The House bills are starting to post. At present, I see two related to firearms, and both look acceptable
HB1051 Firearms and federalism - Probably going nowhere, but: Prohibits a state agency, political subdivision, or employee of an agency or political subdivision from: (1) participating in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017; or (2) using any state funds to aid the federal government in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017; unless the participation or use of state funds is required by a court order. Provides that a state employee, an employee of a political subdivision, or an agent of the state or a political subdivision who participates in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017, commits a Class B infraction, and increases the penalty to a Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior adjudication or conviction. Specifies that a political subdivision may not receive state grant funds if the political subdivision requires the political subdivision or an employee to participate in the enforcement of a federal firearms law adopted after January 1, 2017.
and to address Act's concern from post #13,
HB 1071 Authorization to carry a handgun - Provides that certain persons protected by a civil protection order may carry a handgun without a license for: (1) 60 days after the date the civil protection order is issued; or (2) 60 days after the date the person applies for a license to carry a handgun, if the person applies for the license during the 60 day period following issuance of the civil protection order; whichever is later. Makes a technical correction.
The latter will be unnecessary if/when Constitutional Carry becomes law, of course, but it'd still be nice to see it in place.
There are also 8 missing numbers on the House side in addition to the numbers I noted above on post #12.
Blessings,
Bill
The House bills are starting to post. At present, I see two related to firearms, and both look acceptable
HB1051 Firearms and federalism - Probably going nowhere, but: Prohibits a state agency, political subdivision, or employee of an agency or political subdivision from: (1) participating in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017; or (2) using any state funds to aid the federal government in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017; unless the participation or use of state funds is required by a court order. Provides that a state employee, an employee of a political subdivision, or an agent of the state or a political subdivision who participates in the enforcement of a federal firearms law enacted after January 1, 2017, commits a Class B infraction, and increases the penalty to a Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior adjudication or conviction. Specifies that a political subdivision may not receive state grant funds if the political subdivision requires the political subdivision or an employee to participate in the enforcement of a federal firearms law adopted after January 1, 2017.
Blessings,
Bill
Why is the date Jan 1, 2017 key? This seems to be similar to other laws I have seen proposed and/or proposed. IIRC, in each of those instances, they state such a current date. There must be a reason they don't state the date Jan 1, 1934 as the drop dead date.
It's a big concern for me, because it's something I became familiar with. Someone that used to be very close to me had to break the law, to stay safe, risking her ability to have a gun if she got caught. But not nearly the risk of being hospitalized AGAIN.
And when people start arguing about "guns aren't necessary", or "blood in the streets if we don't have gun license", or anything like that, I bring this point up.
Because people really do use guns to defend themselves.
I drive that home all the time.
I hope that your special someone did not have to use the gun she had. But I hope if she did, her marksmanship was judicious.
State Rep. Woody Burton has introduced
HB 1095: Plastic coated ammunition: Defines "armor piercing ammunition", and prohibits certain persons from possessing, manufacturing, selling, or delivering armor piercing ammunition. Repeals a superseded provision concerning armor piercing handgun ammunition.
Because ?????
Because it sounds like a "good idea".
To him anyway.
wow! He is still a republican right? He needs to ride out of Indiana on his firetruckState Rep. Woody Burton has introduced
HB 1095: Plastic coated ammunition: Defines "armor piercing ammunition", and prohibits certain persons from possessing, manufacturing, selling, or delivering armor piercing ammunition. Repeals a superseded provision concerning armor piercing handgun ammunition.
Because ?????
plastic coated = armor piercing ... steel case = steel core ... why? because I dunno it sounds the scary - steel ammo for pistols - must be bad
oh and you know bad guys are very selective of their ammo ... / sarcasm
sorry. distracted.
Still waiting several "known" bills for detailed list and numbers.
Thanks to everyone who is helping and participating.
(6) A person who:
12 (A) may legally possess a firearm; and
13 (B) possesses a firearm on school property in connection
14 with or while:
15 (i) attending a worship service or religious ceremony
16 conducted at a house of worship located on the school
17 property; or
18 (ii) carrying out the person's official duties at a house of
19 worship located on the school property, if the person is
20 employed by or a volunteer at the house of worship.
State Rep. Woody Burton has introduced
HB 1095: Plastic coated ammunition: Defines "armor piercing ammunition", and prohibits certain persons from possessing, manufacturing, selling, or delivering armor piercing ammunition. Repeals a superseded provision concerning armor piercing handgun ammunition.
Because ?????
plastic coated = armor piercing ... steel case = steel core ... why? because I dunno it sounds the scary - steel ammo for pistols - must be bad
oh and you know bad guys are very selective of their ammo ... / sarcasm
wow! He is still a republican right? He needs to ride out of Indiana on his firetruck
.There are 7 gun-related bills on the Senate side and 6 on the House side
SB 13, 14, 43, 50, 78, 123, 344
HB 1051, 1071, 1095, 1159, 1161, 1162
It is possible that I missed some, but I don't think so.
Also, there are 52 vehicle bills on the Senate side and "blank lines" for 3 numbers on the Senate side and 12 on the House side that could still become gun bills.
SB 123 appears to be the only truly anti-gun bill in the lot.
HB 1095 could be, but the Rep introducing it has a solid reputation. His intent might not be as that bill appears.
SB 344 makes it a felony for an illegal alien to possess a firearm. At first blush, I thought this anti, as the mere possession is not in itself evidence of intent to do harm. However, the person described is already a criminal for being here illegally. If they are discovered, they should be sent home, at the receiving country's expense. The others appear to me to be good, pro-gun rights bills.
Please write and call your representatives and senators, Brian Bosma, David Long (President Pro Tem of the Senate) and Gov. Holcomb in support of our good bills. It is very strongly recommended that civility and politeness be used in writing them; nothing requires them to hear or sign the bills, and I know if I got crappy letters demanding my support for something I was on the fence about already, it would incline me against that thing.
Blessings,
Bill
Blessings,
Bill