2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[Rookie]

And can we please get rid of the stupid sbs law next year?

 

[Bill of Rights]

When the laws take place July 1st, they won't be senate bills. What will senate bill 292 become?

They'll become part of the IC, as listed in each of the individual acts, as enacted by the "Public Laws" listed here:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/reports/2011/BLPL.PDF

SEA 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.60-2011
SEA 154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.35-2011
SEA 292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.152-2011
SEA 411 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.17-2011
SEA 434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.44-2011
SEA 506 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.L.164-2011

As for the SBS law, I'd agree with repealing it and the "ballistic knives" and related knife laws, and while we're dreaming, how about removal of the prohibition on unlicensed OC and requirement for a LTCH (still have it as an option for reciprocity), not to mention decriminalizing the carry of a firearm at school campuses. I'd be willing to do as UT did on that last, that you may carry at schools with a LTCH as part of a strategy to ease the minds of the loony left that blood will not run in the hallways nor will the world come to an end if a lawful, peaceable person happens to cross the property line of a school and actually exits his vehicle. If they're not willing to go that far, I'd be OK with starting with defining when a school is not a school. I'd also like to see the Department of Administration's rule forbidding carry at the Capitol overturned.

Are any of these likely? I don't think so, but if you'd asked me last year about what became SEA 292 and SEA 506, I'd not have thought them likely either. None of the new laws came easy, but only through lots of hard work most of us never saw.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Rookie]

Mr. Tomes has been very successful in supporting our rights. Has anyone asked him if anything on our wish list will be tackled?

 

[Rookie]

So, public law 152-2011 will become IC something, correct? When will it become IC? How will we know what exact IC it will be?

 

[finity]

So, public law 152-2011 will become IC something, correct? When will it become IC? How will we know what exact IC it will be?

The public laws will be incorporated in to the IC in the sections listed in the bills.

The sections amended, added to or repealed are specifically listed in the bills.

See my post above about SB292. The IC references were taken directly out of SB292. Each bill has the same format. If you read the bill it will give the new wording of the IC that is affected.

THey all "become IC" on July 1st.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The public laws will be incorporated in to the IC in the sections listed in the bills.

The sections amended, added to or repealed are specifically listed in the bills.

See my post above about SB292. The IC references were taken directly out of SB292. Each bill has the same format. If you read the bill it will give the new wording of the IC that is affected.

THey all "become IC" on July 1st.

^^This.
For reference, since this is a short one, SB 94 (now SEA 94):

First Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2011)​

PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in [STRIKE]this style type.[/STRIKE]
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION
that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or [STRIKE]this style type [/STRIKE]reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2010 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 94​

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:​

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-17; (11)SE0094.1.1. -->
SECTION 1. IC 35-47-2-17 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 17. No person, in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a [STRIKE]handgun[/STRIKE] firearm or in applying for a license to carry a handgun, shall knowingly or intentionally:

(1)give false information on a form required to:

(A) purchase or secure delivery of a firearm; or
(B) apply for a license to carry a handgun; or
​

(2)offer false evidence of identity.
In addition to any penalty provided by this chapter, any [STRIKE]handgun[/STRIKE] firearm obtained through false information shall be subject to confiscation and disposition as provided in this chapter. Upon notice of a violation of this section by the superintendent, it shall be the duty of the sheriff or chief of police or corresponding officer of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides to confiscate the firearm and retain it as evidence pending trial for the offense.
​

SOURCE: IC 35-47-5-6; (11)SE0094.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 35-47-5-6 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011].

(SB= Senate Bill. SEA= Senate Enrolled Act.)
The lines I highlighted above in red are the parts that tell you what is changed and when that change is effective. In this case, they're changing what is current law:

IC 35-47-2-17
Giving false information or offering false evidence of identity; violation of section
Sec. 17. No person, in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a handgun or in applying for a license to carry a handgun, shall give false information or offer false evidence of identity. In addition to any penalty provided by this chapter, any handgun obtained through false information shall be subject to confiscation and disposition as provided in this chapter. Upon notice of a violation of this section by the superintendent, it shall be the duty of the sheriff or chief of police or corresponding officer of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides to confiscate the firearm and retain it as evidence pending trial for the offense.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

to the first part of the new law:

No person, in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a firearm or in applying for a license to carry a handgun, shall knowingly or intentionally:

(1)give false information on a form required to:

(A) purchase or secure delivery of a firearm; or
(B) apply for a license to carry a handgun; or
​

(2)offer false evidence of identity.
In addition to any penalty provided by this chapter, any firearm obtained through false information shall be subject to confiscation and disposition as provided in this chapter. Upon notice of a violation of this section by the superintendent, it shall be the duty of the sheriff or chief of police or corresponding officer of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides to confiscate the firearm and retain it as evidence pending trial for the offense.
​

ETA: The new section will probably read:

IC 35-47-2-17
Giving false information or offering false evidence of identity; violation of section
Sec. 17. No person, in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a firearm or in applying for a license to carry a handgun, shall knowingly or intentionally:
(1)give false information on a form required to:

(A) purchase or secure delivery of a firearm; or
(B) apply for a license to carry a handgun; or
​

(2)offer false evidence of identity.
In addition to any penalty provided by this chapter, any firearm obtained through false information shall be subject to confiscation and disposition as provided in this chapter. Upon notice of a violation of this section by the superintendent, it shall be the duty of the sheriff or chief of police or corresponding officer of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides to confiscate the firearm and retain it as evidence pending trial for the offense.
As amended by P.L.60-2011, SEC.1.

and also, they repealed a law passed in 1983 that the feds had struck down (in 1996, IIRC)

IC 35-47-5-6
Purchasing or obtaining a rifle or shotgun
Sec. 6. (a) Any resident of Indiana:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and
(2) who is not prohibited by law from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm;
may purchase or obtain a rifle or shotgun in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois.
(b) Any resident of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and (2) who is not prohibited by the laws of Indiana, his domicile, or the United States from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm;
may purchase or obtain a rifle, shotgun, or ammunition for a rifle or a shotgun in Indiana.
(c) Any transaction under this section is subject to the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 0.922(B)(3)).
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

ETA: which will now read:

IC 35-47-5-6

REPEALED

Because the repealed section is currently part of IN law, ATF has enforced it such that it is ONLY these five states in which IN residents can purchase long guns. With the law no longer specifying those specific states, federal law will apply, or rather, not apply, and we can purchase long guns in any state that also does not specify something of that nature. As an example, (and it's only an example, since I don't know the laws of the other states in any detail) if you're visiting Texas and their law doesn't specify to the contrary, if you find a nice looking AR you want, go in, put the money on the counter, fill out your 4473, and bring it home. [strike]If it's a private party sale and those are allowed in Texas, give the guy your money, he'll give you the rifle, and you're both happy.[/strike] The federal rule is that the transaction must be legal in both states, though, so if your buddy from CA is visiting you here, even if they allow out of state purchase of long guns (and I don't think they do), he couldn't buy [strike]your[/strike] an AR at a gun store here and take it back, as CA has an "assault weapons ban" in place that would make possession of that rifle there a crime. Aren't you glad you live in a free state?

Hope that helps explain it!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Britton]

And can we please get rid of the stupid sbs law next year?

I know I'll be working with a State Senator on this one.

 

[finity]

If it's a private party sale and those are allowed in Texas, give the guy your money, he'll give you the rifle, and you're both happy.

I thought you had to use a FFL to purchase an out of state firearm.

18 USC Sec. 922

(a) It shall be unlawful -
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport
into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it
maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise
obtained by such person outside that State, except that this
paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires
a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other
than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or
receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to
purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not
apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in
conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall
not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any
State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

 

[Bill B]

I thought you had to use a FFL to purchase an out of state firearm.

nevermind

 

[Bill of Rights]

The red part is the important part. Because state law previously listed specific states that we could buy from, we could only buy in those states. Now that state law doesn't specifically say, we can buy in any state that doesn't prohibit it.

Actually, now that he says that, I'm not sure Finity isn't correct. "Bequest or interstate succession", IIUC, means that you had the gun willed to you and inherited it on the death of it's owner. I'll look into that a little more closely. FFL transactions, as long as they're legal in both states and the gun is a long gun, will be OK, though.

Thanks, Finity!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, here's what I got:

18 USC 922(a) It shall be unlawful -
...
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport
into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it
maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise
obtained by such person outside that State, except that this
paragraph ...
(B) shall not
apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in
conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section

...

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or
deliver -
...
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a
place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of
business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not
apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a
resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's
place of business is located if the transferee meets in person
with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale,
delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of
sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer
or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual
knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both
States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

Obviously, I quoted only the relevant parts, but what I see says that an FFL holder cannot transfer a firearm to someone the FFL knows does not live or have a place of business in the state where the FFL is licensed to operate, except that long guns are excepted if the buyer meets the FFL in person at his place of business and the possession of the gun is lawful in both states. This much we knew. I read (a)(3)(B) to say that only a FFL holder can transport a (long) gun into a state except where the gun was obtained lawfully outside the state in compliance with (b)(3). The crux of it seems to be, "Can a person purchase a long gun out of state and return it home lawfully?" I'm not seeing anything to say the answer is no, but I seem to recall that at present, I could go to, say, Kentucky, and buy a rifle and bring it home only if I purchase at a FFL dealer.

Analysis: I'll be changing my post upthread. It seems that to stay within the law, only purchases from a FFL holder would be lawful outside your state of residence.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill B]

Actually, now that he says that, I'm not sure Finity isn't correct. "Bequest or interstate succession", IIUC, means that you had the gun willed to you and inherited it on the death of it's owner. I'll look into that a little more closely. FFL transactions, as long as they're legal in both states and the gun is a long gun, will be OK, though.

Thanks, Finity!

Blessings,
Bill

You're right, my reading comprehension was at pre-caffiene levels

 

[finity]

Thanks, Finity!

Always glad to help.

 

[mk2ja]

Are all these new laws in the FAQ yet?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Are all these new laws in the FAQ yet?

Nope. But the summaries have been written for about three weeks now. Just being reviewed for accuracy.

Thanks for asking!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GuyRelford]

Nope. But the summaries have been written for about three weeks now. Just being reviewed for accuracy.

Thanks for asking!

Blessings,
Bill

Hey, Bill - are these posted yet? I don't see them.

 

[GuyRelford]

Hey, Bill - are these posted yet? I don't see them.

Never mind! I was looking in the wrong place!