Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus v. The City of Hammond, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 729

Hammond had four preexisting ordinances regulating firearms and related items (Ordinances 92.03, 93.020, 99.28, 132.073) in effect before July 1, 2011.
Indiana Code section 35-47-11.1-2 went into effect July 1, 2011, prohibiting local regulation of firearms and related activities.
On August 22, 2011 the Hammond Common Council considered amending 132.073 to comply, but the mayor opposed, and the amendment was defeated.
On August 29, 2011, Dykstra and Bahus (Firearm Owners) filed a proposed class action against Hammond; on September 7, 2011 the mayor directed not to enforce 132.073; on September 21 the mayor ordered non-enforcement of any violation, but ordinances were not repealed.
The City did not repeal the ordinances; the trial court granted the City summary judgment; Firearm Owners appealed.
Issue presented: whether the Firearm Owners were adversely affected by Hammond’s ordinances in light of the new state law and whether Indiana Code 35-47-11.1-5 provides a viable remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Firearm Owners were adversely affected by the ordinances.	Firearm Owners were adversely affected by still-existing ordinances.	Ordinances were void or superseded by state statute; no adverse effect.	No; ordinances were void or not enforceable, so no adverse effect.

Naugle v. Beech Grove City Sch., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light favorable to nonmovant)
City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (statutory interpretation; plain language rules)
Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard; deference to evidence)
In re Guardianship of E.N., 877 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 2007) (statutory interpretation; de novo review)
Judd v. Ind. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 554 N.E.2d 829 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (statutory retroactivity presumed absent explicit retroactive intent)