2017 Legislative session thread

[Bill of Rights]

We have a report that HB 1159 is the Constitutional Carry bill. The text is not yet available, at this writing.

ETA: And HB 1161 is Rep. Lucas' bill to add a tax credit to the state income tax, for training purposes. I'll post the summaries of both when I see them on the IGA site.

 

[actaeon277]

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

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

If I was guessing, it would be something akin to "stare decisis", though that's not strictly applicable. It's kinda like the 16A, which established the basis for the IRS and taxes. Not in keeping with the spirit of the Founders' intent, but by the time someone brought a case to SCOTUS, it had been in place long enough that it should have been challenged earlier. (This is based on something I remember someone telling me a long time ago, so if it's not accurate, correction would be appreciated.)

It could also be that they're taking "baby steps", trying to get something on the books, and then the plan is to later walk it back from 1/1/17 back to 1986, 1968, ... 1934. Ideally, they'll eventually walk it back to 1792.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

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.

 

[brotherbill3]

Mr. Lucas has shared that HB 1159 will be the constitutional (permitless) carry legislation via his FB page.

Also he has shared that HB 1161 will be his legislation for tax CREDIT for up to $200 (indiv.) / $400 (family-couple) for Safety Storage/Training expenses.

He has shared images there (and I'm not tracking them to here; links soon enough from BoR or I or someone) - as verification of these.

I (via IMAGC on Facebook / twitter) will be sharing letters / samples and such. etc.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Use it as in "BANG". No.
Use it as in pull it out and point it, and state that she will no longer be beaten, she wanted a divorce, and was not going to be stalked. Yes.


For the record, before this she was anti-gun and extremely afraid of them.
Then she found out, there was worse things to be afraid of.

But, then she had to carry without a license, in a city (not in Indiana) that outlawed guns.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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 ?????

 

[actaeon277]

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.

 

[brotherbill3]

Because it sounds like a "good idea".



To him anyway.

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Jim Lucas has some nice ones out there already. Is anybody else offering anything positive?

 

[Trigger Time]

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 ?????

wow! He is still a republican right? He needs to ride out of Indiana on his firetruck

 

[actaeon277]

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.

One of my "shipmates" was wanting to become a Massachusetts politician when he EAOS'd.
Asked me why us "NRA types" wanted "cop killer" bullets.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Good bill IMO. Would love to see it pass, although IMO it doesn't go quite far enough.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/senate/78#document-b276f923

Adds this to the exemptions in the IC on firearms on school property.

(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

If you read the bill, it kinda sorta makes sense. It allows most ammo that would be considered "armor piercing" unless it's marketed for that purpose and intended by the manufacturer to be used in a handgun. Not saying it is a good bill, or needed, but not that bad overall. At least IMO.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1095#document-752712a6

 

[chipbennett]

Tagging for updates, now that the session has started.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The text of HB 1159, among others, is up!

Due to formatting and strikeouts and such, I will not be posting the text, but you can see it at

House Bill 1159 - Regulation of firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session

 

[Bill of Rights]

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

 

[brotherbill3]

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

.

one more - HB 1258 - Campus Carry - not yet posted - but cover photo shared by Mr. Jim Lucas on his FB feed.

 

[actaeon277]

Regarding HB 1095.
Regardless of "intent", a bill could later be used in ways the author did not "intend".
But I'm on my cell phone for the shift, and reading legalese is too difficult.
So I'll have to look these up later.