• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open carrier sues Evansville, IN for removal from zoo

Titanium_frost

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
61
Location
Evansville, IN
They keep pushing it back, it seems. Yay delaying tactic.

Technically the City did not request this to be delayed, the judge is retiring so we got pushed to the next available. This is still a very soon court date considering this is merely a civil suit. These can often go on for years in stagnation. We are very fortunate here.

Good luck Brother

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

ATF Consumer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Carnesville, GA
Technically the City did not request this to be delayed, the judge is retiring so we got pushed to the next available. This is still a very soon court date considering this is merely a civil suit. These can often go on for years in stagnation. We are very fortunate here.



Thanks!

Dang...too many forums to keep up with...:lol:
 

crambone219

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
10
Location
nw indiana
I usually hang out on the Michigan board, but was recently informed of this story. I came here to see if there was any more information or discussion, but I didn't see any.

+++++

http://global-lit.com/Press_Releases.html
September 16, 2011.

For Immediate Release.

Today, the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford announced the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of Benjamin A. Magenheimer against the City of Evansville, Indiana, and the Evansville Department of Parks & Recreation. The lawsuit is based on the defendants' violation of Ind. Code 35-47-11.1-2, which generally prohibits the regulation of "firearms" and/or the "carrying . . . of firearms" by a unit of local government.

On September 10, 2011, Mr. Magenheimer, his wife and four-month old child were enjoying an afternoon in the petting zoo ot the Mesker Park Zoo & Botanical Garden, owned and operated by the Evansville Department of Parks & Recreation. Mr. Magenheimer was lawfully carrying a handgun at the time, with his Indiana License to Carry Handgun in his possession. After a zoo employee apparently called police, Mr. Magenheimer was approached by four members of the Evansville Police Department, who first ordered him to conceal his firearm (which he had no legal obligation to do), then ordered him to leave the zoo property. When Mr. Magenheimer attempted to explain to the officers that their actions were illegal, the officers forcibly removed him from the property.

The actions of the EPD and zoo personnel clearly violate Indiana law, by enforcing an illegal policy regulating "firearms" and/or the "carrying . . . of firearms" by a unit of local government. As such, both the City and the DP&R are liable to Mr. Magenheimer for damages, attorney's fees, declaratory relief and injunctive relief.

The suit was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit and Superior Courts of Vanderburgh County in Evansville, Indiana.

+++++

Also some discussion here.

..............or he could have been smart about it,,and simply carried concealed.
what a nub,,,hes not going to win jack,,got to be smarter then that
 

coyote223

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
19
Location
Indiana
Crambone212, Is right this lawsuit is setting us all up to take the fall.:banghead:
You may or may not win the lawsuit. BUT
I think very soon the zoo will be posted, "No guns" :banghead: :banghead:
One step forward and 10 steps back :confused:
 

Titanium_frost

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
61
Location
Evansville, IN
Crambone212, Is right this lawsuit is setting us all up to take the fall.:banghead:
You may or may not win the lawsuit. BUT
I think very soon the zoo will be posted, "No guns" :banghead: :banghead:
One step forward and 10 steps back :confused:

Your ignorance of Indiana law is astounding. Have you never heard of the Firearm Preemption law that this lawsuit quotes? The zoo is a city park and as such does not possess the ability to regulate firearms in any way. Putting up a "no guns" sign would set them up for another lawsuit.

In fact, shortly after this lawsuit was filed the city of Evansville's city council repealed the ordinance banning firearms from city parks.

**UPDATE**

Things are progressing (finally) and we have another hearing November 29th before a judge to discuss a summary judgement.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
..............or he could have been smart about it,,and simply carried concealed.
what a nub,,,hes not going to win jack,,got to be smarter then that

Why should anyone have to carry concealed? Besides, even if the magical sign had force of law, he still would be carrying illegally as he would be carrying in a prohibited place. Why is it you CC only people always want people to break the law?
 

SPOProds

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
464
Location
Orono, ME
Why should anyone have to carry concealed? Besides, even if the magical sign had force of law, he still would be carrying illegally as he would be carrying in a prohibited place. Why is it you CC only people always want people to break the law?

This.
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
361
Location
Indiana, USA
It seems as though a couple folks want to abandoned logic, reason, and the actual laws of Indiana in order to inject their "feelings" on this matter.

I understand that not everyone supports the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, they simply want to be able to conceal their own gun.

However, that particular carry preference doesn't really require any extra support as it is not at odds with carrying unconcealed in most states - certainly not in Indiana.

Good to hear a new date has been assigned.
 

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
Typically the public sector defendants go into the old "four corner stall" as long as possible. Which means, unless they somehow personally offend the trial judge, months and months if not years and years.
 

ICBM

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
76
Location
McCordsville, IN
Did some digging to find closure on this thread....

http://mycase.in.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=18639998

The short and sweet;

Looks like the city tried to get it thrown out claiming immunity under Tort law....

City files "discretionary interlocutory appeal" (saying they shouldn't have to sit through an entire trial before appealing the decision, since court doesn't have authority over them in the first place)...

Plaintiffs lawyer doesn't object to the appeal (so he doesn't have to sit through a trial that will be appealed anyway), files a petition to suppress some kind of witness testimony (I'm guessing a onlooker saying he made a commotion when asked to cover the handgun)...

Court of Appeals take jurisdiction of the case (10/23/2014)...

New information source for appeals court proceedings... https://courtapps.in.gov/Docket/Search/Detail?casenumber=82A011409PL00398

and here it is. Arguments begin 5/6/2015 @ 1100.

HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. COMES NOW THE COURT, AND SCHEDULES THIS CASE FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING DATE, TIME, AND, PLACE.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015
11:00 A.M., LOCAL TIME
TROPICANA EVANSVILLE
421 NW RIVERSIDE DRIVE
EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47708
2. THIS ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD BEFORE AN AUDIENCE OF
MEMBERS OF THE BENCH, AND BAR, AND THE PUBLIC. ATTORNEYS WHO
PLAN TO SIT AT COUNSEL'S TABLE SHOULD ARRIVE AT LEAST FIFTEEN
(15) MINUTES BEFORE THE SCHEDULED START OF THE ARGUMENT.
3. EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOTTED TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR
ARGUMENT.
4. THE SCHEDULED PANEL MEMBERS ARE JUDGES BAKER, MAY, AND SR.
JUDGE BARTEAU.
5. THE CONTACT PERSON FOR THE COURT IS MARTIN DEAGOSTINO, AT
(317)234-4859.
6. THE PARTIES ARE REMINDED TO COMPLY WITH INDIANA
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 9(G)(4)(A)(II) AND INDIANA APPELLATE RULE
53(H).
7. IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 52(C), COUNSEL
OF RECORD SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THIS COURT AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THIS ORDER NO LATER THAN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS
AFTER SERVICE OF THE ORDER.
NANCY H. VAIDIK, CHIEF JUDGE
(ORDER REC'D ON 03/09/15 @ 1:45 PM) ENTERED ON 03/09/15 BR

Anyone gonna go? :banana:
 
Last edited:

ICBM

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
76
Location
McCordsville, IN
The lower court minutes don't really matter, but if you want to read it, just search for the case number;

Case No. 82C01-1109-PL-00476
 
Top