[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 47°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 54°F
Friday, Apr. 29, 2016

Board sets age restrictions and stricter rules for city parks

Friday, November 16, 2012

The Brazil Parks and Recreation Board met for its regular meeting Tuesday, Nov. 13, to discuss varying issues in the city parks.

After a reading of last month's meeting minutes and a review of the treasurer's report, the board heard from Park Superintendent Bill Houck.

Houck reported all city parks have been mowed and mulched for the winter season. All city park bathrooms have also been winterized.

Houck also reported several lights have been replaced at Forest Park, new windowpanes have been put in at the Forest Park pavilion, a new security system has been installed in park computers and large cracks in the floors of the comfort station have been fixed.

The Trunk or Treat event hosted in a city park was a big success. According to Houck, approximately 700 children attended the event.

Next, the board discussed trail progress at Craig Park. Board President Ruth Ann Jeffries said a representative from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources said the soil samples that were collected are not sufficient enough to install culverts at the trail. An architect working on the project suggested that at the spots where culverts are needed, small, wooden bridges are to be put in place.

Jeffries said the bridges should be delivered within 12-16 weeks. The board was in favor of placing these bridges in the park, but said it will need to be discussed with the Clay Community Parks Association.

Next, the board discussed the possibility of enforcing evictions at city parks. The board discussed whether or not weapons are allowed at city parks during last month's meetings, and Jeffries, after speaking with Police Chief Clint McQueen, found that park by-laws and ordinances supercede state laws because of certain restrictions. According to Jeffries, the board has the authority to ban weapons and explosives from city parks.

The board discussed the issue with city attorney Traci Lawson, who suggested the board create an ordinance discussing the use of parks including penalties of breaking park laws. The ordinance would allow for rule breakers to be banned up to 90 days from city parks and property.

The board also discussed enforcing age restrictions at Forest Park. The board has had trouble with teenagers vandalizing and damaging equipment in the past. The board voted unanimously to allow only children age 12-and-under onto the park's playground equipment. Parents or guardians are also permitted to be there.

The board wondered if there would be issues with young baby-sitters or young adults accompanying children at the playground. The board ultimately decided it would be up to the police's discretion to judge in individual circumstances.

Next, the board reviewed different line items in the budget. Their main issue was with charges from Frontier for telephone and Internet services. The board currently pays approximately $280 per month for two phones and Internet and has already gone over the projected amount for the year concerning those charges.

Jeffries said she feels the board "doesn't have to stay with a company that is costing us so much money."

The board will ask New Wave Communications for phone and Internet estimates with the possibility of the board switching services.

Next, the board reviewed guidelines for bands performing in the Forest Park pavilion. The board agreed there needs to be stricter rules when it comes to noise levels and the time a band can play until.

The board felt the 10 p.m., limit was too late, especially with concern to local neighbors. The board decided 9 p.m., would be a good time for bands to stop playing, with the exception of festivals.

Finally, the board read a letter from Board Secretary Caroline McCullough to Mayor Brian Wyndham where McCullough announced her resignation from the Park board.

McCullough, a member of the board for roughly 16 years, said she is looking to simplify her life. Her resignation will take effect in January 2013.

In her letter, McCullough said she feels, "Brazil city parks are in good hands."

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I hope the strick guidelines for bands playing after 9 includes the Brazil Concert Band...if the neighbors want silence and privacy move to the country!!

-- Posted by sixfoottown on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 8:49 AM

would someone please enlighten me as to what specific law gives the city or the park board the authority to supersede state law.

-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 2:38 PM

I don't see how local park rules can supersede Senate Bill 292. Which states you can carry a firearm in state and local parks as long as you have a current CCW license.

-- Posted by TiredofIdiots on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 9:13 PM


ic 35-47-11.1-2 strictly prohibits the regulation of weapons (including the carrying of handguns by persons who are licensed to carry) by a political subdivision as defined by ic 3-5-2-38 (the city of brazil or it's agents). also the indiana code does not require your handgun to be carried concealed. it only requires a license to carry; ic 35-47-2-1.

ic 35-47-11.1-3 voids any ordinances, rules, ect.; by a political subdivision or it's agents or it's employees in the regulation of weapons. i have searched ic title 36 completely, and can not find anything granting the city or it's park board the power or authority to supersede state law and violate our constitutional rights; or deprive us of them. if someone would enlighten me, it would be greatly appreciated. and i will look at this differently. or if the city of brazil wishes to furnish this information publicly that would be greatly appreciated also.

now to get to the good part, the right to carry is also protected by the indiana constitution title 1 section 32 and the constitution of the united states 2nd amendment. federal statutes that protect us from government officials acting (hiding) under the color of law; who deprive us of those rights, liberities or privileges are 18 usc section 242 and 18 usc section 241 deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights. those statutes are in full force. ucc 1-308(formerly ucc 1-207)a reservation of rights is the one of the most powerful and important of all. 42 usc section 1983 grant us the recourse for the deprivation of those rights.

i have been licensed to carry a handgun for approximately 25 years. that's longer than most of these people have been government agents. and i have never (thank God) had to use my weapon. but, i would rather carry it all my life and never have to use it; than one time need it and not have it. an unwarranted attack on a person (robbery, carjacking, assualt, rape, ect.) can happen anywhere and at any time. that is why we have these rights to carry and defend ourselves and third parties ic 35-41-3-2. and unless the city of brazil and it's agents are willing to and can guarantee by contract personal protection of all citizens in those parks; it would make sense to me that their proposed ban on weapons is moot.

anyone who wishes to discuss this subject with me in person, feel free to contact me at anytime:

mark bedwell 304 s. franklin st. brazil (812) 691-6176

-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 8:24 AM


I agree with you 100%

-- Posted by TiredofIdiots on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 11:35 AM


thanks! i had agreed with your comments also. just wanted to throw my two cents in on the situation. want to bet and see if, and when we get any official response back? i bet no. if we do they will hide behind a screen name(s).

and have you ever noticed the disclaimer at the top of the comments section. if my grandmother was alive and read this story; i probably would be at the justice center trying to post her bail right now.

-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 12:51 PM

Only criminals who are cowards, attack in gun free zones. Do we need to talk about the incidents that have taken place recently in Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia, all gun free zones. If you do this, then be pre-paired for some idiot, who probably doesn't have a CCW permit, to do something stupid, because there will be NO ONE there to stop him/her. That's all we need. One more government entity, taking away our Constitutional rights. Thanks for the research Mark. I am sure that the Brazil powers that be will ignore it, and someone one will have to challenge them in court just to protect our rights.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:28 PM

Oh.. HE__ NO they won't respond. Be suprised if they do.

-- Posted by TiredofIdiots on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 8:55 PM

ill tell you what city park has the right to superceed state law and federal protections,the city of hitlerville.or is it the city of sadam,either way folks,you got park employees illegally erecting stop signs on the wrong side of streets,a contradiction to federal law,you can not superceed federal law unless your a park leader of hitler ville.oh and so we are clear the age restrictions,this includes excluding parents and or guardians from being on the play ground unless of course you are part of the hitler park board.

-- Posted by unclegrabby on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 12:27 AM

fyi.the weapon i carry at my side,i need no permit for:)

-- Posted by unclegrabby on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 12:35 AM

Unclegrabby you need help.

-- Posted by lewis76 on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:41 AM

Well, I can see I'm not the only one that studies Indiana law (Mark Bedwell). I can also see that I'm not the only one that realizes that gun free zones are victim rich zones (Conservative Dad).

Now, the question comes to mind: why do our public officials EVEN DISCUSS MAKING OUR PARKS LESS SAFE?

Prohibiting weapons being carried in the park does only one thing: it makes the park less safe. The reason for this is simple, those that believe that government and administration has our safety and security in mind will obey the rules. Those that have malice in mind won't. This makes the situation far worse since there will be no protection against those who will break the rules and will hurt and kill.

The comical part of the whole thing is that those of us who carry, carry BECAUSE of those that break the laws. To walk around in this world unable to resist evil is an idea that is morally repugnant to me. To have a municipality EVEN CONSIDER IT is morally repugnant to a factor of 10!

Do they not care about our safety or are they just ignorant of the process? Please read, public officials:



Anyone who tries to argue for prohibiting the legal carry of firearms in the park is either attempting to appeal to an ignorant section of the population or is part of that ignorant section themselves.

While people ignorant of guns and self defense may think banning weapons in the park will make it safer, it will not. It only means that the guy that would break the real law, common law, and hurt or kill people, will stand much less opposed.

Most don't know this (Conservative Dad does!):

99.9% of all mass murders occur in gun free zones. One should ask why?

Most don't know this (Mark Bedwell does!):

You do not need a license to carry a gun. You've already been cleared by the Federal Constitution's second amendment.

Also, Section 31 of the Indiana Constitution guarantees it.

The right is God-given and no one, but God himself can take it away.

The next time something happens in a gun free zone someone needs to sue the people that made it a gun free zone and kept them from opposing the evil that is encouraged by banning the carrying of firearms by good, moral people.

One just has to keep asking: why do they want to make us less safe?

Guns were banned at Columbine. It didn't matter.

Guns were banned at the University of Virginia. It didn't matter.

Guns were banned in the Aurora Theatre. It didn't matter.

OH, yes! It mattered! Do you think the shooter chose those sites BY ACCIDENT? If you do, you're a moron.

The bottom line is they can prohibit the carrying of firearms in the park. They have the right to say anything they want, they just can't enforce it. If they attempt it they will be subject to lawsuits and payouts when I and others take them to court for their unlawful actions and the liability that they have made themselves subject to.

This is why I do not really care what rules they make. I just won't comply. I know the real law and I know that in the end, I will drag them through the justice system.

The true citizen knows his responsibilities and duties and executes them with confidence. When a government diminishes or punishes them, you know which side they are on.

-- Posted by TheRider on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 8:54 AM

remember, the first three words and three most important words to the Constitution of the United States of America are "WE THE PEOPLE" and NOT "city of brazil" and NOT "brazil parks boards"

i did alot of research and can not find "city of brazil" or "brazil parks board" anywhere in the Constitution of the United States of America.

-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 9:41 AM

Put your guns away, boys .. this is Forest Park we're talking about, not Central Park or Columbine.

Thank you for the testosterone boost, though.

I believe in the right to bear arms. I own several weapons myself, but ask yourselves .. when was the last armed robbery, rape, pistol whip or assault in Forest Park? When was the last one in Central Park? Probably happening as you read this.

Gotta love these posts that get these fellas so up in "arms" over weapons. Nobody is trying to take your toys away. Settle down. lol

I think the Park Board is trying to do the best they know how to do. Is that what you or I would do? Maybe, maybe not. I seriously doubt their intent was to take away your weapons.

-- Posted by Emmes on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:31 AM

Thank goodness UNCLE is here to share his conspiracy theory with us. Anyone else require clarity on why he and his cadaver dog aren't allowed to participate in ongoing investigations?

Hitlerville .. that's a new one.

-- Posted by Emmes on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:36 AM


i know that they are not trying to take our guns away, or anything like that. and i honestly feel as though in their minds, "some" of them may have had good intentions when making these decisions.

but, the right to carry, even in the brazil city parks is our constitutional right. one that we went through the proper and lawful process, paid our fees and were granted that license. would it be fair to prohibit an attorney into the courtroom to practice law, just because a few people don't like attorneys? or to prohibit a law enforcement officer from patrolling the streets, because some people don't like them either? what about all the other controversial issues in this country? i could go on with those types of scenerios till after thanksgiving. (actually the first of the new year would be a closer date)

the point that i am trying to get across is, just because the exercise of our inalienable and constitutional rights may offend someone or they don't think we should do that or act that way; does it give government agencies or their agents the right to strip us of those guaranteed rights and privliges, or even put unlawful restictions on them. flat out; no is doesn't! there are other remedies, seek out legislatures and try to get new laws passed or the old ones repealed. not give us the old "we are government, don't question us or our authority" it isn't going to fly!

smokers (which i am one) complained about the smoking ban. i understood that one; i understood the affects of second hand smoke. even though i totally disagreed with the restrictions that were eventually placed on private businesses. i still respected the law; and when i light up, most of the time i am at least 20 feet away insted of 8 feet.

my questions are; what harm to a person or their property have i done, by the lawful carrying of my handgun in a public park? under what authority do they have to totally disregard state mandates (laws) that they have to follow? and why should we stand idly by and let government further strip us of our rights, or place unlawful or unconstitutional restrictions upon those rights?

and though at lot of people haven't commented; i personally think they are going to have more problems out of "ticked-off" parents and grandparents over the age restrictions they are trying to place on the playground; than us gun toting rednecks.

hitlerville.. i thought that it was a good one.

-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:18 PM

Why would the Parks Board even be considering a weapons ban in the park, the law and the practical side of disarming people showing that good sense doesn't favor banning weapons from being carried by responsible citizens?

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 7:57 PM


-- Posted by madmarkbedwell on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:54 PM

Wow.. that was a great video of the Marines. I was Air Force, but have total Respect for the Marines....

-- Posted by TiredofIdiots on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 9:42 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: