Can it get any better than HB1022?

[brotherbill3]

Guy had a blurb on his FB page about this saying the amendment requires you to get authorization prior to carry on property. When asked if that means it's still a felony if you don't have authorization, he replied 'yes'.

How is this different than the situation we have now?

It was a stupid amendment - but several of the proponents fell for it to try to placate the 2 naysayers who were being complete idiots (tools!)
- WE have to be quick but hopefully that can be fixed. I think even "moderate" Bray realized it - and Guy said something about he and Sandllin talked about it.

It is different -because it allows a church (as separate from a school) to give people the OK; rather than having to go to the school board as the only recourse ....
Note - Different - not better.

I'll try to get the new form / text up later when I seee it if no one beats me to it. - also link to the video.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It was a stupid amendment - but several of the proponents fell for it to try to placate the 2 naysayers who were being complete idiots (tools!)
- WE have to be quick but hopefully that can be fixed. I think even "moderate" Bray realized it - and Guy said something about he and Sandllin talked about it.

It is different -because it allows a church (as separate from a school) to give people the OK; rather than having to go to the school board as the only recourse ....
Note - Different - not better.

I'll try to get the new form / text up later when I seee it if no one beats me to it. - also link to the video.

I cant wait to watch Taylor get smacked down again by the Gent from Southport. That exchange was epic
(paraphrased)
Taylor: You realize you are giving bad people permission to carry a gun into your church?
Witness: "Bad guys dont follow laws, your point is irrelevant because he's gonna come in anyway. "

I actually guffawed when he smacked him down and made him look like an idiot. Somebody in the cubes outside my office said "You ok?"


And what was up with the old guy trying to put words into Guy's mouth? Was he sleeping during part of the testimony?

 

[PistolPastor]

Guy had a blurb on his FB page about this saying the amendment requires you to get authorization prior to carry on property. When asked if that means it's still a felony if you don't have authorization, he replied 'yes'.

How is this different than the situation we have now?

Ok So I have yet to look into this as amended but I wonder who's permission? Since Concealing is/can be a very private thing, does it have to be the church board or is it the pastor? Does it depend on how the church is set up governmentally as to which? Can the pastor just give blanket permission or does it have to be on a case by case basis? Does that permission have to be in written form or is a verbal "ok" good enough? So many questions... And honestly? I hope people will carry at my church and was a little shocked that because we have a preschool here during the week that they couldn't. I actually warned some of our members that it is, in fact, a felony but that I would do anything I could to help them if anything ever became a problem but I felt that they needed to know for their own legal protection... The amendment just from what I've read here seems to make this whole thing even more of a mess than before!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok So I have yet to look into this as amended but I wonder who's permission? Since Concealing is/can be a very private thing, does it have to be the church board or is it the pastor? Does it depend on how the church is set up governmentally as to which? Can the pastor just give blanket permission or does it have to be on a case by case basis? Does that permission have to be in written form or is a verbal "ok" good enough? So many questions... And honestly? I hope people will carry at my church and was a little shocked that because we have a preschool here during the week that they couldn't. I actually warned some of our members that it is, in fact, a felony but that I would do anything I could to help them if anything ever became a problem but I felt that they needed to know for their own legal protection... The amendment just from what I've read here seems to make this whole thing even more of a mess than before!

I wonder...You could post one of those signs that gives law abiding people permission to carry on your premises. My recollection of the code is the people having authority can grant permission to carry but I don't know that it has to be given to specific individuals, issued a letter of permission, etc. Maybe your board can just write it into their bylaws and make it general to all members and visitors there lawfully, etc.

 

[PistolPastor]

They don't seem to really think these things through, do they?

 

[brotherbill3]

They don't seem to really think these things through, do they?

They tried to explain it at the hearing - GUY, BRAY, SANDLIN, the LSA (Andy?) ... the pastor from the Church ... all of them.

and Lonnie Randolph and Greg Taylor - Both ATTORNEYS - BOTH with 10+ yrs of IGA experience ...
(as well as Dr. Mediera ... oh my and she teaches this????? NOOOOOOO..... )

were ALL being willfully obtuse about how the law works - ... at least I hope so
... if not then any box of rocks can be an attorney ... and no marbles are required.
(note: not a good one, just ... well whatever - no offense to our legal beagles on our side intended).

Anyway the amendment was made up on the fly ... to ... get their vote? I dunno ... I think it was going pass, same vote anyway.
It was not well thought out, and it should be MORE inclusive - not less. IMO.

I hope it gets "Un-done" at 2nd reading on the floor - or in House Public Policy, or 2nd reading there - or conference committee (if needed) ... ugh.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Ok So I have yet to look into this as amended but I wonder who's permission? Since Concealing is/can be a very private thing, does it have to be the church board or is it the pastor? Does it depend on how the church is set up governmentally as to which? Can the pastor just give blanket permission or does it have to be on a case by case basis? Does that permission have to be in written form or is a verbal "ok" good enough? So many questions... And honestly? I hope people will carry at my church and was a little shocked that because we have a preschool here during the week that they couldn't. I actually warned some of our members that it is, in fact, a felony but that I would do anything I could to help them if anything ever became a problem but I felt that they needed to know for their own legal protection... The amendment just from what I've read here seems to make this whole thing even more of a mess than before!

Well, the laws typically say “written permission”. IANAL but I Don’t think it necessarily has to name specific people. But I could be wrong. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if I’m right? All that bluster of opposition and they get undone with a posted sign or language in bylaws. LOL

 

[KellyinAvon]

They tried to explain it at the hearing - GUY, BRAY, SANDLIN, the LSA (Andy?) ... the pastor from the Church ... all of them.

and Lonnie Randolph and Greg Taylor - Both ATTORNEYS - BOTH with 10+ yrs of IGA experience ...
(as well as Dr. Mediera ... oh my and she teaches this????? NOOOOOOO..... )

were ALL being willfully obtuse about how the law works - ... at least I hope so
... if not then any box of rocks can be an attorney ... and no marbles are required.
(note: not a good one, just ... well whatever - no offense to our legal beagles on our side intended).

Anyway the amendment was made up on the fly ... to ... get their vote? I dunno ... I think it was going pass, same vote anyway.
It was not well thought out, and it should be MORE inclusive - not less. IMO.

I hope it gets "Un-done" at 2nd reading on the floor - or in House Public Policy, or 2nd reading there - or conference committee (if needed) ... ugh.

Just to review: a bill (SB 33) to eliminate it being a felony for carrying a firearm in a church that it a school on days there is no school or day care was introduced and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee (which was half of the Summer Study Committee) is composed of a 5-2 majority with those who voted in favor of: "remove obstacles... exercising Constitutional rights".

The side with the insurmountable majority introduces an amendment that requires the same permission to exercising 2A rights as without SB 33 to appease the very people who are in favor of obstacles to exercising Constitutional rights (or at least that's how they voted.) So instead of asking Bob for permission to exercise a Constitutional Right, we now ask Joe for permission.

Am I tracking on this right? If I am tracking on this, the only thing I can say is, WHAT THE ACTUAL ****?? OVER!! Talk about the gang who can't shoot straight (pun intended)!!

I think I'll e-mail these sentiments along with a math lesson to our so-called allies on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here's a question, does Jody Mediera get paid by IU for all the time she spends at the Statehouse while some grad assistant teaches her classes? Seriously, if I'm there I'm on annual leave or burning comp time.

 

[brotherbill3]

Gotta be quick ... sorry

LINK TO VIDEO Archives - Indiana General Assembly, 2018 Session

SB-33 Starts at 1:08:24

I used chrome live - but have to use IE on recorded stuff (and no access to firefox to check that)

I don't know how long - and if you watch - take some headache meds first.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Gotta be quick ... sorry

LINK TO VIDEO Archives - Indiana General Assembly, 2018 Session

SB-33 Starts at 1:08:24

I used chrome live - but have to use IE on recorded stuff (and no access to firefox to check that)

I don't know how long - and if you watch - take some headache meds first.

Thanks for sharing the pain BB3. It looks like the original version of the bill is the only one up.

 

[brotherbill3]

Thanks for sharing the pain BB3. It looks like the original version of the bill is the only one up.

Yeah still the same now too. I R disappoint ...

IN OTHER NEWS - or rather "in the news" - the media has FAILED to properly explain this bill (all the TV Stations etc).
That combined with a-religious smart-assery - and we have a public opinion flooded with negative nancy's that have not a clue ...

ARGH!!!!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Yeah still the same now too. I R disappoint ...

IN OTHER NEWS - or rather "in the news" - the media has FAILED to properly explain this bill (all the TV Stations etc).
That combined with a-religious smart-assery - and we have a public opinion flooded with negative nancy's that have not a clue ...

ARGH!!!!

The AP kicked it off with a BS headline and its spiraled from there. Don't these people get tired of being wrong all the time?

 

[brotherbill3]

The AP kicked it off with a BS headline and its spiraled from there. Don't these people get tired of being wrong all the time?

when there seems to be no consequences? why would they? how would they even know?

 

[Cameramonkey]

when there seems to be no consequences? why would they? how would they even know?

And why would they really care? Why do we need guns? Thats what we have police for, after all. Who cares?

 

[KellyinAvon]

"Has the permission of the house of worship to possess the firearm on school property". I found it hidden under committee report. This is what was amended into SB 33 and passed, insert between sentences 12 and 13 on page 2.

This was an easy win, but the people who are supposed to be on our side snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.


https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/33#document-731aa94a

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Has the permission of the house of worship to possess the firearm on school property". I found it hidden under committee report. This is what was amended into SB 3 and passed, insert between sentences 12 and 13 on page 2.

This was an easy win, but the people who are supposed to be on our side snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.


https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/33#document-731aa94a

I'd wager this whole carry in a school thing scares the people as much and probably more than constitutional carry does. Wonder if they got weak-kneed about facing their constituents about how they allowed guns in their schools.

I suppose a church could change their by-laws and write a policy allowing members to carry. That would give them permission.

 

[goldtrigger]

I watched a few minutes of this yesterday. The part where Guy is explaining about the laws relating to trespassing. The senator asking questions was so obtuse. I think he was trying not to understand. Watching was painful!

 

[brotherbill3]

The legislation is update -
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/33#document-acda9fbc

Monday should be 2nd hearing where they can amend it on the senate floor.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'd wager this whole carry in a school thing scares the people as much and probably more than constitutional carry does. Wonder if they got weak-kneed about facing their constituents about how they allowed guns in their schools.

I suppose a church could change their by-laws and write a policy allowing members to carry. That would give them permission.

How many people think you can't lawfully carry in a church? I agree with your assessment on a written policy covering the lawfully armed, but will this happen? One thing about whee you're at, there's a whole lot of small country churches that are neither schools or daycares.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How many people think you can't lawfully carry in a church? I agree with your assessment on a written policy covering the lawfully armed, but will this happen? One thing about whee you're at, there's a whole lot of small country churches that are neither schools or daycares.

I'm sure that number would dismay both of us. It's probably equaled by gun owners that believe it's just not proper to do so, even if it is legal.

I really don't get this fear of having guns in school.