2019 Legislative Session Thread

[cbhausen]

Does more diffuse mean pot-related?

That’s how I read it.

 

[deucide]

Pet peeve, under the storage at public venue bill what is with this section.


First Indiana has a license not a permit, and 2nd we do not have a reciprocity agreement with any state. It would be better to word it as a "valid handgun permit that Indiana recognizes".

And HB 1048 is IMO worser. It could make it a felony to have an ad/nd in a town/city. Isn't there already a law(s) that would cover this if it was done in an unsafe manner. Reckless endangerment for starters.

Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law

 

[brotherbill3]

Didn’t Bosma warn Lucas and company not to re-introduce Constitutional carry the session?

I don't know. I'd wager there were some words to that effect after it crashed last year. I know, following Jim's FB page, his energies are...more diffuse...this time around.

Something tells me we wont see constitutional carry brought up by our supposed 2a friendly legislators anytime soon. I hope im wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any true constitutionalists, especially with a spine, in any form of government anymore.

LUCAS shared about a week ago all 10 (the limit per house person can "AUTHOR", IIRC) bills - just the cover with very "scriptive" title for each and no numbers yet assigned.

one of these WAS: CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
one was his tax credit for safety storage / training ...
One was the end of GFZ ....

I do not recall all of the others (several were hemp / cannabis related)

 

[brotherbill3]

Time is short so ... I just put a full summary w/ links here:

https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/1980838162008069

Thanks Kelly for the draft - I gotta work on that / those.

oops

Long version for those not likey Facebutt:

IGA (Indiana General Assembly) AKA – “State Government” has convened for the “LONGER” 2019 session. As I shared the other day there area already a number of proposals that fall under the area of “Gun Control” – most trying to “ADD” more to it, so far, and only 2 that are seeking to “REDUCE” the infringements we already face to our Article 1, Section 32 (IN) and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment (US) protected rights.

My time is very limited and there is A LOT TO DO – EVERY DAY (yeah choose freedom daily!)
So, here is a list and some links – with some VERY SHORT summaries of the legislative proposals:

IGA SENATE (where most are so far):
PRO 2A: SB 88 and SB 135 (link to each) – Houses of Worship and Firearms. J. Sandlin
Senate Bill 88 - Houses of worship and firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Senate Bill 135 - Houses of worship and firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
These are revised / hopefully “Best of” one of the most promising proposals from last year’s session. The general idea is to remove the carry/possession prohibition from Houses of Worship which are joint with “school” property – because “schools” are a defined term and a defined “GFZ”. Support these – we just need to determine which one is getting pushed and what (if any) edits need to be made per last years discussion.
PRO 2A – SB 134 – Storage of firearms at public venues – J. Sandlin
Senate Bill 134 - Storage of firearms at public venues - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Provides that certain public venues (where possession / carry is prohibited) MUST provide secure storage for those legally allowed (LTCH holders) to carry to and from said location(s).
Not as Ideal as eliminating the GFZ’s but a step forward as it removes limitations of carrying to and from (which is my greatest pet peeve many times, where I see the greatest risk) given events, locations, and activities. … Need Detailed Review –but generally support this.
MIXED REVIEW: SB119 - Prohibited firearm transfers to minors – J. Tomes.
Senate Bill 119 - Prohibited firearm transfers to minors - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
While I get where Senator Tomes is trying to do (tie state law to similar federal law); and general beef up punishments for letting minor’s commit crimes with MACHINE GUNS – there are definitions that I’m not sure are not “too broad” in his revision. (Need to address this more shortly, and to Sen. Tomes). I agree this area needs to be cleaned up and fixed, to punish those who commit crimes and protect those who are educating children to shoot. (I see a potential big “reg flag”) – Could support / but needs Revisions IMO
OPPOSE: SB 125 - Open carry of rifles – G. Taylor
OPPOSE: SB 126 - Prohibited equipment on firearms – G. Taylor
Senate Bill 125 - Open carry of rifles - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2019/bills/senate/126
Both of these by Sen Taylor skirt issues and naming – BOTH are aimed at FURTHER restricting the “infringed rights” of the law abiding. First one not only makes it a crime to carry such rifles, but appears to even add (old AWB) restriction to what can be possessed. The second is a potential attack on parts kits, as with the recent “Bump Stock Plus” prohibitions of the ATF. These are OPPOSED without question. They are seeking to create problems where there are none; and then criminalize the acts of the law abiding.
OPPOSE: SB 263 – Minimum Age to purchase “assault weapon” (quotes mine): Mrvan
Senate Bill 263 - Minimum age to purchase assault weapons - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
raises age for certain weapons to 21 to purchase, trade, transfer … This again is a further restriction creating a problem where one does not exist. Creates a new term called “regulated weapon” … OPPOSE.
ALL of these are before the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senate Committee on Judiciary - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
NOTE:
The Chairman – Senator Randall Head: Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
is the SOLE person (less pressure from chamber leadership) who decides what legislation gets a hearing and what does not.
There are several others we have heard of but do not have information for at this time (SB 306, SB307) that were in the news media last week. I will add these when information is available. I expect a few more than this as well between now and submission deadline.

FOR THE STATE HOUSE: There are currently 3 items that are listed – OPPOSE ALL (Why? Read on)
HB 1040 - Firearm storage requirements – J Bartlett
House Bill 1040 - Firearm storage requirements - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
This legislation would prohibit a law abiding person from possession based on the limitations / status other people at the residence being prohibited or under-aged (and “risky”) … This is where “Personal Responsibility” kicks in. So a legal person married to a person with a prohibitive conviction would be unable to provide legal protection to their home or to legally carry –even if the partner is no threat and has no access.
HB1048 - Firearm storage. – C. Jackson
House Bill 1048 - Firearm storage - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Storage so that kids cannot access (very broad, terms undefined) NO. Makes not being secured a felony (too many questions);
The 2 above were sent to the HOUSE PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE:
House Committee on Public Policy - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Rep Ben Smaltz is again the chair here (a friend to our rights in this area):
Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

HB1049 - Surrender of firearms for domestic violence crimes – C. Jackson
House Bill 1049 - Surrender of firearms for domestic violence crimes - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
This is on the surface redundant, as a conviction would make a person a prohibited possessor. I need to dig through this more but I am fairly certain this is a NO.
This one has been sent to the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON Courts and Criminal Code:
House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
REP Wendy McNamara is the Chairwoman:
Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

Our Strongest Ally – Rep Lucas – has several (at least 3) items in the 2A / Art.1.Sec 32 area that he has drafted – INCLUDING: CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY. – but these – like others – are not listed yet. I hope to see them soon.

Remember – get more people to call and/or write – pushing for the good and against those that take our rights – to the committee chairs is vital – 1 calls from each of 10 people is better than 10 calls from 1 person. Send us reviews or draft letters we can share (or start from) – either in comments or in messages.

We are here to help you – to stand up for your rights and those of our posterity. As always – Please Like, Comment and Share – and Share beyond Facebook – other media, etc. We need to get all the people that we can, who support our individual constitutionally protected freedoms, engaged and involved, to support them.
In Liberty,
BB3

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

LUCAS shared about a week ago all 10 (the limit per house person can "AUTHOR", IIRC) bills - just the cover with very "scriptive" title for each and no numbers yet assigned.

one of these WAS: CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
one was his tax credit for safety storage / training ...
One was the end of GFZ ....

I do not recall all of the others (several were hemp / cannabis related)

I think one had to do with penalizing willfull/malicious false accusers with the penalty the accused would have gotten if convicted. Another had to do with education funding.

All I meant by my earlier comment is that last year and the year before that, his primary legislative agenda appeared (to me anyway) was constitutional carry. I don't mean to insinuate he's had a change of heart on the issue, only that it seems as though he's told to tread new ground. And this year, he found marijuana as the hill to charge with most of his energies.

Again, I'm not saying he's changed his mind on his 2A goals only that this new found passion consumes what I see as a large part (and maybe a majority) of his social media output.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I saw nothing new added to the committees, and no new bills have posted. Judiciary committee in the Senate doesn't look like it has anything interesting coming up on the ninth or 16th. I need to look at it a little closer

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law

For the first perhaps semantics, but still a pet peeve. Similar to magazine/clip or calling the LTCH a CCP.

For the second, no Indiana does not have a reciprocity agreement with any other state. We honor all other states/foreign countries license/permit and some other states honor ours. So we might have reciprocity with some but we have no agreements to do so nor is there any way in the Indiana code for us to enter into one. Please provide a link to any reciprocity agreement Indiana has entered into, and where in the IC where it is possible to do so.

Yes local ordinances do apply to most towns/cities, if done in a reckless manner again there is already a state law that applies. And possibly more than one I'd have to check. A guy has a AD/ND in his home with no one injured or endangered he should be charged with a felony?

 

[goldtrigger]

Following this thread. I will stop by the post office tomorrow and get some pre stamped post cards. Looks like I might be using a bunch.

 

[KellyinAvon]

CLEARED HOT on SB 263:
(Senator/Representative name here),
I’m writing to encourage your opposition to SB 263: Minimum Age to Purchase Assault Weapons, authored by Senator Frank Mrvan.

First of all, the term “assault weapon” has come to mean anything, anyone wants to ban. An assault rifle (by definition) has selective fire, meaning capable of both semi and full automatic or multi-round burst fire. Since the ban on import and manufacture of these rifles in 1986, the price makes them unattainable for most people. The resemblance to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s have made these rifles an easy target. An “assault weapon” should also include hammers and baseball bats since according to FBI statistics blunt objects kill more people than all types of long guns.


According to SB 263, any one of the following features being on a rifle sold to someone under 21 would make the seller a felon:

A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon; a thumb-hole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; a mount or lug capable of accepting or affixing a bayonet, flare launcher, grenade launcher; a flash suppressor; a forward pistol grip.

SB 263 would also outlaw anyone under 21 from owning a WW II-era M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine, and certain versions of the Remington Model 8 rifle. The Remington Model 8 was originally designed in the late-1890s.


When someone in this country is 18 years of age, they are an adult. They can live on their own and be responsible for everything that comes with being an adult. They can vote and join the military; possibly deploying to combat zones multiple times before turning 21. They have the essential right to self-defense, yet one of the best means of defense would be denied under SB 263.


Finally, what does SB 263 accomplish? It makes law abiding citizens criminals, and does nothing to stop the real criminals, who do not obey laws in the first place.


Your opposition to SB 263 would be greatly appreciated, thank you.


Name

Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[KellyinAvon]

Rep Carolyn Jackson who authored HB 1048 and 1049 is out of District 1. A Dem who ran unopposed and got an F from NRA-ILA. I read 1049 and it looks cut and dry (this is what the law already is) but considering who wrote it my suspicions are up. Time to read another...

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Rep Carolyn Jackson who authored HB 1048 and 1049 is out of District 1. A Dem who ran unopposed and got an F from NRA-ILA. I read 1049 and it looks cut and dry (this is what the law already is) but considering who wrote it my suspicions are up. Time to read another...

It looks like it requires surrender of the firearms to LE with no option for other legal disposal (i.e. - selling within a certain specified time period). I'm not sure what Indiana's current law is, but this doesn't look good. This bill is a "NO" for me.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It looks like it requires surrender of the firearms to LE with no option for other legal disposal (i.e. - selling within a certain specified time period). I'm not sure what Indiana's current law is, but this doesn't look good. This bill is a "NO" for me.

Good eye AmmoMan! I was scrolling when I should've been not scrolling on that one. Creates a law requiring Police confiscation and disposal if the conviction stands since the only two options are disposable and return to rightful owner.

 

[2A_Tom]

Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law

Legislation should be as precise and succinct as possible to avoid interpretation problems.

Anti-gun advocates want legislation as vague as possible in order to be able to twist it to their own ends. Look at descriptions in "assault weapons" legislation.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law

Semantics are everything, especially in law. It makes a difference. Case in point.

Years ago my colleagues were helping to draft a version of the NFPA (fire protection building codes) and the working group originally wanted to use the term "telephone line" as the term when dictating how a fire panel would connect to the world to dial out and report trouble to Central Station via telephone communicator (modem) . My colleagues insisted that they use the correct term, which is POTS line. (Plain Old Telephone Service). They did. For good reason.

A "telephone line" could mean a PBX line, VoIP line, ISDN line, etc. However NONE of those technologies are POTS lines which is what they intended for it to mean. Anything but POTS was incorrect, because nothing but POTS had the resiliency necessary for critical alarm communications. POTS lines deliver service with no electricity required. They deliver voltage from the CO, and are backed up by battery and sometimes generators. All other techs require AC voltage on the customer premise to function. If you lose power, the fire panel wont be able to dial out on anything but a POTS line (or cellular dialer) because your on premise equipment may go down. THAT is why they insisted. And it allowed us to prevent dangerous installs that could have led to life safety issues.

 

[Mongo59]

I think one had to do with penalizing willfull/malicious false accusers with the penalty the accused would have gotten if convicted.

Wow, that comes straight out of Levitical law.

 

[brotherbill3]

There are about 8 or 9 new bills listed, if I am recalling correctly.
I have been in meetings all day, and I will update shortly (meaning after I get home).

A few are storage bills nearly same as ones already listed ... 3 are pro rights bills from Lucas.

 

[KellyinAvon]

There are about 8 or 9 new bills listed, if I am recalling correctly.
I have been in meetings all day, and I will update shortly (meaning after I get home).

A few are storage bills nearly same as ones already listed ... 3 are pro rights bills from Lucas.

I was hoping for your synopsis first Bill. It makes the review much easier. To the General Assembly website!!

 

[KellyinAvon]

HB 1108: False Accusation of a Crime. Authored by Jim Lucas.
- Makes knowingly/intentional false report to Police the level of crime as the false accusation if higher than misdemeanor/same level of felony.

I like it for stopping SWATing, but the knowingly/intentional part requires proof (as should everything in this Country.) If you're SWATing a gun owner you're lying to the Police already, what's another lie at that point?

HB 1109 Income Tax Credit for Firearms Safety Expenses. Authored by Jim Lucas.
- $200 single/$400 married filing jointly tax credit
- Includes instruction from NRA certified Instructor and storage device (safe, locking cabinet, etc.)
- Can't exceed tax liability, used every year (no rollover)

What's not to like? The only thing lib politicians hate more than guns is taxpayers keeping their money. LTCH holders have been subsidizing Police training for years and we're statistically less likely to commit a crime with a firearm than the Police (John Lott, 2016).

HB 1129: Training Requirements for Armed Educators. Authored by Chris Judy (was on the Public Policy Committee but not this year. Solid pro-2A)
- Establishes standards: training times and required areas, looks like an abbreviated LEO course.
- Includes weapons qualification, weapons retention in physical altercation, firearms law, annual recurring training, etc.
- Establishes a School Safety Board, sets up funding based on student population

I'm wondering if Guy is involved with this one. This derails the antis. I'm on board with getting rid of GFZs, but I can support this.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I can't really tell the difference between HB 1040 and HB 1149. Slight verbiage difference on page 3, this is the same crap. Somebody copied and changed a couple words.

 

[goldtrigger]

Any chance we will get another go at constitutional carry? Anyone heard any hints one way or the other?