992 N.E.2d 823
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Redington, from Indianapolis, was observed in Bloomington with firearms while making alarming statements and claims about a missing student.
- Police seized three firearms at the parking garage scene and later recovered many more firearms from Redington’s Indianapolis home.
- Redington was evaluated by mental health professionals who diagnosed schizotypal personality disorder and noted delusional thinking; he was prescribed antipsychotic medication.
- The trial court issued an order to retain all firearms and suspend Redington’s handgun license following a hearing.
- The court concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Redington was dangerous under Ind. Code § 35-47-14-1 and retained the firearms.
- Redington appealed, challenging the Act as applied, its constitutionality, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Article 1, Section 32 | Redington contends the Act burdens the core right to bear arms as applied. | State asserts police power allows reasonable firearm restrictions to protect public safety. | Act valid as applied; does not substantially burden the core right. |
| Takings concerns under Article 1, Section 21 and the Fifth Amendment | Seizure and retention of firearms constitutes a taking requiring compensation. | Police power permits destruction or retention of firearms for public welfare without compensation. | No unconstitutional taking; retention upheld as police power action. |
| Vagueness of Ind. Code § 35-47-14-1(a)(2) | Future-risk standard is vague and speculative; lacks objective standards. | Statutory limitations (A) and (B) provide sufficient definition; Downey distinctions apply. | Not void for vagueness; provisions are sufficiently definite. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. 1993) (police power and rational basis review for firearm regulation)
- Lacy v. State, 903 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (core value and material burden analysis regarding right to bear arms)
- Downey v. State, 476 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. 1985) (vagueness concerns when statute uses 'may endanger')
- Cincinnati, I. & W. Ry. Co. v. City of Connersville, 83 N.E. 503 (Ind. 1908) (police power; uncompensated obedience to safety regulation not a taking)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (recognizes government interest in restricting mentally ill from firearm possession)
- State ex rel. Mavity v. Tyndall, 74 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. 1947) (balancing private rights with public welfare when rights collide)