2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[Bill of Rights]

Correct. Past gun bills have not gone the full seven days. Of note, however, the bills have to have the signatures of Sen. Long and Rep. Bosma first. SB 411 has those already. It is possible that they are waiting to have several bills (not all gun bills) to sign and send over together, but I have no evidence to indicate either way on that supposition.

I've just finished emailing every member of the committee that will hear 292 tomorrow. The committee is primarily Republican, but far more importantly, most of them have good pro-gun records.

I would like to draw special attention to Rep. Sean Eberhart, who co-sponsored 506 in the House and who spoke today against Rep. DeLaney's amendment. I listened to his discussion points and was most pleased. This gentleman's discussion points echoed those I read on INGO all the time: Criminals don't obey laws (that's why we call them criminals), how do you plan to collect all these illegal magazines? How do you plan to ensure that the criminals turn in their illegal firearms?

Figuratively speaking, he tore DeLaney apart and mopped the floor with him, and It. Was. Beautiful. to watch. If I remember to do it, when the video comes up on the state legislature site, I will post a link to it here.

If any of you are in Mr. Eberhart's district, you might wish to let him know that you appreciate his work today. I'm not and I did.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, as promised, I found the link. On the Legislature's website, unfortunately, I cannot access it, however, with a bit of digging, I was able to find a working link at:

[noparse]http://157.91.0.105:80/vod/house/2011_04_12-Session.wmv[/noparse]

That will download the 2011_04_12-Session.wmv file to your hard drive. You need to change the extension on it from wmv to asx. Then click on it and go to timestamp 01:18:00 (one hour and 18 minutes in) There will be a couple of seconds delay, then they'll start right in on SB 506.

(Edit: Speaker Bosma misspoke and said it was on Third Reading, though his next line about it being available for amendment, recommitment, or engrossment was correct for Second Reading. The debate on this lasted about ten minutes. Finally, I noticed that the playback paused several times. I fixed that by occasionally backing up the recording and replaying sections of it. )

Enjoy! (I did!)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

Bill, thanks for keeping on top of this. Have you heard anything about how 292 looks for passage?

 

[Hammerhead]

Eberhart is my Rep. He responded to my e-mail (finally, he's not responded to others) and said as the House sponsor for 506, he wanted it to remain as close to original as possible.

I'm glad to hear that he tore into this stupid amendment.

+1 to him. I'll have to e-mail him back and thank him.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, thanks for keeping on top of this. Have you heard anything about how 292 looks for passage?

I haven't heard anything on it, but the deadline for it to go to Third is Friday, so it has to hit committee today, Second tomorrow to make that happen without an agreement to suspend the rules and allow Second and Third on the same day. I know it goes without saying I want to see this pass as much as we all do.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Hey - one other note on Ed Delaney. He's the guy that Auggie Mendenhall beat the snot out of, in a very strange and violent episode.
Ogden on Politics: The Mendenhall Chronicles: Part IV (The Confrontation)

I've disagreed with the Delaneys' politics for as long as I've known them (our paths have crossed several times). But, they are generally principled in their liberal-ness. And, his... reluctance to endorse any pro-gun legislation is a bit understandable after that episode (although his political position pre-dates that incident).

Edit: Oops - just saw CarmelHP's comment about this upstream. Sorry for the duplication!

 

[jedi]

OMG Rep. DeLaney is a s

a

! I've never seen or heard him before but OMG!

"At least after 10 shots someone can do something!" (Referring to having a criminal with a 10 round clip vs a 30+ round clip)

Rep Eberhart (I think that was him again never seen/heard him before) whipped that butt of DeLaney! Love the part about "How are we going to collect all those illegal 10+ magazines". & DeLaney said just keep it at your house. Of which Eberhart says won't that still be illegal? & DeLaney looks like a deer looking at the oncoming car headlights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Never heard of him before? DeLaney was the head of the Democratic Party here in Indiana. Needs to fire his PR guys.

292 is our haymaker this year. Keep those cards and letters coming.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 passed the committee with at least one amendment. I do not yet have all the info but will update when I can do so more comprehensively.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[4sarge]

Todays E-Mail from Jim Tomes

SB 292 the pre-emption bill was passed out of the House committee this morning. It might get a second reading on Friday.
The House members couldn't bring themselves to pass it without an amendment clarifying things for Indianapolis.
It was not anything toxic, but we all need to be thankful this is not 1787 working on a Constitution. The milk weeds we have in this country would roll over like a trained dog.

As I'm writing this letter the House is still in session and SB 506, the transport bill, has yet to be heard.

I want to thank all of those who did follow up and made phone calls or sent e-mails to their legislator.



Jim

 

[jedi]

So what was the amendment? & from the email from Mr. Tomes I suspect it has to deal with the Colts Stadium?

 

[CarmelHP]

So what was the amendment? & from the email from Mr. Tomes I suspect it has to deal with the Colts Stadium?

MR. SPEAKER:
Your Committee on Public Policy , to which was referred Senate Bill 292 , has had the same under consideration and begs leave to report the same back to the House with the recommendation that said bill be amended as follows:


SOURCE: Page 2, line 16; (11)AM029207.2. --> Page 2, between lines 16 and 17, begin a new paragraph and insert:
" Sec. 2. For purposes of this chapter, "lawful discharge" means the following:
(1) A discharge of a firearm in self-defense as provided in IC 35-41-3-2.
(2) A discharge of a firearm in a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3).
(3) A discharge of a firearm while attending a firearms instruction course.
(4) A discharge of a firearm in a properly zoned indoor firing range.
(5) A discharge of a firearm in or at a conservation club whose mission includes education of safe firearms practice.
(6) A discharge of a firearm while engaged in a legal hunting activity, unless the discharge is prohibited or restricted by zoning or a general ordinance.".
Page 2, line 17, delete "2." and insert " 3.".
Page 2, line 17, delete "4" and insert " 5".
Page 2, line 27, delete "3." and insert " 4.".
Page 2, line 33, delete "section 2" and insert " section 3".
Page 2, line 36, delete "4." and insert " 5.".
Page 3, line 41, delete "or".
Page 4, line 1, delete "firearm." and insert " firearm; or".
Page 4, between lines 1 and 2, begin a new line block indented and insert:
" (10) the promoters or organizers of an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation from:
(A) establishing, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in an event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of rules of conduct or admission in connection with the event by a political subdivision or municipal corporation;
(11) the enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23;
(12) a unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994; or
(13) a:
(A) city or town; or
(B) consolidated city, including:
(i) all the territory that comprised the first class city before it became a consolidated city under IC 36-3-1; and
(ii) the included towns (as defined in IC 36-3-1-7).
This clause does apply to the territory of an excluded city (as defined in IC 36-3-1-7);
from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range.".
Page 4, line 2, delete "5." and insert " 6.".
Page 4, line 9, delete "6." and insert " 7.".
Page 4, line 10, delete "5" and insert " 6".
Page 4, line 20, delete "5" and insert " 6".
Page 4, line 31, delete "7." and insert " 8.".
Page 4, line 31, delete "5" and insert " 6".
Renumber all SECTIONS consecutively.
(Reference is to SB 292 as reprinted February 11, 2011.)



















and when so amended that said bill do pass.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 506 has PASSED!!!!

 

[jedi]

CarmelHP I am getting a headache trying to read and UNDERSTAND what this means?

Good? Bad?

Looks like the new (10) is geared so that a promoter of an event can say "no firearms" at the event in question. So does this mean it's ILLEGAL to have a firearm there?

Also what does 13 mean? City/Town??

So confused now...

 

[eldirector]

Wow. Looks like they added a BUNCH of new carry restrictions? Is that right? That is NOT COOL.

 

[ryknoll3]

It looks like they added a line to allow prohibition of firearms by event organizers leasing space from the gov't and allowing for enforcement of said prohibitions by local LEO. This is for the Colts. They lease Lucas Oil from the state stadium authority or whatever it's called and this allows them to make rules prohibiting firearms, and the City of Indianapolis may enforce this, as I read it.

It also allows a locality to prohibit firearms at county hospitals or gov't owned hospitals that are leased out.

Not sure about section 13 though.

I guess this doesn't really change anything. It doesn't strengthen right-to-carry, but I guess it doesn't really weaken it from the status quo.

 

[kludge]

(12) a unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994; or

Why is 4/1/94 a magic date?

still reading and comprehending... maybe more questions to come.

 

[Pami]

Why is 4/1/94 a magic date?

still reading and comprehending... maybe more questions to come.

Isn't that when the IC had its last major overhaul to firearms laws and grandfathered in a bunch of city ordinances?

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, as I read it, the Representatives defined what "lawful discharge" of a firearm is, and it excludes shooting on your own property within the confines of a city limit. Technically, I think it also could be abused by a county to forbid the same on your own property even outside a city limit, and this bothers me.

As ryknoll described, they also codified the ability of the lessee of a property owned by a political subdivision, i.e. LOS, to restrict what is brought in, and specified that firearms may be prohibited, also including events put on by the political subdivision.

County owned hospitals, of which there are presently 13, according to what was said in committee, may still prohibit firearms, presumably because of forensic patients (those brought in by LEOs from jails, etc.)

It reinserts the language allowing the forbidding of a FFL dealer less than 200 feet from a school, unless the business has been there continuously since 1994.

It allows (without specifically naming it) Marion County to continue to ban firearms other than at shooting ranges.

The amendment could have been worse. There was discussion of libraries as well as property tax board meetings, etc., and those may resurface at Second Reading.

As we stand now, however...

The current active bills before the state legislature as of today, 4/13/2011, that address gun rights are

SB 94------- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk
SB 154 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk
SB 292 ----- Passed the committee with an amendment, not yet scheduled for Second Reading. (possibly Friday)
SB 411 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk
SB 434 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk
SB 506 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk

Five wins. I'd love to see six for six, but overall, it's still a win. (292, if passed in this form, would still need a conference committee due to the House amendment)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why is 4/1/94 a magic date?

still reading and comprehending... maybe more questions to come.

That was when the portion of the law that allowed local prohibitions to be made was written, IIRC.