Weapons ban ordinance shot down in Mishawaka
Weapons ban ordinance shot down in Mishawaka Save Email Print
Posted: 1:22 AM Aug 5, 2008
Last Updated: 9:05 AM Aug 5, 2008
Reporter: Erin Logan
Email Address: erin.logan@wndu.com

A | A | A

Passion about protecting fellow citizens swayed Mishawaka City Council to vote 5-4 against a weapons ban ordinance.

The ban was actually proposed by Mishawaka Mayor Jeff Rea and City Attorney Cory Hamel.

It would've prohibited all weapons from four buildings frequented by the public: Mishawaka City Hall, the police station, the Battel Center, and Mishawaka Utilities main building.

Weapons were defined as guns, knives, explosives, and chemical sprays.

Rea and Hamel were the only two people out of a large crowd to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance.

Hamel says he was concerned for city employees' safety when a man walked into city hall a few weeks ago with a gun in a holster with two extension clips, in addition to a billy club.

Hamel says he never threatened anyone, but he and Rea say this is a warning sign.

The rest of the crowd, including State Representative Jackie Walorski, say taking away our Hoosier given right to protect would mean putting our lives on the line.

A question asked by Len Grimel, one of the many people who took the stand, had the majority of the crowd raising their hands. “How many people have a license to carry? Just raise your hand. You're the most protected city council in the state of Indiana.”

State Representative Jackie Walorski says this is one of the many reasons she's proud to be a Hoosier.

She always has her gun with her, even at the State House, but a new sign on the front door of Mishawaka City Hall forced her to put it away, even without an ordinance passed.

Walorski says, “We have a Castle Doctrine that says wherever your castle is -- house, car -- and you have a threat on your personal space, you have the opportunity in this state to defend yourself.”

Brad Foster says the reason he's standing here, standing up for Hoosier rights, is because of his right to bear arms.

He says he was brutally beaten, and that in the end, showing his attackers he had a gun saved his life.

Mayor Jeff Rea and City Attorney Cory Hamel, proponents of the weapons ban ordinance, feel city employees would be best protected if only on and off-duty police officers were allowed weapons in busy city buildings.

Hamel says, “What we're trying to do is prevent people who walk in with no agenda, but while he's inside with a gun, gets irate and may do something drastic.”

Walorski and the rest of the crowd told the City Council that taking away law abiding citizens' right to bear arms will do nothing but put everyone in danger.

They say if a person wants to pull out a gun and shoot, they will. It happened at a city hall meeting in Missouri in February. Five people were killed, including police officers and city officials.

More Stories
ATF agents raid the Warsaw home of a known white supremacist

Granger man turns hobby into business with D'Avella Family Winery

Update: Woman and children recovering after car crashes into store window

U93 kicks off annual Roofsit campaign to help prevent child abuse

Part of Cleveland Avenue closed in St. Joe

Man hospitalized after motorcycle accident

80-year-old Niles man shot, robbed at home; suspects arrested

Golfer Chris Smith and family still in shock over weekend accident

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Myrt on Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM
My husband has a permit and always carries. The only way a person will know he's carrying is IF my husband needs to use it to protect himself or our family. I'm sure that "thankful's" dad was the same, no one knew he had a weapon UNTIL it was needed. Granted there are many idiots out there with guns and feel the need to let everyone know about it. However there are many RESPONSIBLE citizens out there carrying and on one is the wiser. I personally HATE guns, but if ever (and I pray we are never) in a situation that warrants a gun for protection, I'll be glad that my husband can protect us. While I HATE guns, I do believe in the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Paladin Location: Bloomington Indiana on Aug 11, 2008 at 04:03 AM
The Indiana Constitution, Article 1 Section 32 "Bearing Arms: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." And, Article 12 Sec.1: "Militia: A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of 17 years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law." All Indiana law must be in agreement with these words. No exceptions. Further, Indiana's Constitution necessarily is in harmony with the United States Constitution, because the right to arms for self-defense predates both constitutions and is a part of the ancient common law. Of Necessity, this right exists because government cannot (and will not) "protect" each individual --self protection still is a personal responsibility and includes access to decisive means of defense --anywhere, anytime.

Posted by: Mac Location: NH on Aug 10, 2008 at 02:58 PM
You guys need to vote that Mayor & his anti-gun buddies out of office. And speaking of voting, check out these links on what will happen if Obama & leftist, radical Democrats take the Presidency this November. http://www.nraila.org/obama/ http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=308 Obama is a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights. While McCain maybe less than the ideal pro-gun candidate, he's certainly the lesser of the two evils, and the only real choice we have. Remember to VOTE!

Posted by: Thankful on Aug 8, 2008 at 02:49 PM
hey anon, I was inside the mini-mart and dad was pumping gas in his -note: sarcasm in next statement- gun-rack weilding pick-up truck when the would-be burgler stood at the next pump holding a gun to the window at the clerk. The magazine rack was between the window and the clerk. Hence, my dad's reaction. He walked up behind the guy and pressed his gun to the robber's temple and that's when we saw what was happening. Need any other word pictures to come back to reality, or are you just fine living in your government controlled, granola chomping, tree humping, all natural out of the Mother Earth oil is evil, utopia? No bull, that's what happened-I was there. BTW, dad loves old black-and-white westerns. Happy to fulfill your bigoted stereotypes, Thankful

Posted by: bill Location: Plymouth on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Okay, Let me get this correct. They want to band firearms from the people unless you are a cop? ummm that sounds like a great idea NOT! Lets give the most corrupt people in the world a gun "COPS" Everyone thinks that cops are just great people but they refuse to eccept the fact that the do the most corrupt things and don't get cought. Just look at how many cops get charged with DUI's and then amagin how many don't get charged because it gets covered up. Great idea give the drunk cops the guns.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 8, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Sooo, someone was sticking a gun in your face to rob you and your cowboy dad who probably has watched too many movies, pulled out his gun and put it to the robber's temple without getting shot himself? Either your not telling the whole story there, or you are just a liar. Because that story doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Joe on Aug 7, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Their are also less people in Kentucky genius. Just ask your sister or i mean ask your wife!

Posted by: Thankful Location: mishawaka on Aug 7, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Hey "R"- Guns save lives. I was in a gas station when it was held up(with an illegal carrier) and thankfully, my dad pulled out his LEGAL CONCEALED .38 and held the would be robber on the end of the barrel (against his left temple) until the police arrived and arrested him, thanking my dad. There you go. Almost everyone has, at one point or another, been unknowingly saved by some responsible law abiding person with a gun. Thanks again dad. There were other times too numerous to list here that he,or someone like him ended a situation before it had a chance of becoming deadly. Automobile accidents kill more people each year than gun accidents, so lets outlaw cars too. then knives, rope, broken glass and...and...and... until everyone is safe in the arms of our perfect government and law enforcement. There are many heroes in both fields, but they are still all human and make mistakes, kind of like beliving gun control works.

Posted by: Larry Location: Osceola on Aug 7, 2008 at 04:11 PM
Im waiting for the first lawsuit where someone gets assulted in a no firearm area like a park or city hall. Where there is no protection from the police after the city says no firearms The city bans firearms you get assulted on city property whos fault is it? The banning of firearms is the first stage of tyranny. Yes I know I keep forgetting if we make more laws the crimnals will obey them and be nice and play fair. The only thing city employees have to lose is the arrogant attitudes. Be nice to people and you shouldnt be afraid. Common sense would dictate the only place weapon banning should be considered is the jail and courtroom

Posted by: Greg Location: Elkhart on Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM
R from SB:If someones life can't be saved by carrying a firearm, then why do the police carry them? I don't want to hear any garbage about how well they are trained and qualified to carry them either. I can assure you that I get more range time on a weekly basis than most police do. I have probably sat next to you in a resturant or stood in line with you in a store, and if I haven't, somebody else with a concieled weapon has and yet you still lived to see another day. People who own and carry firearms are not all hillbillies and loonies.Frankly, I'm tired of the picture you liberal fanatics paint of the typical gun owner.Docters,lawyers and people from all walks of life enjoy shooting sports,hunting and the freedom to carry one for personal protection. Just because you don't understand or are afraid of something,you don't have to judge the rest of us for it.This message can also apply to Joe and Rod.

Posted by: JoSh Location: Elkhart on Aug 6, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Way to go Elkhart! Joe: People with an "Indiana license to carry" submit themselves to intrusive background checks and shouldn't be burdened by irrational arm/disarm zones. If somebody wants to commit a crime with a firearm they will pay no attention to “No Firearm signs.” It is better to allow the good guys to be armed, which would put the criminals at a disadvantage. Why don’t you trust people with a license to carry? Fact: People in Texas with a "license to carry” commit fewer crimes than police officers. Question: Whose responsibility is it to protect your life and the life of your family? I very much appreciate what police officers do for us, but that fact is that the police can’t be everywhere and they have no legal obligation to protect an individual (Warren v. DC). A firearm is a tool that could save a life. There is nothing wrong with being prepared. Please look up the definition of stereotype and consider your remarks about Kentucky. Best Regards.

Posted by: David Location: South Bend on Aug 6, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I still have yet to read about anyone who actually read the proposed ordinance. The news of course is only telling you that the ordinance would ban the carry of weapons in four buildings in Mishawaka but if you were to read the ordinance, you would have found that it called for the restriction of possession and transportaion of any weapon on any Mishawaka City owned property, and left the ordiance open for further expansion. The four builings listed above were only used as examples to define government owned buildings. Also, off-duty law enforcement officers would have also been subject to the ordinance. This wasn't just about four buildings in downtown Mishawaka, but all city owned properties. A copy of the ordinance is public record and can easily be obtained by calling the common council office and requesting one.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 6, 2008 at 08:27 PM
There is less crime in Ky. So call me a hilljack, at least we aren't Mish-a-wannabes.

Posted by: Joe on Aug 6, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Is it really necessary to load up a your gun and a few spare clips just to go pay a parking ticket . Get some common sense people . When is the last time someone got shot paying a ticket in the mishawaka police station Duh you gun owner look for any excuse . Go back to Kentucky you hilljacks!

Posted by: Joe Location: Elkhart on Aug 6, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Thats just what we need more gun tottin ! Are you all insane why in gods name would you need to take a gun to a police station. What are you all afraid of the police. Why pay police if you have to live in that much fear to go out in public . This is not the old shootem up west anymore quit livin in fear! I have no gun never been shot at and go all over the U.S.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 6, 2008 at 03:17 PM
Rod- I looked up stupidity in the dictionary and saw your picture. I support weapons, guns, knives, whatever. Someone comes looking for trouble at my house, they'll meet my little friends.

Posted by: Don Location: Warsaw on Aug 6, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Here it is again the old 2nd ammendment under attack. I have said it once and will say it again. I urge all to read the consitution as it is writen not a shortened version by a liberal author. You will see that the only right in the bill of rights that has it is writen this right will not be messed with is the 2nd amendment, not the 1st, 4th, 5th or any other. The framers of the constitution knew that the only way to secure the other rights is to keep the 2nd amendment in place. I guns were taken from Americans hands then other governments including are own are no longer in check. We will then be in jepordy not only from criminals but other countries armies as well.

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Aug 6, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Mike from Plymouth, very well said. Can I use that? =)

Posted by: John Location: Bristol, UK on Aug 6, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Joe, What is the Millita? "It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, June 16, 1788. Now you can go wherever you want with that bit about "... a few public officials."

Posted by: R-E-S-P-E-C-T on Aug 6, 2008 at 07:33 AM
I joined the NRA when I was a kid. I consider myself a marksman, and strongly believe in our forefather's intention of any decent citizen carrying a weapon. However, I still do not see the problem with a business or homeowner saying, "this is my place, don't bring that here"- whether it's a gun or a religious symbol or baggy pants or an "I <3" teddy bears" t-shirt. Although criminals are not going to obey laws, and anything could be a weapon, it is possible for someone to feel intimidated by another who isn't getting their own way and expressing their frustration and annoyance- which some in the clerical field consider irate. You can't carry in a court room. And just why do you want your gun in a city building? Would you feel better if there was an armed security guard following you through? There isn't a fence between these two different viewpoints- there's a road called common sense. Unfortunately, both sides have veered so far from center that the road is barely visible to either.

Posted by: Greg Location: Elkhart on Aug 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM
BFH of Mishawaka: The VA Tech killer had a 9mm and .22 pistol. Since when are they considered assault weapons?

Posted by: Jeff Location: Dallas on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Joe from Elkhart, I think you need to refer back to your history books. Back when our constitution was drafted side arms and long guns were part of every day attire. You also need to review the recent Heller ruling and try to understnad the preface to the 2nd. The intent was to show the primary example of why this right was intitiated. Reember, our Constitution does not ban anything. It only re-affirms what our founding fathers agreed were rights granted by our maker and in some instances, like the 2nd, re-affirmed that we canutilize these rights to enable our governent. A well reglated militia was included to protect our right for form an armed militia to defend against tyranny. The indivudual right, included in the working part of the sentance was written to show that the right was individual, not state or federal. Please consider the following phrase. In order to live, breathing is required. This does not mean that you have to live to breath, but you do have to breath to live

Posted by: Cleveland Location: Mishawaka on Aug 5, 2008 at 09:06 PM
So the thinking from city hall is that a guy who would have otherwise committed mass murder, won't now because there's a sign saying he cant bring a gun in the building. yeah. That makes sense. Mass murderers are well known for their strict adherence to signs and local ordinances. More genius coming out of city hall.

Posted by: Ha! on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:37 PM
We've just relocated from the Phoenix area and I'm sorry, Mark...but you're woefully uninformed about AZ crime rates if you think there is "no gun crime compared to s.b.". Crime stats between South Bend and Phoenix are very similar.

Posted by: Just Wondering on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Why do we need a permit to carry a handgun? I don't need a permit to worship in my church. WNDU doesn't need a permit to broadcast the news. I don't even need a permit to post a reply on this website.

Posted by: Jeff Location: South Bend on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Thank You Jackie Walorski.

Posted by: John Wayne Location: Wild West on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Joe from Elkhart you should of paid attention in history class better. I would not go anywhere in Elkhart unless Iam packin

Posted by: Bill Location: Osceola on Aug 5, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Congrats to the 2nd Amendment Patriots and a BIG thanks to Rep. Jackie Walorski for sticking up for all of us law abiding citizens.

Posted by: MD on Aug 5, 2008 at 06:46 PM
To those of you who refuse to defend yourself. Just remember to cower, hide and stay out of the line of fire for those of us willing to defend ourselves, our family and our friends.

Posted by: Mike Location: Plymouth on Aug 5, 2008 at 06:41 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Let's break this down. A well regulated Militia = An armed citizenry, organized and prepared to defend their rights, liberty and freedom. "being necessary to the security of a free State," = The responsibility of our defense is OUR OWN. Not police, not the Feds, they enforce the laws. WE defend and secure OURSELVES. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," = our RIGHT, not a priviledge but a responsibility. "shall not be infringed." = self-evident. No Law shall make a legal and law abiding, sane and normal person defenseless against any enemy, foreign or domestic. There was a reason this was amendment #2. The only right more important was the right to say and believe as you please. The order of the Amendments was not accidental.

Posted by: LCB on Aug 5, 2008 at 06:40 PM
So if banning guns will stop gun violence... then wouldn't banning violence stop ALL violence? But... violence outside self protection is already banned. Seems like another liberal power grab, fortunately stopped by an educated citizenry.

Posted by: Stan Boganwright Location: Houston, Tx. on Aug 5, 2008 at 05:18 PM
I am as proud as a pen full of peacocks for all of you in Mishawaka. My family left Fulton county in 1953 for the warmth of the Texas sun. Although we returned many times on vacations, I never had a desire to return. Knowing that the second ammendment is so alive in Indiana makes me think that the Hoosier state would be a great place to live. Congratulations to all who stood up for their RKBA. You will forever be my brothers in arms.

Posted by: mark on Aug 5, 2008 at 05:15 PM
if you are legal, you should be allowed to carry anywhere. look at arizona. they need a permit to conceal. it is out in the open and the state has no gun crime compared to s.b. get the picture? if the customers are packing, the thief thinks twice.

Posted by: The Amazing Steve on Aug 5, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Obviously, four of our esteemed council members are more concerned about their own safety than the constitutional rights of the local citizenry. This issue shouldn't even be open to debate. Taking away our rights to carry a gun will only serve to leave guns in the hands of folks whom don't obey the laws of the land, anyway. Nothing deters a thug quite like the uncertainty that someone they intend to harm is carrying a gun.

Posted by: MG Location: Elkhart on Aug 5, 2008 at 04:08 PM
If you carry concealed, there would not be an issue. When I carry my firearm, you would never know I have it. The bad thing is that everyone blames these crimes on people who carry firearms. Most of the firearm crimes are from people who carry firearms illegally. I am glad that we can finally protect ourselves and others against these people. There is no way to stop the criminals from getting firearms but atleast now I have a chance to protect my family against them.

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Aug 5, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Rea reminds me a little too much lately of that draft-dodging flower-child Luecke; he ought to hope his constituency isn't presented with another viable option come election day. And I'm glad one of you fruitbats brought up Virginia Tech, just like the jagbag on the TV side. Maybe you'd like to join the sane, rational people who realize that this tragedy happened in a "GUN FREE ZONE", and use a little logic in your argument next time.

Posted by: John Location: Mishawaka on Aug 5, 2008 at 03:17 PM
Rod, thanks for clearly demonstrating the irrationality of those who oppose the right to self-defense. If you can't argue with them its time to resort to name-calling. So, you believe we’re all dorks, hillbillies and fools. Your comments tell us a lot about you. Why are you afraid of weapons, Rod? Probably because deep down in your heart you know that not all men will cower down in fear while waiting for a government-sponsored reaction to an immediate threat. The irony of your ignorant statement is that the very liberties you hold dear would never have been possible without the private ownership of guns.We’re the stupid ones, Rod, well I read somewhere that stupidity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Reminds me of the de facto gun bans of D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and (formerly) Gary. All instigated to reduce violence, but none of which worked.

Posted by: Mark Location: Cassopolis on Aug 5, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Rod you are the icing on the cake. How many people own guns legally and do not commit crimes. A very small percentage. It is the illegal owners that are killing people. Take your head out of the bowl.

Posted by: Hope Location: SB on Aug 5, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Maybe Rea has been hanging out with Luecke too much. Luecke thinks a sign on parks and city owned property prohibiting guns will do the same thing. Please people - remember what these idiots are saying now when it's time for re-election.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Mish on Aug 5, 2008 at 02:47 PM
You NEVER brandish a weapon (even a shotgun) at anyone unless your life is endanger. Weapons are for self defense and sport.

Posted by: Anon on Aug 5, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Rod, if we outlaw stupidity, you'd become a felon

Posted by: Stu Location: Missouri on Aug 5, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Thank God that the council had the good sense to vote this stupid ban down! Gun Free Zones are nothing but killing zones. No one can Deny you the right to defend yourself with a handgun.

Posted by: William Location: Porter County on Aug 5, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Is there any chance that any news organization anywhere could do an article about gun laws that does not include inane cliches like "ordinance shot down"? Or "in the crosshairs"? Or "packing heat"? Meanwhile, what is absent from silly ordinance proposals like this one is: what to citizens who are lawfully carrying do with their guns when they transition to public property? Handling of live firearms in public or semi-public places introduces all kinds of unfortunate issues. Pennsylvania law requires the provision of lockers in those few places where carry is prohibited. What would this ordinance have done? Finally, since permitted gun-carrying citizens actually commit violent crimes less often than non-carriers, perhaps banning non-permit-holding persons from those public places would do more to improve public safety than this ordinance would have.

Posted by: William Location: Baton Rouge, LA on Aug 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Rod - "Forget the guns. I wish we could outlaw stupidity." Your are the one upset that people are fighting for their rights!? And then you call them fools! How are you any different? You care so much (as I do) about things such as the patriot act, and then care nothing about our most sacred right, the right to arms! Hypocrite!

Posted by: R Location: SB on Aug 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM
What has better odds? Defending yourself with a gun? OR accidentally shooting yourself or someone innocent with a gun? DUH! A gun will never save any of your lives. Your all fools for believing so. Sorry, I am sticking with the odds on this one. All of you morons who carry guns, stay away from me. That is the most unsafe place to be. Next to one of you loonies.

Posted by: Mike Location: Elkhart on Aug 5, 2008 at 12:19 PM
With as much rage as you have Rod, this hillbilly is glad that you are against guns! And if stupidity was outlawed you'd fall off the face of the earth! Lets not forget the guns, lets forget Rod!

Posted by: Rod Location: SB on Aug 5, 2008 at 11:16 AM
All dorks! Talking about you're "rights." YOU DONT CARE ABOUT RIGHTS. YOU CARE ABOUT GUNS. I am sick of all of these frightened little babies whine about rights ONLY when a gun debate comes up, not with the patriot act or any other numerous examples of the government infringing people's rights. Any hillbilly that mentions their "right" when talking in a gun debate is automatically an obvious fool. Ridiculous. Forget the guns. I wish we could outlaw stupidity.

Posted by: BFH Location: Mishawaka on Aug 5, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Lt. Mire of Bremen- You say anything like a pencil can be used as a weapon- sure enough. But, would you rather be attacked by a mad-man with a pencil or a gun? If the VA Tech looney had a pencil intead of an assualt weapom maybe 25 people would not have died!!!

Posted by: Mark Location: Plymouth on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Joe from Elkhart, I suggest you brush up on your history before you start commentating on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Ever since the 2nd Amendment became law in 1791, the Supreme Court and nearly all Constitutional scholars have held that it provides for an individual right. The recent US Supreme Court's "Heller Decision" reaffirms this. The Framers NEVER debated whether or not the "right to keep and bear arms" was a legitimate one, but rather whether or not it should be codified in the Constitution. I too am sick of politicians interpreting the 2nd Amendment through the lens of their own social/political agenda instead of the Framers' intent.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Yeah disarm the honest guy. This is the most assnine idea I have ever heard. Like a sign is going to stop a nut. If you are so fearful then maybe hire an armed security guard (dont wast one of our Police officers time either) this is the most rediculous argument I have ever heard. Rick, reality check there are alot of thugs running loose with weapons, the smart man(woman) arms themselves. the police can not be everywhere.

Posted by: Bob Location: SB on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Remember rea the next election. A sign is not going to stop a crazy person. Rea is toast. Well done citizens of Mishawaka.

Posted by: Lt Mire Location: Bremen on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Anything can be a weapon-even a sharpened pencil.

Posted by: Mark Location: Cassopolis on Aug 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Everyone has the right to bear arms. Why do people want to take away your rights all the time. I am real glad someone in Mishawaka cares for our rights.

Posted by: John Location: Mishawaka on Aug 5, 2008 at 09:48 AM
Joe from Elkhart, I suggest that you take the time to read the recent Supreme Court decision Heller v District of Columbia. In it, Justice Scalia does a magnificent job detailing the historical legacy of militias and the personal ownership of weapons relating to this civic duty. Cliff notes version, militias have typically relied on the personal ownership of weapons. You can't have a militia without personal weapons. Rick, you ‘re either ignorant or arrogant if you think that a mere ordnance will stop some nutjob from going on a murdering spree inside a government office. The last time I checked, murder was already against the law, and the residents of South Bend regularly see how much that law deters. Leave the power with the individual. Don’t put me in a position where I am unable to defend my family or my life.

Posted by: Mary Location: SB on Aug 5, 2008 at 09:38 AM
I'm glad this weapon ban was not passed. Ordinances like these prevent law abiding citizens from protecting their own self and families while criminals could obviously care less about what is legal or not. Allowing weapon bans in certain places is just a small step, for many towns, and an infrigement on societies personal rights given to us by our wise forefathers. Thank you for realizing this and helping us keep our rights. --I too, have a gun carry permit.

Posted by: Nate Location: Warsaw on Aug 5, 2008 at 09:30 AM
To abolish the right to bear arms would simply give more rights to criminals. Will criminals abide by a law that states that they cannot bear arms Mr. Mayor Jeff Rea and City Attorney Cory Hamel? Emphatically NO! You have joined a club of fools.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 5, 2008 at 09:23 AM
If some crazy person has an agenda, do you really think a sign saying no weapons is going to keep that person from carrying out his or her plan? It sounds ridiculous to me. If someone is crazy enough to do anything of that nature I am sure they do not care what the law says.

Posted by: rick on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:49 AM
yep, lets let the nuts run rampant with their guns! this is NOT the old west and people should not be hauling guns around with them everywhere. walorski is a fool.

Posted by: Ed Location: SBI on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:38 AM
They are afraid of people who walk in armed, but with no agenda becoming irate and shooting the place up??? Maybe the city employees should treat people with a little respect and courtesy so as not to make people irate, hmmmmm?

Posted by: Mark Location: Plymouth on Aug 5, 2008 at 08:00 AM
I'm glad that someone is sticking up for us American citizens. Congrates to Mishawka to beating down the gun ban!!

Posted by: ROGER Location: mISHAWAKA on Aug 5, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Mayor Jeff Rea proponent of the weapons ban ordinance should remember who voted for him. I salute State Representative Jackie Walorski for standing up for Law Abidding Indiana Gun Owners.

Posted by: John Location: Mishawaka on Aug 5, 2008 at 07:44 AM
Why are Republicans so unpopular? Because they've been acting like Democrats for the past 8-10 years. I thought that this was only on the national level, but I guess its true locally, too. I'll remember this, Mayor Rea, the next time that I vote in the primary. I will also remember the the four council members who voted in favor of this measure. The 2nd Ammemdment isn't about hunting rifles or target practice. The constitution is about limits on the power of government and the 2nd ammendment is about protecting and preserving our rights from tyranny if our government outgrows the retraints and safeguards of the constitution.

Posted by: Dustin Location: Akron on Aug 5, 2008 at 07:27 AM
The only thing a new gun ban does is stop the law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. If someone goes into the "banned buildings" with ill intentions, no law is going to stop them. I would rather have 20 law abiding citizens with me carrying guns than one officer at the end of the hall who can't see what's going on until it's too late.

Posted by: Joe Location: Elkhart on Aug 5, 2008 at 06:50 AM
Perhaps "Ms. Walorski" should have someone armed, burst into her office and see how she feels then. I'm so sick of these politicians interpreting the constitution how they want. The 2nd Amendment says"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You explain how the words "A well regulated militia" always gets left out of every anti-gun control argument. It even says the militia is regulated. I'd sure like to see the size of the handbasket this country is in.


Five Day
WNDU News Poll
There are currently no active polls at this time.
Click here to view other polls on our site and past poll results.
MichianaGuide.com