they can protect their familes, but did they ever stop to think that people who think they need guns to protect their families are probably protecting their families from people who think they need guns?
    • Brilliant!
      Yes, by all means, let's not oppress the "legitimate citizen" so that we can focus on the "criminal activity."

      Except there's a little problem.....many criminal's still ange to get get access to a gun and a permit, so how will we all know who's a legitimate citizen with a gun/permit as oppossed to who is just plain crazy with a gun/permit?

      Will someone be in charge of a psycological evaluation of those with the guns and permits as they enter large areas of people? The minimum wage security guard?

      This will work well....right up until the point that it doesn't.

    • Gun Legislation
      I am looking forward to this legislation being passed. Now I can go buy a gun and legally carry it into the City/County building, and past security so that I can attend City/County Council meetings and know that I have a legal means in my possession to help enforce my political positions.

      This is the most ignorant piece of legislation ever introduced in the Legislature. It is my hope that it will lead to a bloodbath in the City/County building, then the supporters of the bill can be voted out of office and the law repealed.

      In the interim, when I show up armed at the City/Council building, I expect no hassles from security since I can legally carry a firearm into the building under the proposed law. And if hassled by security, then I will be able to sue the City for violating my 2nd Amendment rights.
      • It's about time.
        Thank you for finally allowing me to do something legally that law enforcement can't do. Protect myself and my family while out in public. I'll just have to avoid the places and/or events that refuse to allow me to do so, as I hope other permitted gun carriers will do also. We are no threat to anyone other than criminals seeking to do us harm.
      • Guns, guns and guns
        We love that vigilante. Give him a gun and a beer. But by all means, let's not "oppress the legitimate citizen" so we can "focus on criminal activity" whatever that means. This will end in a very bad situation.

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

      2. Shouldn't this be a museum

      3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

      4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

      5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.