Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[lonehoosier]

Have gun, will legislate: Hoosier lawmakers vote to arm themselves inside Statehouse
Have gun, will legislate: Hoosier lawmakers vote to arm themselves inside Statehouse | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com

"State Sen. Jim Tomes, R-
Wadesville, the sponsor of the measure, said it's needed because the General Assembly often works after dark and legislative employees are in danger walking unarmed to their cars at night in downtown Indianapolis.
At the same time, the proposal makes no provision for executive and judicial branch employees or Indiana citizens visiting the Statehouse, who often use the same nearby parking lots, to likewise bring their guns into the building"

 

[jamil]

Have gun, will legislate: Hoosier lawmakers vote to arm themselves inside Statehouse
Have gun, will legislate: Hoosier lawmakers vote to arm themselves inside Statehouse | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com

"State Sen. Jim Tomes, R-
Wadesville, the sponsor of the measure, said it's needed because the General Assembly often works after dark and legislative employees are in danger walking unarmed to their cars at night in downtown Indianapolis.
At the same time, the proposal makes no provision for executive and judicial branch employees or Indiana citizens visiting the Statehouse, who often use the same nearby parking lots, to likewise bring their guns into the building"

Rights to self preservation for me, but not for thee.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Rights to self preservation for me, but not for thee.

In fairness, Rep. Lucas offered an amendment to this bill to remove the restriction for all LTCH holders. The amendment was voice-voted down. (See post #1045 by BB3)

Sen. Tomes offered a bill that would be palatable and that could be easily amended. That the others did not do so, or didn't want their names recorded which way they voted, is not Sen. Tomes' fault.

I can see the other folks being a bit upset next year, though, when they are still prohibited and some staff are not. I could even see a court case ruling the limitation to certain staff being unConstitutional/discriminatory. This could still work in our favor, just not this year.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cbhausen]

Between this bull**** and all of our asinine liquor laws I've had about all I can take of these clowns.

 

[Thor]

From local to federal, the R's are in charge and seem to be unable to do what they said was the right course of action. Cumulative Capital Development taxes, Wheel Taxes, Economic Development taxes, not supporting the 2nd Am. (or any Am.) expanding government overreach into schools... Just seems they've wanted to be in charge to fix what the D's were breaking but now that they are they don't have the stomach, will, or character to do it.

The fight will continue but I hold little faith in these tyrants petty and great. They all seem to think they have better ideas for our money than we do.

 

[jamil]

In fairness, Rep. Lucas offered an amendment to this bill to remove the restriction for all LTCH holders. The amendment was voice-voted down. (See post #1045 by BB3)

Sen. Tomes offered a bill that would be palatable and that could be easily amended. That the others did not do so, or didn't want their names recorded which way they voted, is not Sen. Tomes' fault.

I can see the other folks being a bit upset next year, though, when they are still prohibited and some staff are not. I could even see a court case ruling the limitation to certain staff being unConstitutional/discriminatory. This could still work in our favor, just not this year.

Blessings,
Bill

I'm not blaming those guys specifically. I'm just saying that the lion's share of Hoosier Republicans are cowardly punk ass *****es.

 

[KLB]

I'm not blaming those guys specifically. I'm just saying that the lion's share of Hoosier Republicans are cowardly punk ass *****es.

I think it is simply that they do not share your ideas of what the government should be doing. While they may not agree with what the Ds want to control with government, that does not mean they don't have their own targets. They get voted in because of the R next to their name, not for what they believe in.

I think I will be writing my state Senator and Rep again letting them know in general how disappointed I am with the way things are going this year. I know it will do no good, but it needs to be done.

 

[brotherbill3]

On a related disappointing note - the video from last Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Hearing (on HB1071) - is still not functioning.
Monday HB 1071 moved passed 2nd reading in the Senate, without amendment or attempts to amend (as in to restore).
HIGHLY disappointing.

NOthing lately on SB 191 in the house. 2nd reading will probably be today to tomorrow. - only have like a week or 2 left - need to get to conf. committees.

 

[Excalibur]

This is why we all need to keep on working and hound our reps, senators, the governor, everybody with calls, emails and letters. We're a 99% republican state. This should work in favor for us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 191 was amended today by Rep. Smaltz to restore it to its original language, removing HB 1071 "because that bill now appears to be moving in the Senate".

It was moving, all right. It was moving the same way that Obama promised "change". He never promised the change would be good for America.

HB 1071 was passed moments ago at this writing, on Third Reading, sending both issues to summer study committee.

The corpulent female is warming up, but she ain't singin' yet. There is still Conference Committee, because the two houses have passed different versions of the same bill. Two senators and two representatives, composed of one Democrat and one Republican each, will now meet and hammer out the differences between the two forms of the bill.

I remain hopeful that Rep. Eberhart or Rep. Lucas will be the Republican representative, and that a pro-2A Democrat is found in each house, along with a strong pro-2A senator (maybe Sen. Tomes?) can meet to do this.

God willing, Sen. Bray will not even be told when and where the committee will be meeting. It's going to be a long time before we get the knife out of our backs he put there, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

On a related disappointing note - the video from last Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Hearing (on HB1071) - is still not functioning.
Monday HB 1071 moved passed 2nd reading in the Senate, without amendment or attempts to amend (as in to restore).
HIGHLY disappointing.

NOthing lately on SB 191 in the house. 2nd reading will probably be today to tomorrow. - only have like a week or 2 left - need to get to conf. committees.

 

[brotherbill3]

SB 191 was amended today by Rep. Smaltz to restore it to its original language, removing HB 1071 "because that bill now appears to be moving in the Senate".

It was moving, all right. It was moving the same way that Obama promised "change". He never promised the change would be good for America.

HB 1071 was passed moments ago at this writing, on Third Reading, sending both issues to summer study committee.

The corpulent female is warming up, but she ain't singin' yet. There is still Conference Committee, because the two houses have passed different versions of the same bill. Two senators and two representatives, composed of one Democrat and one Republican each, will now meet and hammer out the differences between the two forms of the bill.

I remain hopeful that Rep. Eberhart or Rep. Lucas will be the Republican representative, and that a pro-2A Democrat is found in each house, along with a strong pro-2A senator (maybe Sen. Tomes?) can meet to do this.

God willing, Sen. Bray will not even be told when and where the committee will be meeting. It's going to be a long time before we get the knife out of our backs he put there, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

I saw the 2nd reading; and just looked at the amendment ... While annoyed to the core about this change on 191 -
I am also wondering if it was a rule thing again - It would have been OK to leave it in if 1071 had not moved (at all) -

I have to agree - I hope Lucas is the R from the house; though Eberhart is likely as author, in my guesstimate.
Aren't there also several 'advisers' ... usually? I'm sure if Lucas is not a member he'll be an adviser.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I saw the 2nd reading; and just looked at the amendment ... While annoyed to the core about this change on 191 -
I am also wondering if it was a rule thing again - It would have been OK to leave it in if 1071 had not moved (at all) -

I don't think so, but could be wrong. I've seen many times where more than one Representative and/or more than one senator put forth essentially the same bill, maybe to increase the chance of it being heard by going to more than one committee, but that latter is just conjecture on my part.

I have to agree - I hope Lucas is the R from the house; though Eberhart is likely as author, in my guesstimate.
Aren't there also several 'advisers' ... usually? I'm sure if Lucas is not a member he'll be an adviser.

Now that you say that, yes, I recalled it incorrectly; Warning: Incoming Wall O' Text!
Conference committee rules are as follows:

Joint rule

7. (a) In every case of an amendment of a bill agreed to in one house, and dissented to in the other, either house may request a conference and appoint a committee for that purpose; the other house may also appoint a committee. A conference committee shall consist of two members from each house; one member from the house in which the bill or resolution originated shall be named as chairman by the appointing authority of the house of origination.
(b) Conferees shall state to each other verbally or in writing, as either shall choose, the reason of their respective houses for and against the amendment, and confer freely thereon and report to each house their proceedings thereon. Meetings of conference committees shall be held at a convenient hour agreed upon by the conferees and shall be open to the public, whenever feasible, in which event, notice shall be posted before such meeting in accordance with the rules of the house in which the bill originated. It is the intent of this joint rule to provide public access to the legislative process without hindering, intimidating or disrupting that process.
​

House rules
157. Establishing Conference Committees.

157.1 If a motion is filed to dissent in Senate amendments to a House bill, the author may request that the Speaker appoint a conference committee, and if the Senate dissents in House amendments to a Senate bill, the President Pro Tempore may request by the appointment of Senate conferees that the Speaker appoint a conference committee.
157.2 The House conference committee consists of two Representatives appointed by the Speaker, with the first listed Representative being the chair. Advisors may be appointed at any time by the Speaker.
157.3 House conferees may be appointed or removed at any time by the Speaker, and the changes shall be posted on the House bulletin board located outside the hall and announced by the Speaker from the rostrum. The office of the House majority attorney and the House minority attorney shall be advised of conferee changes at the time of posting to the bulletin board.
​

158. Meetings.

158.1 Each conference committee on House bills shall be open to the public, shall be held in the State House and shall convene only after at least two hours public notice. The notice shall include:
​

(a)the bill number and subject matter of the bill or bills to be considered;
(b)the time, day, date, and place of meeting;
(c)the members of the conference committee; and
(d)the chair of the conference committee.
​

158.2 It is the responsibility of the chair of the conference committee to advise the office of the Principal Clerk and the office of the Majority Caucus Chair of the holding of a conference committee meeting and to provide those offices with the information set forth in paragraph 158.1.
158.3 Notice of conference committee meetings including all information set forth in paragraph 158.1 shall be posted prominently on the House bulletin board located outside the hall for no less than two hours before the meeting.
​

159. Filing of Reports. No conference committee report shall be referred to the House until it has been signed by the four appointed conferees and approved as to form by the House majority attorney and filed with the Principal Clerk. The House minority attorney shall promptly receive a copy of the conference committee report after it has been approved by the House majority attorney.

160. Amended Digest. When a conference committee report is filed, an amended digest indicating the changes made shall also be filed.

161. Deadline.

161.1 In the first regular session, no conference committee report is eligible for consideration after April 15.
161.2 In the second regular session, no conference committee report is eligible for consideration after March 3.
161.3 Upon recommendation of the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures, this rule may be suspended as to a specific bill by the approval of a constitutional majority.
​

162. Placed on Members’ Desks. All reports of conference committees for adjustment of differences between the House and Senate together with a digest of the bill shall be filed with the Principal Clerk, reproduced, placed on each member’s desk, and made available on the House computer network as soon as practicable.

163. Time on Members’ Desks.

163.1 During the first regular session, conference committee reports shall be laid over for twenty-four (24) hours after filing.
163.2 During the first regular session, the budget bill shall be laid over for twenty-four (24) hours after filing. This rule may not be suspended without a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members of the House.
163.3 During the second regular session, such reports shall be laid over for twenty-four (24) hours after filing.
163.4 Such reports shall then be placed before the House for action.
​

Senate rules

82. (a) In every case in which a Senate bill or joint resolution is returned from the House with House amendments, a motion to concur or a motion to dissent and appoint conferees may be filed by the first author or by the second author with the first author’s approval by written or oral communication and verified by the President Pro Tempore or member designated by the President Pro Tempore.
(b) A motion to concur or dissent shall be prepared by the Senate Attorneys’ Offices, filed with the Office of the Principal Secretary, reproduced and distributed to the Senators.
(c) A motion to concur shall not be acted upon until such motion has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and distributed to the Senators at least four (4) hours before action is taken thereon.
(d) A motion to dissent is eligible for action immediately after being filed. A motion to dissent may be filed by the second author with the first author’s approval by written or oral communication and verified by the President Pro Tempore or member designated by the President Pro Tempore.
(e) No Senate bill or joint resolution returned from the House with an amendment substituting therein new subject matter shall be acted upon by the Senate unless a written consent, describing the change in the subject matter, is signed by the first and second authors and is attached to the bill or joint resolution upon its return.
If approved by the President Pro Tempore, an electronic signature PIN may be accepted.
A bill or joint resolution containing a new subject matter and accompanied by the written consent of the first and second authors shall be referred to the
Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure and, if approved in the form it returned from the House, placed on a separate calendar subject to the procedures in Rule 82(c) or 86(a), unless the new subject matter is removed.
​

83. Motions to concur in House amendments shall be rejected unless approved by a majority of the members elected and such majority shall be established by a roll call vote.

84. (a) If the Senate dissents in House amendments, the President Pro Tempore may appoint a conference committee, and if the House dissents in Senate amendments, the Speaker may request by the appointment of House conferees, that the President Pro Tempore appoint a conference committee.
(b) The Senate conference committee consists of two Senators, with the first listed Senator being the Senate Chairperson.
Advisors may be appointed at any time by the President Pro Tempore.
(c) Senate conferees may be changed or removed at any time by the President Pro Tempore, who shall give written notice to the Office of the Minority Leader of the change.
(d) The appointment of a conference committee and any change of conferees shall be reported by the President Pro Tempore to the Senate and posted prominently outside the Senate Chamber and may be posted publicly in electronic format.
​

85. (a) The Senate conference committee shall meet with a like committee of the House of Representatives to adjust the differences. At least three (3) conferees, including the chair, are required to establish a quorum.
(b) Conference committee meetings shall be open to the public, shall be held in the State House,and shall convene only after one (1) hour public notice which shall include:
​

(1)Members of the conference committee
(2)Chairperson of the conference committee
(3)Time, day, date and place of meeting
(4)Number and subject matter of the bills or joint resolutions to be considered.
​

(c) It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the conference committee on a Senate bill or joint resolution to advise the Office of the Majority Caucus Chair of the intent to hold a conference committee meeting and to provide said office with the information set forth in Rule 85(b).
(d) Notice of a conference committee meeting including all the information set forth in Rule 85(b) shall be posted prominently outside the Senate Chamber and may be posted publicly in electronic format and House Chambers for no less than one (1) hour prior to said meeting.
​

86. (a)Each report of a conference committee for the adjustment of differences between the Senate and House, together with a digest of the bill and the changes made, shall be reduced to writing, signed by the appointed conferees, reviewed by the Majority Attorney and Minority Attorney, filed with the Office of the Principal Secretary at least eight (8) hours before action is taken thereon, and distributed to the Senators at least four (4) hours before action is taken thereon.
If approved by the President Pro Tempore, electronic signature PINs may be accepted.
(b) The four (4) appointed conferees must sign the conference committee report before said report will be accepted for filing. The conference committee report may only be carried for signature by members of the legislature or authorized staff of the Senate or House.
(c) All conference committee reports requiring title amendments shall be stamped "Title Amendment."
(d) No conference committee report shall be referred to the Senate until such time as it hasbeen drawn or approved as to form by both the Majority Attorney and the Minority Attorney.
(e) Any conference committee report which contains subject matter not previously passed by at least one House shall be referred to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure; provided, however, this Rule does not apply to conference committee reports on the appropriation bills. If a conference committee report containing a subject matter not previously passed by at least one House is approved by the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure, such report shall be placed on a separate calendar with the heading "Rule 86(e)Conference Committee Reports".
(f) No more than one (1) conference committee report on a bill or joint resolution shall be eligible for consideration at one timeby the Senate.
(g) A conference committee report shall be called for action only by the first Senate conferee. If the first Senate conferee is absent from the floor, the second Senate conferee may make the call if permission of the first Senate conferee has been granted, either in writing or by oral communication verified by the President Pro Tempore or member designated by the President Pro Tempore.
(h) A conference committee report which is eligible for consideration may be withdrawn only with the approval of the Senate upon a written motion made by the first Senate conferee.
(i) In order to pass, a conference committee report must be approved by a majority of the members elected. Such majority shall be established by roll call vote. A conference committee report that has not received a constitutional majority of votes against its passage (26 or more nays) may be called down at any time by the first Senate conferee for a second and final vote.
(j) Adoption of a conference committee report by the Senate may only be withdrawn when all of the following are met:
​

(1) A joint agreement between the President Pro Tempore and the Minority Floor Leader that a clear error exists in the adopted conference committee report and withdrawal of the report is necessary to correct the error;
(2) A written motion is offered by the first Senate conferee and approved by a majority of the members present and voting; and
(3) The enrolled act has not yet been delivered to the Governor’s Office.
​

(k) In the first regular session, no conference committee report is eligible for consideration after April 12, unless approved by the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.
(l) In the second regular session, no conference committee report is eligible for consideration after March 6, unless approved by the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.
(m) Upon recommendation of the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure subsections ( k ) and ( l ) of this rule may be suspended as to a specific bill by the approval of a constitutional majority.
​

So as I read it, the House can appoint (probably) Eberhart as conference committee chair and maybe Lucas as the other conferee, as party affiliation is not required to be considered. It could be a tradition, however, that they do so, as a courtesy. (Kinda like the scene from "A Few Good Men" where Kevin Bacon's character tries to make the point that everything is in the rule book, and Cruise's character asks the witness where the rule is identifying the location of the chow hall)
I also recall a case where the Speaker or Pres. Pro Tem (I forget which) appointed the conf committee chair as someone else, given that the author/sponsor was new that year, and basically, didn't have the political connections to get the bill done. That's not to say that of Reps. Eberhart or Lucas, only to say that it doesn't have to be the author/sponsor.

So. What does this all mean? As I read it, it means that the House is going to see the Senate amendments (officially; No doubt that Eberhart and Lucas already know what was done) hopefully dissent in the amendments, and send it to conf committee. We'll see who Speaker Bosma appoints- I don't look for it to be Reps. Charlie Brown and Vanessa Summers (that's a jo-ah say, a joke, son) and I think the best we could hope for would be Eberhart (chair) and Lucas. I mean the highest of compliments when I refer to both men as absolute pit-bulls.
On the other side, perhaps Sen. Tomes but I would be leery of Sen. Messmer as the second conferee, given that his amendment was not offered. Maybe Sens. Delph or Koch would be the best choices.

Best possible result would be for both measures to move to law, but I don't know if that's possible at this time. I also don't know that it is not possible.
Most likely result is Con carry goes to summer study, DV protectee carry exception by judge's order becomes law.
Worst possible result is that they don't come to any agreement, and the whole thing was for naught, meaning things stay as they are and we start over next year from the beginning.

All of this is by my read. There is no guarantee I'm correct, and I welcome anyone who knows and can cite reasons/rules/laws as to why, to correct misstatements on my part.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dozer13]

Have they tried stepping stones like open carry without a permit / permit for concealed carry only like KY has instead of trying to go full on Con carry? Let them get a taste for it first be harder to argue all these hidden guns gonna kill ppl. (New here if this has been mentioned sry) I know open carry isn't perfect but it would be a good start, keep with the 2nd on bearing arms. I work I Lou KY my place of employment allows me to carry, the state allows me to open carry but when I head home I must unload my weapon store it in the trunk,mags in the glove box just to drive home its silly(I'm 5 weeks in waiting for permit)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Have they tried stepping stones like open carry without a permit / permit for concealed carry only like KY has instead of trying to go full on Con carry?

Yes, we tried that from 1820 to 1935.

Prof. Kirk, Chair (at the bar) of INGO Department of History:

►1816: Indiana becomes state

►1820: Indiana General Assembly prohibits concealment of firearms with exception of travel or upon one's property.

►1861-1865: Indiana uses firearms to shoot a lot of Democrats

►1935: Portion of Uniform Firearms Act adopted by Indiana requiring license to carry a handgun (by any method). Other parts of UFA and Uniform Pistol and Revolver Act rejected. This, although now heavily modified, is the current regulatory scheme.

 

[ATM]

Indiana - infringing on our right to keep and bear arms more than the majority of other states since 1935.

That's got a nice ring to it.

Maybe we could get something like that printed on the licenses we're required to purchase for our cars.

 

[KLB]

Did anyone catch this gem?

"I'm confident we're going to come to reasonable conclusions on all of these, and then deal with some other things," Bosma said. "If we didn't sell guns and alcohol in this state my job would be a lot easier."

End is in sight for 2017 Indiana General Assembly | Government and Politics | nwitimes.com

 

[MCgrease08]

Yes, we tried that from 1820 to 1935.

Prof. Kirk, Chair (at the bar) of INGO Department of History:

►1816: Indiana becomes state

►1820: Indiana General Assembly prohibits concealment of firearms with exception of travel or upon one's property.

►1861-1865: Indiana uses firearms to shoot a lot of Democrats

►1935: Portion of Uniform Firearms Act adopted by Indiana requiring license to carry a handgun (by any method). Other parts of UFA and Uniform Pistol and Revolver Act rejected. This, although now heavily modified, is the current regulatory scheme.

I know you like to [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE] encourage us to do our own research, but can you elaborate on the bolded bullet above? I assume you're referring to the Civil War, but would you please provide a reference point for those of us that haven't taken the pre-requisite class?

 

[dozer13]

Yes, we tried that from 1820 to 1935.

Prof. Kirk, Chair (at the bar) of INGO Department of History:

►1816: Indiana becomes state

►1820: Indiana General Assembly prohibits concealment of firearms with exception of travel or upon one's property.

►1861-1865: Indiana uses firearms to shoot a lot of Democrats

►1935: Portion of Uniform Firearms Act adopted by Indiana requiring license to carry a handgun (by any method). Other parts of UFA and Uniform Pistol and Revolver Act rejected. This, although now heavily modified, is the current regulatory scheme.

Well I was meaning more like in this century or even the past couple decades. Heads off to compile KY hand gun crime vs IN handgun crime (come on Gary,IN be good for something).

 

[jamil]

I know you like to [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE] encourage us to do our own research, but can you elaborate on the bolded bullet above? I assume you're referring to the Civil War, but would you please provide a reference point for those of us that haven't taken the pre-requisite class?

I dunno. I kinda lol'd and even repped him.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I know you like to [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE] encourage us to do our own research, but can you elaborate on the bolded bullet above? I assume you're referring to the Civil War, but would you please provide a reference point for those of us that haven't taken the pre-requisite class?

Indiana fought for the North. Most slaveowners were Democrats, in the South.