Should you be allowed to bring a gun to a zoo?

Zionsville attorney Guy Allen Relford is currently representing clients in two Indiana cities. He is seeking the repeal of firearms ordinances in several municipalities across the state.

Relford is working to ensure that all of Indiana’s cities and towns are in compliance with a state law that took effect July 1. It prohibits the enactment or enforcement of firearms restrictions on most city ?properties.

While we admire the pro-Second Amendment aims of the law, we disagree that the state should restrict local governments in the ?interest of protecting gun rights.

In Evansville, Relford is representing a client whose case has caused some controversy. His client, Benjamin A. Magenheimer, was escorted from a city zoo on Sept. 10 for displaying allegedly unruly behavior while carrying a handgun in a holster on his hip.

The recent Indiana Daily Student article on this subject (“Gun law leads to lawsuits in Evansville, Hammond,” Sept. 28) makes clear that Relford and his client dispute the claim that the ?behavior was unruly.

The article quotes Evansville City Attorney David L. Jones as saying Magenheimer was “getting loud and basically unruly,” but it also notes that Relford denies that his client was behaving ?inappropriately.

Jones also said he has been told Magenheimer was recently escorted from a hospital for carrying a gun and ?being unruly. While we agree that people should not behave belligerently while carrying guns in public, the main issue here is whether municipalities should be able to impose tighter restrictions on gun owners and, if so, whether they should exercise that right.

First, we should note that, legally, states are much freer to restrict the actions of local governments within them than the federal government is to restrict the actions of the 50 states. This is because the states and the national government share power in many areas, whereas local governments are entirely subject to the will of their respective state ?governments.

Second, we would like to assert that government power is best kept in check when government is small and local, a proposition which should lead states to be cautious when exercising the legal right ?discussed above.

Third, we want to state clearly that we approve of the right to keep and bear arms because we consider it a fundamental safeguard against government aggression, as well as a subset of ?property rights.

All of this leads us to conclude that while state governments can legally restrict local governments’ actions, they should be reluctant to ?do so. The ideal solution would be for the state to repeal the new law restricting local governments’ actions on this issue and for all local governments to voluntarily repeal restrictions on their residents’ right to bear arms.