2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[ryknoll3]

I may have missed this somewhere in the thread.. but what is being done to encourage the progress of 292? Anyone have any tips on who I should email?

This is an interesting concept overall. I think that consistency in law enforcement schemes is a good general policy. Especially with something like firearms, where just crossing a ridiculous political subdivision's boundary can subject you to prosecution. Ok, rant over.

Use this:
External link from the www.IN.gov Web Site

Find your state house representative. Email or call them (or both) and ask them to support the bill. Many others here are doing the same thing.

 

[MeAndMyXD]

E mailed my rep the other day, not sure if it will do any good.

 

[Bill of Rights]

E mailed my rep the other day, not sure if it will do any good.

Considering your location, probably not, but it can't hurt. Thank you for getting involved!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Also, the main guy behind this is (former City-County Councilman) Representative Mike Speedy (from Indy dist. 90, IIRC).

I was actually pretty good friends with him in law school, and we recently re-connected. He's a decent guy. He also has struck a masterful balance with this legislation. He understands incrementalism.

Probably doesn't hurt to email him, too, and congratulate him. He's really done a good job. As Sen. Brent Steele (from Bedford) admitted at the hearing earlier this week, he has WANTED to do something like this for a long time, but lacked the intestinal fortitude to try it.

Mike's got that, but the way he built up persuasive case for it was more about smarts than bravery. (Not that that's a bad thing.)

 

[Bill B]

I just checked the state's web site and it shows that SB506 was returned to the senate with amendments.
Did I miss something????

 

[kludge]

Another e-mail sent...

Dear Rep. VanNatter,

I am contacting you regarding SB 292. Since you are a co-sponser I can assume that you will be voting for this bill, and I very much appreciate your support of this legislation.

However, I do have concerns with some of the wording/amendments, particularly Section 5(6) and Section 5(13).

In Section 5(6) the word "public meeting" is particularly vague, and will invite abuse. "Public meeting" needs to be narrowly defined as "the public meetings of a political subdivision."

Section 5(13) appears to give Indianapolis a special privilege to regulate or prohibit the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range which seems nonsensical to me.

Best regards,
Kludge


ETA: and I also just sent this:


Dear Rep. VanNatter,

I forgot to mention Section 2(6) which reads:

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.​

This could potentially be abused to completely eliminate shooting on all private property that is not a shooting range or conservation club, even when it could be done in a perfectly safe manner.

I know several people who do shoot safely on their own land, and who invite friends and neighbors. I also know that it is, and would be, extremely difficult to obtain zoning relief for this activity. When our club was facing an issue in Hendricks County, and we asked about a possible land swap and a zoning variance, the commissioner basically said, "Yeah, that's not going to happen." I also frequent a gun store in Plainfield who was very recently denied a variance for a shooting range on land he owns/will own in Cloverdale. As it is written, the local government might not even allow him to use his own land for personal recreation or to invite his friends.

Thank you and I would appreciate your attention on this matter.

Best regards,
Kludge

 

[Bill of Rights]

I just checked the state's web site and it shows that SB506 was returned to the senate with amendments.
Did I miss something????

SB 506 was amended in committee to add #3 of Sec. 1 (d):

(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Another e-mail sent...

Dear Rep. VanNatter,

I am contacting you regarding SB 292. Since you are a co-sponser I can assume that you will be voting for this bill, and I very much appreciate your support of this legislation.

However, I do have concerns with some of the wording/amendments, particularly Section 5(6) and Section 5(13).

In Section 5(6) the word "public meeting" is particularly vague, and will invite abuse. "Public meeting" needs to be narrowly defined as "the public meetings of a political subdivision."

Section 5(13) appears to give Indianapolis a special privilege to regulate or prohibit the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range which seems nonsensical to me.

Best regards,
Kludge


ETA: and I also just sent this:


Dear Rep. VanNatter,

I forgot to mention Section 2(6) which reads:

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.​

This could potentially be abused to completely eliminate shooting on all private property that is not a shooting range or conservation club, even when it could be done in a perfectly safe manner.

I know several people who do shoot safely on their own land, and who invite friends and neighbors. I also know that it is, and would be, extremely difficult to obtain zoning relief for this activity. When our club was facing an issue in Hendricks County, and we asked about a possible land swap and a zoning variance, the commissioner basically said, "Yeah, that's not going to happen." I also frequent a gun store in Plainfield who was very recently denied a variance for a shooting range on land he owns/will own in Cloverdale. As it is written, the local government might not even allow him to use his own land for personal recreation or to invite his friends.

Thank you and I would appreciate your attention on this matter.

Best regards,
Kludge

Good letter. I also emailed him:

Dear Rep. VanNatter,

Good day. I write to you today with concern regarding SB 292. I favor this bill, but I see a serious problem with it. As written (and amended), it could be used to prohibit discharging a firearm at a shooting range in Indianapolis. Of even greater concern, it excludes the ability to use one's own property for recreational shooting. This only makes sense if the property being used is small and the chance of a stray round is high. If I may recommend a small addition or change, I would suggest that so long as there is a berm or other safe backstop preventing a bullet from leaving the property on which it is fired, there is no reason to prevent people from using their property in this manner.

This is to say that when a person is exercising due care and regard and shooting safely, it makes no sense (and is of questionable Constitutionality) to prevent that use by action of law.

I ask you to please offer an amendment, either on the House floor today, as a Third Reading amendment, or in conference committee that will prevent the law from being abused in this manner to restrict the rights of property owners.

Thank you very much.

Most sincerely,

<name redacted>

I'm about to copy that note to Jim Tomes as well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[kludge]

Bill, we mustn't for get about shotguns... a backstop for shooting some clay pigeons out in the field would be impractical.

Thanks again for being on top of this for us!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, we mustn't for get about shotguns... a backstop for shooting some clay pigeons out in the field would be impractical.

Thanks again for being on top of this for us!

That was why I suggested "a bullet not leaving the property on which it was fired". You're correct; I don't shoot shotgun so I hadn't thought about it.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see this changing this session.

Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 has passed Second Reading. There were two amendments filed, one by Rep. Austin to permit the regulation of firearms at libraries and one by Rep. Speedy which would permit the regulation of firearms in public buildings if there is a metal detector and a person staffing it and each person and bag is searched. His amendment also corrected the language in re: the shooting ranges. The latter amendment was adopted. Here is the text of the bill, as amended:
(Deleted portions are greyed out, portions added are in red.)

April 13, 2011​

ENGROSSED​

SENATE BILL No. 292​

_____​

DIGEST OF SB 292 (Updated April 13, 2011 3:38 pm - DI 84)​

Citations Affected: IC 14-22; IC 35-47.
Synopsis: Preemption of local firearm regulation. Prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating any matter pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories. Allows a person to file an action against a political subdivision if the person is adversely affected by an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that violates the law.

Effective: July 1, 2011.

Tomes, Nugent, Smith J, Schneider, Banks, Waltz, Steele, Waterman, Kruse
(HOUSE SPONSORS _ SPEEDY, EBERHART, KOCH, VANNATTER, GOODIN)

​

January 6, 2011, read first time and referred to Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.
January 27, 2011, amended, reported favorably _ Do Pass.
February 10, 2011, read second time, amended, ordered engrossed.
February 11, 2011, engrossed.
February 14, 2011, read third time, passed. Yeas 38, nays 12.

HOUSE ACTION​

March 28, 2011, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
April 13, 2011, amended, reported _ Do Pass.

April 13, 2011​

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.

ENGROSSED​

SENATE BILL No. 292​

A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

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

SOURCE: IC 14-22-31.5-5; (11)ES0292.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-22-31.5-5 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 5. Except as specifically prohibited by this chapter and subject to IC 35-47-11.1,a local unit of government may regulate the location, use, operation, safety, and construction of a shooting range.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-1-2.5; (11)ES0292.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 35-47-1-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 2.5. "Ammunition", for purposes of IC 35-47-11.1, means:
(1) fixed cartridge ammunition;
(2) shotgun shells;
(3) the individual components of fixed cartridge ammunition and shotgun shells;
(4) projectiles for muzzle loading firearms; and
(5) any propellant used in a firearm or in firearm ammunition.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-1-5.1; (11)ES0292.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 35-47-1-5.1 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 5.1. "Firearm accessory" means:
(1) any device specifically adapted to enable:
(A) the wearing or carrying about one's person; or
(B) the storage or mounting in or on any conveyance;
of a firearm; and
(2) any attachment or device specifically adapted to be inserted into or affixed onto any firearm to enable, alter, or improve the functioning or capabilities of the firearm.


SOURCE: IC 35-47-11.1; (11)ES0292.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 35-47-11.1 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]:
Chapter 11.1. Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to a political subdivision (as defined in IC 3-5-2-38).
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.
Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 5 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, use, lawful discharge, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(4) any other matter pertaining to or relating to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.
Sec. 4. Any ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, policy, or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 3 of this chapter;
is void.
Sec. 5. This chapter may not be construed to prevent:
(1) a law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties;
(2) subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties;
(3) a court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge;
(4) the enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other businesses. However, an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property;
(5) the enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private
business;
(6) the enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting;
(7) the enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours a day;
(8) the imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1);
(9) the enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm; or
(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 unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) person:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a person described in clause (B); or
(13)(14) 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.
from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the boundaries of the city or town; or
(B) consolidated city from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the territory of the consolidated city that comprised the first class city before it became a consolidated city.
Sec. 6. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
(1) declarative and injunctive relief; and
(2) actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation.
Sec. 7. A person is "adversely affected" for purposes of section 6 of this chapter if either of the following applies:
(1) The person is an individual who meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The individual lawfully resides within the United States.
(B) The individual may legally possess a firearm under the laws of Indiana.
(C) The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 6 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.
(2) The person is a membership organization that:
(A) includes two (2) or more individuals described in subdivision (1); and
(B) is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the rights of persons who possess, own, or use firearms for competitive, sporting, defensive, or other lawful purposes.
Sec. 8. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 6 of this chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the following:
(1) The greater of the following:
(A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
(B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees.
(2) Court costs (including fees).
(3) Reasonable attorney's fees.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-11; (11)ES0292.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 35-47-11 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011].

Also deleted was "line 1-4" on "page 5". I'm not sure what that is, but it's after the last of the red, above, between the beginning of Sec. 6 and the end of the bill.

I have emailed Rep. Speedy to inquire as to the details.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill B]

So the library amendment failed, hooray for our side.
Just to clarify:
Assuming I am a proper person, the library board can currently set a policy prohibiting firearms. If I carry all they can do is ask me to leave, or trespass me if I refuse.
In the future, if the bill passes, they cannot set a policy prohibiting me from carrying. If they do, and I am "harmed" by it, I can sue.
Tried to rep you Bill, but have to spread the love.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So the library amendment failed, hooray for our side.
Just to clarify:
Assuming I am a proper person, the library board can currently set a policy prohibiting firearms. If I carry all they can do is ask me to leave, or trespass me if I refuse.
In the future, if the bill passes, they cannot set a policy prohibiting me from carrying. If they do, and I am "harmed" by it, I can sue.
Tried to rep you Bill, but have to spread the love.

The library amendment was filed, meaning it could be brought up on the House floor, but Rep Austin chose not to do so. I *think* your interpretation is correct, yes. (They may be able to fine you also, if there is a local ordinance, but that would go away as I understand it.) As for the rep, it's always appreciated but not necessary. Thank you for the thought and the attempt.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 is scheduled for Third Reading on Monday!

The current active bills before the state legislature as of today, 4/15/2011, that address gun rights are

SB 94------- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk. Needs the President Pro Tem and the Speaker's signatures first.
SB 154 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk. All signatures except his in place.
SB 292 ----- Passed Second Reading. Third Reading and vote scheduled for 4/18/11.
SB 411 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk. All signatures except his in place.
SB 434 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk. All signatures except his in place.
SB 506 ----- Passed by both houses. Scheduled to go to Gov. Daniels' desk (after a conference committee)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

BoR,

Thanks for all the updates. After looking over your reviews, analysis and commentary, I'm wondering ...

How many bills would ol' Bill of Rights write if Bill of Rights could write bills?

 

[Bill of Rights]

BoR,

Thanks for all the updates. After looking over your reviews, analysis and commentary, I'm wondering ...

How many bills would ol' Bill of Rights write if Bill of Rights could write bills?

Depends on the subject. Gun bills? Just one.

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as ratified in 1791, shall be respected as written. No governmental authority exists over the ownership, possession, carry, use, or discharge for lawful purposes of arms and no registration, tabulation, enumeration, or record of such activities shall be lawful. Any violation of these restrictions shall constitute a Class C felony."

And a felon is not eligible to serve as a law enforcement officer at any level, to include the various Attorneys General.

If only those same restrictions applied to legislators and executives, we'd never have to worry about restrictions of these rights again.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Does that answer your question?

Glad you got the joke. Not bad on the draft. I had toyed with the idea of something similar, except with a much harsher penalty.

...we'd never have to worry about restrictions of these rights again.

Hmmm.

 

[jedi]

Confused on the new RED text for 506.

Is it saying that bldgs own by the local gov which have metal detectors CANNOT prohibit guns? Or is it saying it can prohibit guns?

Also 506 is the pre-emption bill right? (sry late and I don't want to look it up) so it will (at least the original one) was going to re-set all the local firearm ordinances. Is that still the case?

Case in point East Chicago still has an assault weapons ban so my understanding was 506 (original) would axe that ordinance. Gary also has one but it was NOT grandfathered during the last go around but they never took it off the books. (well it might be off the books now not sure).

thanks

ps.
BoR what ever happen to the draft legislation for the carrying inside of private schools **WHEN** school is not in session (ie. night time, weekends, etc...)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Confused on the new RED text for 506.

Is it saying that bldgs own by the local gov which have metal detectors CANNOT prohibit guns? Or is it saying it can prohibit guns?

Also 506 is the pre-emption bill right? (sry late and I don't want to look it up) so it will (at least the original one) was going to re-set all the local firearm ordinances. Is that still the case?

Case in point East Chicago still has an assault weapons ban so my understanding was 506 (original) would axe that ordinance. Gary also has one but it was NOT grandfathered during the last go around but they never took it off the books. (well it might be off the books now not sure).

thanks

ps.
BoR what ever happen to the draft legislation for the carrying inside of private schools **WHEN** school is not in session (ie. night time, weekends, etc...)

Nope. The text above is 292. 506 will be law as soon as it passes conference committee and gets a few signatures (three)

As for the above referenced text...

(13) a unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) person:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a person described in clause (B);

It's saying that this chapter does not prevent a "unit" (city, town, etc.) from enacting or enforcing a restriction or prohibition on firearms in a building they own or administer if they have a metal detector and staff member at every public entrance AND every person and package entering through those doors is inspected by that person while the building is open.

As I read and understand it, 292 will indeed repeal East Chicago's AWB, yes, so whenever you're there, make sure you watch out for all the blood running in the streets.

Lastly, I don't see anything like the bill you asked about. The closest was SB 319. It never made it out of committee. I don't think they even heard it, but it would have changed the "Class D Felony" to a Class A Misdemeanor and would have allowed a firearm in a locked vehicle so long as the driver was not a student.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

Thanks BoR so the pre-emption bill is the last one still working it's way thru the readings at this point right? Will be pass then?

As for the draft of being able to take firearms into private schools that was what were talked about here on INGO in the private "social group" as a possible new bill to get Indiana to work on. I guess it never made it out of INGO then. =(