Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Kirk Freeman]

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?

Elaborate on the Civil War? Well, how about we start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_in_the_American_Civil_War

 

[MCgrease08]

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

Yeah that's what I thought, but for some reason it seemed too obvious.

Elaborate on the Civil War? Well, how about we start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_in_the_American_Civil_War

False Flag! False Flag! The Civil War is a hoax!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The conference committee on HB1071 has been named:

H 04/10/2017 House advisors appointed: Smaltz, Judy, Lucas and Lawson L

S 04/10/2017 Senate advisors appointed: Freeman, Lanane and Crider

H 04/10/2017 House conferees appointed: Eberhart and Goodin

S 04/10/2017 Senate conferees appointed: Messmer and Randolph Lonnie M

Sean Eberhart is the author, Mark Messmer was his Senate sponsor for the bill.
Goodin and Randolph are Democrats, Goodin voted to pass the bill in the House. Randolph's vote is not shown, though he has traditionally been anti-gun rights. If he voted to pass the bill in the Senate, it was as amended by Sen. Bray's committee.


Among the advisors, Linda Lawson is a former LEO, now House Rep, and never met an anti-gun rights proposal she didn't like, unless it wasn't restrictive enough. Senator Tim Lanane is about the same. Both voted against the bill, in Lanane's case, even the neutered version.

Smaltz, Judy, and of course, Rep. Lucas are reliable people on our side. Senators Crider and Freeman both voted in favor of the bill, albeit the neutered version. None of the advisors have a vote in the Conference Committee, unless they are appointed as conferees later. (This has happened in the past.)

Any letters you might wish to write would be best sent sooner than later.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dozer13]

Do we just express our feeling on the matter or is it OK to throw stats at them too? How long dose something like these committees go on for? I know their discussing both the protection order carry and Lucas is going to press con carry found https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/resource-pages/aboutcius_final lots of stats on just about all crime in the US but a lot to go through. did figure 2011 (had full year reporting) KY even with its barbaric gun freedoms had less firearm crime and less FA related murders than Indiana.

 

[Spear Dane]

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

A technicality. The tiny burg of Boggstown in Shelby County is still in a state of secession against the Union. Speaking as a someone born and raised in the south with now almost 20 years in Indiana I can tell you factually that southern and central Indiana are just as southern as Alabama and more overtly racist as well. There was a time in the early 20s when the Klan ran Indiana...literally and had the most members of any other chapter in the nation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Good question! In writing to the conferees, you might limit it to "This is how I want you to vote". To the advisors, perhaps add the additional information, considering that their job is to advise the conferees.

It doesn't guarantee that you'll get anywhere, but it's worth the time if it gets the bill passed.

I probably don't need to remind anyone, esp. considering that it's in this thread, but this is the bill that adds an exception to the permitting process for 60 days for people not otherwise prohibited from carry, if they've gotten a protective order from a judge against a specific person. Added in to this bill is the Constitutional Carry language, which doesn't look like it's doing anything more than going to summer study (which is still better than in previous years!) but which I hold hope for at least that if not more. If we lose the protective order exception, we also lose Constitutional carry advancing even that much.

It's interesting, I think (and tragic) that in some places, to be allowed under the law to carry a gun, you have to show a specific threat to YOU, from a specific individual, to be granted permission to not break the law by carrying for your own personal safety; that being true, here in Indiana, our rights are more accessible to us, but here we are arguing that even that is not enough to not have to have gone through the permit process.

The permit process (investigation, background, fingerprinting, etc.) all amounts to the same thing as a "waiting period" or a "cooling off period" which used to be such a big thing- The antis insisted that people needed to have this period, so that in the heat of anger, they wouldn't go buy a gun and shoot someone. I'll admit that in my early days of firearm awareness and ownership, I didn't see any problem with that. In short, I fell for their , just as all of Hollywood did and then came the Rodney King riots in 1992, and all those people in Hollyweird saw the riots and went to buy guns for their homes. Lo and behold, the law of poetic justice applied, and they who had championed restrictions were now the restricted. Their money and influence and incredulous "Don't you know who I am?" questions did not allow them to buy and take home the tools they needed right then.

The process should be no more difficult than, "I want to carry a gun today."=I carry my gun. Today. If I don't own one, I should be able to walk into a store, put my money on the counter just like when I go to buy a hammer, a saw, a drill, or any other tool, I take my purchase, and I can carry it out or I can wear it out of the store. If the store wants to have one of those silly policies that they have to carry it out and hand it to you outside, they may do so, and I'll just shop elsewhere. With our current process, I would have to go online, fill out a form, pay a bunch of money, make an appointment that if I'm extremely lucky, I can have that day, go get fingerprinted like a criminal, give information about me to government, allow them to research me, and maybe in a week, (again, if I'm exceedingly lucky!) I'll have permission to carry a handgun on me, most places, which is otherwise a crime in this state.

Why the average citizen can't see this for what it is baffles me.

Blessings,
Bill

Do we just express our feeling on the matter or is it OK to throw stats at them too? How long dose something like these committees go on for? I know their discussing both the protection order carry and Lucas is going to press con carry found https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/resource-pages/aboutcius_final lots of stats on just about all crime in the US but a lot to go through. did figure 2011 (had full year reporting) KY even with its barbaric gun freedoms had less firearm crime and less FA related murders than Indiana.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The conference committee on HB1071 has been named:

H 04/10/2017 House advisors appointed: Smaltz, Judy, Lucas and Lawson L

S 04/10/2017 Senate advisors appointed: Freeman, Lanane and Crider

H 04/10/2017 House conferees appointed: Eberhart and Goodin

S 04/10/2017 Senate conferees appointed: Messmer and Randolph Lonnie M

Sean Eberhart is the author, Mark Messmer was his Senate sponsor for the bill.
Goodin and Randolph are Democrats, Goodin voted to pass the bill in the House. Randolph's vote is not shown, though he has traditionally been anti-gun rights. If he voted to pass the bill in the Senate, it was as amended by Sen. Bray's committee.


Among the advisors, Linda Lawson is a former LEO, now House Rep, and never met an anti-gun rights proposal she didn't like, unless it wasn't restrictive enough. Senator Tim Lanane is about the same. Both voted against the bill, in Lanane's case, even the neutered version.

Smaltz, Judy, and of course, Rep. Lucas are reliable people on our side. Senators Crider and Freeman both voted in favor of the bill, albeit the neutered version. None of the advisors have a vote in the Conference Committee, unless they are appointed as conferees later. (This has happened in the past.)

Any letters you might wish to write would be best sent sooner than later.

Blessings,
Bill

Just an additional note: Reps. Eberhart and Goodin are both listed as authors of this bill, from day one.
Senators Messmer and Randolph have been listed as sponsoring it since 2/21 and 4/3, respectively. Randolph signed on as sponsor after the Senate Judiciary committee heard it and folded both measures into Summer Study. That doesn't speak highly of Randolph, but the fact is that he did not have to sign on as a sponsor at all, so it speaks better of him than it does of, say, Sen. Lanane or Rep. Lawson.
From the Credit Where Credit's Due department, I thought that was good information to pass along.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KellyinAvon]

Just an additional note: Reps. Eberhart and Goodin are both listed as authors of this bill, from day one.
Senators Messmer and Randolph have been listed as sponsoring it since 2/21 and 4/3, respectively. Randolph signed on as sponsor after the Senate Judiciary committee heard it and folded both measures into Summer Study. That doesn't speak highly of Randolph, but the fact is that he did not have to sign on as a sponsor at all, so it speaks better of him than it does of, say, Sen. Lanane or Rep. Lawson.
From the Credit Where Credit's Due department, I thought that was good information to pass along.

Blessings,
Bill

Thank you for the updates and info Bill. You are definitely carrying the colors on this issue.

 

[bb37]

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

I don't think a lot of slave owners actually fought for the Confederacy in the War Between the States. The soldiers were common men and a lot of them died fighting to maintain a way of life that included being subservient to wealthy landowners and slave owners. The wealthier segment of southern society either paid for replacements to fight for them or became officers (which did make them targets for Union riflemen).

At least, that's my own distorted view of Civil War history.

 

[brotherbill3]

Thanks BoR - I've been tied up and didn't see the update yesterday on a busy busy day.

It also looks like this is sole remaining active piece of Firearms Legislation - all others that moved forward are at the point of simply waiting on the matters of procedures and signatures to be enacted.

Thanks for all your efforts!

 

[silverspoon]

Yet another thread has degraded to rewriting the history of the civil war. To the victor goes the spoils they say.

 

[brotherbill3]

FYI the word via the Web is that the conference committee on HB 1071 met tonight. No updates yet, and nothing liated on the IGA site.

 

[brotherbill3]

https://iga.in.gov/documents/e62d38a7

Tomorrow 10:30 AM - Room 156-C

HB 1071 "official" Conference Committee Meeting.

(not sure what other info / post was ... Perhaps that was a "working" meeting.)

 

[Bill of Rights]

I just watched the video of this extremely short session. The advisors spoke, the conferees spoke, with exception of Sen. Randolph, who was absent, and as expected, Sen. Lanane and Rep. Lawson were both vehemently against the bill, while Reps Lucas, Judy, and Smaltz were strongly in favor of this and Constitutional Carry.

According to Sen. Messmer, the reason Sen. Bray moved both to Summer Study was on the advice of some LEOs, who were concerned at the numbers of people who might suddenly be carrying. There was one member of the public who testified, from the coalition against domestic violence, with the typical red-herring.
The committee is presently in recess, both sides of both houses returning to caucus to discuss.

I get the feeling that Rep. Eberhart wants to see HIS bill, not the Senate's gutting of it, pass committee. He did not say as much, directly, but the feeling there was strong to that effect, at least to me.

No idea when they meet again, but I do know that today is the deadline for conf committee reports, unless they have the approval of (I think?) the Rules Committee.

Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel, same batty gun-grabbers.

Blessings,
Bill

https://iga.in.gov/documents/e62d38a7

Tomorrow 10:30 AM - Room 156-C

HB 1071 "official" Conference Committee Meeting.

(not sure what other info / post was ... Perhaps that was a "working" meeting.)

 

[brotherbill3]

I just watched the video of this extremely short session. The advisors spoke, the conferees spoke, with exception of Sen. Randolph, who was absent, and as expected, Sen. Lanane and Rep. Lawson were both vehemently against the bill, while Reps Lucas, Judy, and Smaltz were strongly in favor of this and Constitutional Carry.

According to Sen. Messmer, the reason Sen. Bray moved both to Summer Study was on the advice of some LEOs, who were concerned at the numbers of people who might suddenly be carrying. There was one member of the public who testified, from the coalition against domestic violence, with the typical red-herring.
The committee is presently in recess, both sides of both houses returning to caucus to discuss.

I get the feeling that Rep. Eberhart wants to see HIS bill, not the Senate's gutting of it, pass committee. He did not say as much, directly, but the feeling there was strong to that effect, at least to me.

No idea when they meet again, but I do know that today is the deadline for conf committee reports, unless they have the approval of (I think?) the Rules Committee.

Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel, same batty gun-grabbers.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks BoR

I noted the meeting was short - but fighting a migraine and overloaded at work to boot (and even more so in life at the moment) so ...
Lucas had a note (the night or 2 before) that this committee met then (when conferees and advisers were selected); but no further info.

I wish they had appointed Macer instead of Lawson - as the D - she actually supported the House version, IIRC.

watching and waiting but - treading water with lead flippers.


ETA you are correct on Conf Committee Reports w/o Rules Comm. Approval ... I think session has until next week; but really trying to make today last day (if I follow this right).

Thursday, April 13, 2017	Last day for House adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval (House Rule 161.1).

 

[brotherbill3]

I just received an e-mail from the NRA regarding HB 1071 -
This passed from Conference Committee today and will be voted on tomorrow - FRI 4/21

It is the version that passed from the House first - with a few minor changes:
The bulk of HB1071 is the same -
1) The Protective Order (P.O.) can be used as a temporary license for ONLY 60 days (there is no extension now)
and
2) ONLY if you have applied for your LTCH (perhaps PO becomes a temp LTCH, once one applies)
and
3) The ISP / Agencies - MUST - expedite and complete those LTCH application w/ PO within 60 days

The Constitutional Carry Part - remains a summer study - but at least it remains and continues.


There is a "TAKE ACTION" button from the NRA (though anyone can use this):
http://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1654

Already sent my letter to my rep and senator.

 

[d.kaufman]

Ditto. Sent my letters via the NRA link. However will do no good as my rep is the Ahole Charlie Brown.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Interesting that the IGA website shows no follow-up meeting, though it does show that Sen. Tomes replaced Sen. Randolph. I will be interested to see the video of the committee meeting. I can only presume that the caucuses were not comfortable with advancing Constitutional Carry at this time, which means we have lots of work to do to convince our non-gun-enthusiast neighbors and friends that it's a good thing.

So let's get educatin'!

Thanks for passing the word on this, BB3!

Blessings,
Bill

I just received an e-mail from the NRA regarding HB 1071 -
This passed from Conference Committee today and will be voted on tomorrow - FRI 4/21

It is the version that passed from the House first - with a few minor changes:
The bulk of HB1071 is the same -
1) The Protective Order (P.O.) can be used as a temporary license for ONLY 60 days (there is no extension now)
and
2) ONLY if you have applied for your LTCH (perhaps PO becomes a temp LTCH, once one applies)
and
3) The ISP / Agencies - MUST - expedite and complete those LTCH application w/ PO within 60 days

The Constitutional Carry Part - remains a summer study - but at least it remains and continues.


There is a "TAKE ACTION" button from the NRA (though anyone can use this):
http://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1654

Already sent my letter to my rep and senator.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Cleared hot!!

 

[John Galt]

Constitutional Carry summer study is headed to the Governor!