IGA House Public Policy Hearing 2-7 3 Firearm HB's

[KellyinAvon]

Wow, finally got to bang out a post. It was good to meet some INGOers (GFGT and son, Brother Bill 3, Bill of Rights, TLex in the hall). Kirk was there? He must've been in disguise. It is always good to hear Guy lay out the pro-2A side of the issue. Also good to have an NRA rep on the scene.

A few thoughts:
Charlie Brown earned that NRA "F". Probably more like a G or an H. Did not seem to grasp the difference of owning and carrying. Vanessa Summers same-same, she's batty.

Rep Lucas got in digs for Constitutional Carry, "2A is the only right that requires a license".

The domestic violence/anti-HB1071 type would disarm all victims as well as everyone else. Peggy Mayfield smoked her with a well directed question. When Rep Lehman (??) asked her what her example had to do with the bill (3 times) her answers had nothing to do with anything.

The PhD/law professor from B-town (appropriately): interspersed BS (you can't carry a gun a work, women with guns will just get killed with them). About as pleasant as a root canal. Jim Lucas stomped on her towards the end.

Rep Smaltz is one of us. This is going to be a long fight. I think Brother Bill said we're the 3 percenters, the antis are 10% and we're fighting over the 87% that don't care about a lot.

We'll just keep plugging away and drag the 87% to our side.

 

[KellyinAvon]

 

[MikeBrennan]

I got to see Laura Berry, director of Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

She says she wants to help women who are targets of domestic violence......by helping them fill out a request for a protective order and ensuring it is difficult for them to be armed for their defense. Lunacy at its best.

 

[MikeBrennan]

If I caught it correctly, it was stated that murder is the number 1 or number 2 cause of death for women in the workplace.....

Did I catch that correctly?

Nonetheless, the "do gooder busy bodies" want to help women by making it more difficult to exercise their Constitutional rights?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I got to see Laura Berry, director of Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

She says she wants to help women who are targets of domestic violence......by helping them fill out a request for a protective order and ensuring it is difficult for them to be armed for their defense. Lunacy at its best.

Ah, but in 30 years of "helping" women... she has never once found it appropriate to help someone obtain a LTCH and a weapon. She doesn't even fake crying well.

TLex was there today? Blast. I would have enjoyed meeting. Maybe next time. I'm glad to see that you other guys got the same impression I did, that this is an image problem. Constitutional carry does not mean either Mongo riding into town on his ox (don't shoot him, you'll just make him angry!) or Clint squaring off with some fast (but not fast enough) handed outlaw who needs killin'... it means a more armed, more polite, and less dangerous society for the good guys, and it means that the bad guys find lower-hanging fruit. Let them all go to Illinois, until they change their laws and make the easy victims just the ones in California and New York.

Thanks, all of you who showed up today!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill B]

I am a second degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do and a pretty crappy shot with a handgun. I will still feel safer and more able to defend myself with the handgun.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, you did hear that right. It was stated that the number one cause of death of women in the workplace is murder. I can't vouch for the truth of the statement, only that you heard it as they said it.

However, with 25 of 26 women being killed at home, where they can already have a handgun without having a license, the overwhelming point they wanted to drive home is that this bill would not protect them there. The points that were lost were that a) a possible reason why women were killed in the home is that that's an easy place to find them isolated, where no help is readily available (absent a gun) and b) one way that the abuser finds her is because the "protected" person's address is printed right there on the RO. "Do not go to the following address" and "Do not call this phone number".

I get it. They have to spell that out, else the perp simply argues that "I didn't know she was there!" However, the abuser is just like any other violent criminal: Nothing stops them but a coffin or a cell.

Ms. Berry and Professor Whatshername both need to address what the real problem is, since "this won't help women who are victims of DV" (Interestingly, they seemed to have no concern for men who are also victims of DV, but are shamed into silence for fear of being considered less manly)

It seems to me that the solution is to stop the abuser permanently, or at a minimum, disable him/her so s/he can't continue abusing. (No, I'm not advocating "shoot to wound"; the best advice is to shoot to stop the threat, and aim for center of mass to do so. It's not a desire to kill, it's simply acknowledging the fact that if you want the bes tchance of stopping, aim where if you're off a bit from your target, you'll still hit something important enough to stop the SOB.)

In addition, a point that needs addressed is that under current law, the person who is the target of DV cannot even carry a stun gun or taser without a LTCH. All solutions do not need to be lethal, though that is the surest way to guarantee that that abuser will abuse no one else. Ever.

It's the old saying: Gun control is "The theory that a woman, raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those fatal bullet wounds in his chest and forehead!"

These two people happen to be women, though that is immaterial to my next statement: They need a dose of reality. They need to see and interview the woman who DOES stop the attack that would have resulted in her own rape and murder, with the murder weapon being something she wore that day. They need to have that epiphany. Until then, nothing will change their minds. I even heard another woman from the gallery challenging Rep. Lucas afterward, trying to corner him on the abortion question and challenging his "misstatement" that the 2A is the only right that we license: Apparently, she was in DC for the march, which does not surprise me-I could easily picture her with a vagina on her head (considering she had an anus under her nose)- as if that was in some way relevant. Rep. Lucas did a fine job of pointing out to her that the licensing of any right, including peaceable assembly, is unConstitutional. I was quite impressed in that he did not tell her to pound sand, nor did he instruct her into exactly which orifice it should be pounded.

Blessings,
Bill

If I caught it correctly, it was stated that murder is the number 1 or number 2 cause of death for women in the workplace.....

Did I catch that correctly?

Nonetheless, the "do gooder busy bodies" want to help women by making it more difficult to exercise their Constitutional rights?

 

[cbhausen]

Sorry I couldn't meet you guys. We had a big account in at work today for a site visit and I couldn't get away, just my luck.

As for HB 1071 and HB 1250, I'd consider voting against them out of principle. Reading some of the posts in here supporting these Bills is like reading some Stockholm Syndrome diary. It's like we are on bent knee kissing the hands of our captors, grateful for the bones they throw us. Indiana's LTCH is gross infringement as acknowledged in HB 1071. No better than making someone show a "need" to carry in a shall issue state. And LEO getting a lifetime LTCH after 20 years of service? Nothing against LEO (I'm very supportive) but that's simply further ingraining indiana's gross infringement system.

And as for those saying we need to try harder, bull****. We shouldn't have to beg our captors to do the Constitutional right thing here. The good people of this State are no different than the people of the States with Constitutional carry already. The problem is our politicians, not those who elected them (starting with Brian Bosma).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And as for those saying we need to try harder, bull****. We shouldn't have to beg our captors to do the Constitutional right thing here. The good people of this State are no different than the people of the States with Constitutional carry already. The problem is our politicians, not those who elected them (starting with Brian Bosma).

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say try harder, I said there are minds that need to be changed. Not of the politicians (by and large) but of their constituents. Hopefully BOR, Kelly, BB3 would back me up in that. Being there would have helped understand what I'm saying.

 

[KellyinAvon]

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say try harder, I said there are minds that need to be changed. Not of the politicians (by and large) but if their constituents. Hopefully BOR, Kelly, BB3 would back me up in that. Being there would have helped understand what I'm saying.

Truth! The misinformation among the 87% is strong with this issue. I don't do Twitter but #convertafudd

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say try harder, I said there are minds that need to be changed. Not of the politicians (by and large) but of their constituents. Hopefully BOR, Kelly, BB3 would back me up in that. Being there would have helped understand what I'm saying.

Truth! The misinformation among the 87% is strong with this issue. I don't do Twitter but #convertafudd

Agreed GFGT. I got a strong sense that, were it his decision alone, Mr. Smaltz would have passed Constitutional carry on day one. That's not to say he's being directed to squash it from Bosma... I've not dismissed that idea out of hand, but I have my doubts now that I didn't have before. And yes, having been there makes a difference. Some things don't translate well to the 'net, no matter how good one's command of the language is.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[churchmouse]

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say try harder, I said there are minds that need to be changed. Not of the politicians (by and large) but of their constituents. Hopefully BOR, Kelly, BB3 would back me up in that. Being there would have helped understand what I'm saying.

I preach the gospel to all who care to listen.
We have through our efforts converted many to our way of thinking.
A solid day at the range has converted many a left thinker.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I preach the gospel to all who care to listen.
We have through our efforts converted many to our way of thinking.
A solid day at the range has converted many a left thinker.

Now to get them to call and/or write and demand the change.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've said that since the beginning of this thread. There's a hand full of people who care, and that hand full isn't going to vote for anyone other than (R) regardless of what happens on these votes. They can keep this issue in their back pocket, not spend any political capital to get it done, and that'll be the end of it until next time. It may eventually happen, but I'm not surprised when it doesn't go anywhere.

Much wisdom here.

 

[T.Lex]

TLex was there today?

Yes and no. Was hoping to be there, but had a prospective client that could only meet at 9:00. Bizdev trumps all. (Well, almost all.) Was passing through the statehouse for a different client.

Always fun to put a face to a name, and I had no doubt that KellyinAvon and ya'all could carry the banner. If I'd known KF was going to be there, I'd have tried to come back around after my meeting! I really didn't think the hearing would go THAT long.

 

[brotherbill3]

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say try harder, I said there are minds that need to be changed. Not of the politicians (by and large) but of their constituents. Hopefully BOR, Kelly, BB3 would back me up in that. Being there would have helped understand what I'm saying.

Agreed GFGT. I got a strong sense that, were it his decision alone, Mr. Smaltz would have passed Constitutional carry on day one. That's not to say he's being directed to squash it from Bosma... I've not dismissed that idea out of hand, but I have my doubts now that I didn't have before. And yes, having been there makes a difference. Some things don't translate well to the 'net, no matter how good one's command of the language is.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree completely ... and if you are going to go all or nothing - ? I don't know what to say - we've lost the rights to where we are over a period of 80 yrs - in bits and pieces.

And if you think it is totally up to "just the legislators" - you're missing the very point of Mr. Adams - "Where was the American Revolution Won" ...

The 87% ... has the backing of history ... and I'll bump it and say 84 ... but during the revolution - the 84 was MOSTLY for the colonists, America, and our fledging country.
and we're not in - nor are we supposed to be in a shooting war - "Every American Choosing Liberty - Every Day" - means they (Every one) needs to understand what that means.

That's what's being relayed. ... MANY don't care about liberty - I'd go so far as to say MOST - those same people have no interest in guns or gun rights.

Where do we win them - where the revolution was won. ... THE REVOLUTION ... ? any one ...

 

[brotherbill3]

OOPs Fox has video - Guy made it in w/ speaking parts ...

Domestic violence victims could arm themselves without needing a permit if bill passes | Fox 59

 

[Jeepster48439]

Fox59 got it wrong. More spread the fear.

They failed to point out that victims of DV can already arm themselves, in their homes. They failed to point out that the purpose of the bill was to allow victims the right to carry outside the home for a short period (60 days) without the need to apply for a LTCH. They also failed to point out that the bill does not allow a non-proper person to take advantage of this 'exception'.

 

[chipbennett]

I've said that since the beginning of this thread. There's a hand full of people who care, and that hand full isn't going to vote for anyone other than (R) regardless of what happens on these votes. They can keep this issue in their back pocket, not spend any political capital to get it done, and that'll be the end of it until next time. It may eventually happen, but I'm not surprised when it doesn't go anywhere.

So, do we have a ballot-initiative option available?

 

[brotherbill3]

Fox59 got it wrong. More spread the fear.

They failed to point out that victims of DV can already arm themselves, in their homes. They failed to point out that the purpose of the bill was to allow victims the right to carry outside the home for a short period (60 days) without the need to apply for a LTCH. They also failed to point out that the bill does not allow a non-proper person to take advantage of this 'exception'.

Exactly - THIS - THIS VERY THING - is where our fight is ... WHY?
Because the masses - are uninformed and disinterested ...

Literally "BON JOUR" ( Hey - I was on the internet, so it must be true and that makes me a french model - LOL - )

but jokes aside - it is this perception with the masses of people - EVERYWHERE.
and even if we "WIN" and force this through - if the MASSES aren't behind it - - and they vote the R's that support it out - what stops the crazy D's that want the opposite from taking it right back away the next session - or in 2 sessions or 3? - - THE MASSES.

No - it isn't supposed to work that way - and to a degree it doesn't - it's taken little by little ... not all at once.

MOST* people support the 2nd Amendment - even those in urban areas - but they fail to see what it is supposed to be - because for 80 yrs it has been limited.

What made the founding of America possible - the fact that we were FREE to GOVERN ourselves for ~100 - 150 yrs - without the daily oppression and rules of a King & Parliament
We did the governing ourselves - THAT - made the experiment of AMERICA unique ... we've lost that -

* Except Charlie Brown - He'll never vote for a pro gun measure - there are just too many and people with them (you know us law abiding citizens) we don't count in his area ...
Whatever, snoopy would have more sense.