HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-2055-11-VETOED - Possession of Deadly Weapons Prohibited in City HallSPONSOR(s): Councilor(s) Griffiths, Seidensticker
Sharp and Snyde
ORDINANCE D- 2055 -11
AN ORIDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CA EL,
INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6 BY ADDING TO ARTICLE 4 A NE SECTION
IDENTIFIED AS 6 -69 TO THE CARMEL CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, p 'suant to Indiana
Code 35 -47- 11.1 -5 is authorized to restrict by ordinance the possession o a firearm in any
building that contains a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims cou r and
WHEREAS, the Carmel. City Court is a court authorize. b�ji ndiana Code 33- 35 -1 -1
and a court established pursuant Article II 3 -40 of the CarmoK fy Code and is located in
Carmel City Hall situated at One Civic Square, Carmel Indiack0 and
WHEREAS, the Carmel City Court is a court f r ited jurisdiction, where traffic
infractions, ordinance violations and criminal misd" ea +r cases are heard and decided; and
WHEREAS, the Carmel City Court
be transported from the Hamilton County
the court for the conducting of hearings
associated with the transportation of a rison
and.
ar course of business directs that prisoners
m the Indiana Department of Corrections to
ria There is an inherent risk of injury or escape
from a secure detention facility to a court room;
WHEREAS, in the re ular o e of any business day city employees, elected officials,
visitors, schoolchildren, attorneys, w nesses, litigants, prisoners and law enforcement officers
are present generally throughout a the public areas of Cannel City Hall conducting business;
and.
WHEREAS, exerci ng the inherent authority of the court the Judge, of Cannel City
Court has prohibited the ..ssession or carrying of deadly weapons and destructive devices
within the confines oft e court room and court offices; and.
WHERE it is in the interest of public safety to further the peaceful resolution of legal
disputes by prov ing a safe environment for individuals attending the court or otherwise
conducting bu ness throughout the public areas of Carmel City Hall.
NOW, T REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council for the City of Carmel,
Indian.. s follows:
ection 1: The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2: Chapter 6, Article 4 is amended by the addition of a new section identified as
6 -69 thereto, which shall read as follows:
6 -69 Possession of Deadly Weapons And Destructive Devices Prohibited In City Hall
(a) For purposes of this section, a deadly weapon means the following:
(1) A loaded or unloaded firearm.
(2) A destructive device, weapon, taser (as defined in IC 35- 47 -8 -3) or electronic
stun weapon (as defined in IC 35- 47 -8 -1), equipment, 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.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any individual at any time to possess or carry a deadly weapon
within Carmel City Hall located at One Civic Square Carmel Indiana.
(c) The Carmel Police Department is authorized to enforce this ordinance.
(d) Any Law Enforcement Officer authorized to make an arrest for a felony or misdemeanor
in Indiana is also authorized to enforce this ordinance.
(e) Violations of this ordinance are subject to a fine of up to $2,500 per incident.
(f) This ordinance does not apply to law enforcement officers, sheriffs, marshals, judicial
officers, employees of the United State of America authorized to carry handguns, or duly
elected officials of the City of Carmel.
Section 3: All prior ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed, to the extent of such inconsistency only, as of the effective date
of this ordinance. However, the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any other ordinance
does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred or proceedings begun prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued and
penalties shall be imposed and enforced under such repealed or amended ordinance as if this
Ordinance had not been adopted.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
signing by the Mayor.
Section 5: If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason declared to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this Ordinance, so long as enforcement can be given the same effect.
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this I q day of
UCXJ6 -6-eh, 2011, by a vote of q ayes and mays.
Presiding Officer
W. Eric Seidafisticker, Preside/t
reside /t
John V. Accetturo
IV 0T P Res eN�
Ronald E. Carter
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk -Tr asurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this da y of
QC Ph... 2011, at t0=54 t4.M.
ATTEST:
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this
2011, at .M.
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk- Treasurer
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARM
Kevin Rider
James Brainard, Mayor
This ordinance was prepared by Brian G. Poindexter, Carmel City Court Judge
Griffiths
DPPast_z
4
Richard L. Sharp
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk -Treas
day of
VETOED by the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this day of N
2011, by a vote of ayes and 3 nays.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Presidj g Officer
P P ose
Ronald E. Carter
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARME
W. Eric Sei s nsticker, Presidei Pi6Tempore
d P ose i)
John V. Accetturo
Diana. L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Tr asUirer
tePu1y FUEL
ana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
Kevin Rider
Griffiths
0 p Pas e_b
�N oT PLI✓se N i
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this 7 day of
b0Prk1oe r 2011, at to 4s f .M.
Q 0 eP `I F02
is a L. Cordray, 'AMC, Clerk- Treasurer
A v 19,yet, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this 1 day of PJ o v e rvk �r r
ti L T J 2011, at lo (.M.
Veto Memorandum
I have spent a great deal of time and given much consideration to ordinance D- 2055 -11, which
would prohibit firearms in Carmel City Hall. I also spent time discussing the pros and cons of
this proposed law with our City Judge.
This city law was passed pursuant to a state statute which was poorly drafted by our state
legislature. If the City were to enact this law and then screen every person entering City Hall
and a weapon is snuck into the building and used to harm someone the taxpayers would be
liable for three times the normal recovery as well as attorney fees for both parties. This
constitutes an unacceptable liability for taxpayers. To enact this law and not screen all
members of the public that visited City Hall would also put the taxpayers at risk for a judgment
and attorney fees. I am also concerned that if the ordinance was enacted and we did not
screen that only the "bad" guys would have weapons in the building. Money was not
appropriated for screening when the ordinance was passed.
I looked to our neighboring communities to determine whether they were screening members
of the public who entered their municipal buildings and spoke with officials in each of those
communities. Neither Westfield, Noblesville nor Fishers screen members of the public when
they enter their municipal buildings. Hamilton County does not screen visitors to the original
court house but only in the building containing the courts. Several years ago, Carmel instituted
screening at the entrance to the courtroom in City Hall on days when the court was in session.
That system works well and is sufficient. Unfortunately, this ordinance purports to fix a safety
problem that doesn't exist.
This is the public's building and absent a compelling reason, members of the public should be
allowed to enter the building without the inconvenience of being screened. To enact the
ordinance and not screen is pointless and puts the city at further monetary risk.
Furthermore, the right to carry firearms is long recognized right under both the Constitution
of Indiana and the United States, dating to the earliest days of Indiana and our federal
Republic. While the current case laws clearly carves out an exception in regards to municipal
buildings and allows the banning of firearms in those buildings, I do not believe this basic and
traditional right of our citizens should be denied in the absence of a clear safety problem. No
such safety problem exists in our City Hall.
For the above reasons I have vetoed Ordinance D 2055 11
Jim Brainard
Mayor