Indiana Constitutional Carry - HB1022 (2018)

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Wheres guy show streamed at?

He is on WIBC right now.

Search for gun guy show on your podcast app.

 

[tbhausen]

I fundamentally disagree. If you’re free to walk among free men, you should be allowed to defend yourself. If you’re too dangerous to be among free man, you should be in jail. The middle ground is a slippery slope.

Here are my thoughts for what they are worth. We need to stop pretending that supporting Second Amendment rights are more important to Republican politicians than playing ball with law-enforcement lobbying organizations. If we want Constitutional carry to pass, it has to be done so in the framework of doing something to help get them on our side or at least get some voices on our side within LE.

In my opinion, there is an easy way to do this, specifically by tightening up the restrictions on Felon possessing and carrying handguns within the context of a constitutional carry bill. It isn't commonly known, but there are quite a few ways that felons can carry and process handguns under Indiana law, despite it being a federal crime. They can even drive around with them under certain circumstances and there is not a thing that can be done under state law enforcement.

If we can frame this debate within the context of fixing Indiana's gun law as regards serious criminals, I think that we could diminish or even eliminate much of the LE opposition. 1424 actually did fix much of this, although I don't know that the authors or most of the folks opposed to it even noticed.

Additionally, if we can frame it in this fashion, I think we could get a decent number of law-enforcement officers to at least be open to the idea of speaking out on our behalf as well as get quite a bit more support from the general public. It will be vastly easier to eliminate the absurd A misdemeanor handgun in possession of law if it is framed in the greater context of making it more difficult for serious criminals to be able to carry handguns, especially since it is already a crime under (seldom enforced) federal law.

 

[tbhausen]

Maybe 10 years minimum jail time for handgun crimes would be a better enticement, that I think more of us could agree on.

 

[Kurr]

Murder is a capitol crime. Death penalty. How many are in jail now for murder and attempted murder. Criminals don't care about penalties.

 

[Trigger Time]

Maybe 10 years minimum jail time for handgun crimes would be a better enticement, that I think more of us could agree on.

Of coarse. Im All for harsher penalties for gun crimes. I'm also for enforcing the ones we already have that never get enforced.
I'm not for Leo's being able to hold my rights hostage. All that makes me want to do is take away their cookie jar. They wanna play dirty we can play dirty.
They know that constitutional carry isn't bad for crime or officer safety. It's b.s. politics. Cops are paid to do a job, not be lobbyist. Let's just pass a law that prohibits public employees from commenting on political issues in any official capacity. I mean if we are gonna go big let's go big.
I have nothing against good cops. I want them to get more training and more officers if needed and new equipment but if their leadership wants to be anti constitution then let's get it on

 

[tbhausen]

You’re asserting that tougher mandatory sentences for commission of crimes involving guns wouldn’t be an effective deterrent? Hell, why bother with the judicial process at all?

Murder is a capitol crime. Death penalty. How many are in jail now for murder and attempted murder. Criminals don't care about penalties.

 

[tbhausen]

Well said.

Of coarse. Im All for harsher penalties for gun crimes. I'm also for enforcing the ones we already have that never get enforced.
I'm not for Leo's being able to hold my rights hostage. All that makes me want to do is take away their cookie jar. They wanna play dirty we can play dirty.
They know that constitutional carry isn't bad for crime or officer safety. It's b.s. politics. Cops are paid to do a job, not be lobbyist. Let's just pass a law that prohibits public employees from commenting on political issues in any official capacity. I mean if we are gonna go big let's go big.
I have nothing against good cops. I want them to get more training and more officers if needed and new equipment but if their leadership wants to be anti constitution then let's get it on

 

[tbhausen]

To clarify, people knocking off convenience stores, banks, muggings, etc. with guns is a much bigger and more widespread problem then capital murder. The sentences I’m talking about would be to deter these kinds of crimes through a very public information campaign. We manage do it for stupid **** like seatbelts, so why not?

 

[KellyinAvon]

He is on WIBC right now.

Search for gun guy show on your podcast app.

On hold, Rep Smaltz on the air. What polls on ConC?

 

[tbhausen]

Gun crime = 10 years’ time.

It shouldn’t be hard. Flush the jails of less dangerous criminals with strict stipulations of returning to do forgiven time if one returns to a life of crime (a sort of “post-incarceration probation”) to make room for the truly dangerous ones who should be locked up.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Ran out of show and I had a good point to bring up: What polls on ConC?

A while back I received a Legislative Survey. The hard copy had less questions than the on-line version.

Question 2: Should a person be required to pay a fee and undergo a background check in order to get a permit to carry a handgun in public?

Question 7: Indiana currently charges a fee to get a handgun permit. Do you support or oppose making the permit free?

I read this and fired an e-mail to my State Senator (John Crane 24th District, his picture was on the survey in the mail.) I did get an excellent reply from the Senator (think the exact opposite of a Joe Donnelly reply) who agreed with my concerns: these questions did not address Constitutional Carry but would be used in a misleading way to imply ConC is not supported.

Small gain, we moved the sticks and got a first down. I stay positive on things because that's what keeps me going. Per Guy: Bosma said we're a "vocal minority". He ain't seen nuthin yet.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

On hold, Rep Smaltz on the air. What polls on ConC?

Did you notice that Smaltz just happened to call in on the last segment...

A TOTAL politician BS filibuster lie fest. LE this, prosecutors that. What a bunch of BS. Then he goes on about the fees.

The segment prior, Guy was going on about about what it was- the RINO's that wanted to keep their NRA rating who really didn't want to vote on the bill that would have damaged their NRA rating if they voted no had to gut it in the dead of night.

BINGO!!!

Vote all the lying RINO's out! The truth will set you free.

When it came to brass tacks- time to vote- they didn't have the balls to show how they 'really' wanted to vote- 'NO'. What a bunch of gutless RINO cowards.

 

[chipbennett]

You’re asserting that tougher mandatory sentences for commission of crimes involving guns wouldn’t be an effective deterrent? Hell, why bother with the judicial process at all?

I don't know. Maybe ask the Grundy Crew.

 

[jamil]

I fundamentally disagree. If you’re free to walk among free men, you should be allowed to defend yourself. If you’re too dangerous to be among free man, you should be in jail. The middle ground is a slippery slope.

I’ve heard this a lot. But being dangerous isn’t a crime. Our justice system would have to be rethought to make merely being dangerous something to be jailed indefinitely for.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I don't know. Maybe ask the Grundy Crew.

RGIII (see what I did there?) got time served on a pot charge from Curry and company. The Feds got him on real charges. What ever happened to that one Grundy Crew guy who had the Jack Elam eye thing?

 

[chipbennett]

I’ve heard this a lot. But being dangerous isn’t a crime. Our justice system would have to be rethought to make merely being dangerous something to be jailed indefinitely for.

I'm fairly certain that he's talking about dangerous people who have already been convicted at least once because of their demonstrated danger to society.

 

[jamil]

I'm fairly certain that he's talking about dangerous people who have already been convicted at least once because of their demonstrated danger to society.

But they tend to get out of jail when they’ve served their time. Personally I think felons should get their rights back once they’ve served their sentence. But it’s not because they are or aren’t still dangerous. My qualms are about logic. If they’re still “dangerous” we can’t just not let them out after they’ve served their time. For every criminal, the thing that lets them out of jail, other than maybe parole isn’t a decision of whether they’re too dangerous to own firearms.

 

[Fargo]

I fundamentally disagree. If you’re free to walk among free men, you should be allowed to defend yourself. If you’re too dangerous to be among free man, you should be in jail. The middle ground is a slippery slope.

Allow me to try to address your points:

- 1022 and 1424 both expanded Indiana's felon in possession/carry restrictions. I was under the impression you supported those bills. There is fundamentally no way to enact CC without such an expansion due to the strange framework of Indiana's carry laws. If you think that CC is going to be a vehicle to lift felon restrictions, you may as well stick a fork in it as nobody in the legislature is interested.

- There is a federal complete felon ban already in existence regardless of Indiana law. Once again, if you want to repeal the Brady Bill, go for it, but tying it to CC is both meaningless and one way to make sure it never gets a hearing, much less out of committee.

Maybe 10 years minimum jail time for handgun crimes would be a better enticement, that I think more of us could agree on.

It already exists. IC 35-50-2-11. 5 to 20 extra years for using a handgun in violent crime. Adding a duplicate (and less harsh) enhancement to CC isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Plus, the reason no one really knows or cares about the enhancement is that to the criminal mind, an additional 5-20 is meaningless when the original offense already exposes them to decades in prison.

You’re asserting that tougher mandatory sentences for commission of crimes involving guns wouldn’t be an effective deterrent? Hell, why bother with the judicial process at all?

In my decade plus in the criminal system, it generally is not an effective deterrent. It just isn't how the criminal mind works. They already know they are looking at decades for bumping over a convenience store they know has less that $150 in the till. Yet they still do it...

To clarify, people knocking off convenience stores, banks, muggings, etc. with guns is a much bigger and more widespread problem then capital murder. The sentences I’m talking about would be to deter these kinds of crimes through a very public information campaign. We manage do it for stupid **** like seatbelts, so why not?

All of that was already done a few years ago. Yet Marion Co. remains how it is.

Lets consider the history of what we have been trying to do here with CC:

1. We have repub supermajorities.

2. We have a public which generally favors gun rights.

3. We have reps willing to go to bat.

4. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN A FLOOR VOTE.

Now is the time to reassess why we arent' getting anywhere, not to demand a more idealogically pure bill than the one we can't get out of committee.

I know it is nice to think of primarying Bosma, but if anyone thinks the fine folks north of Indy are going to lose having their rep as Speaker over our gun rights they are on a fantasy island. If anyone thinks that running a thumb-in-the-eye token candidate against him is going to do anything other than make sure there is no way CC ever sees the floor, I question if they have any political experience/understanding.

Indiana has a ton of caselaw going back a 100 years saying that licensing is perfectly permissible as a carry restriction. The current Indiana Sup. Ct. is not going to declare the LTCH law unconstitutional; it simply isn't what they are about. They are going to say it is a legislative issue to be dealt with by elected representatives.

Reframing 1022 and 1424 in the light of fixing the wierd anomalies of Indiana's felon restrictions is a way to give up little to nothing while forcing the LE admin groups who have SUCCESSFULLY blocked CC to either get out of the way or publicly oppose restricting convicted felon's carrying handguns. I actually think we could do this; I have two elected Law Enforcement chief officers who are open to testifying in favor. If framed the way I propose, I would guess we could get a decent number of additional LE's to come in our side.

Or, we could make our stand on behalf of the already prohibited felons....

 

[Trigger Time]

Allow me to try to address your points:

- 1022 and 1424 both expanded Indiana's felon in possession/carry restrictions. I was under the impression you supported those bills. There is fundamentally no way to enact CC without such an expansion due to the strange framework of Indiana's carry laws. If you think that CC is going to be a vehicle to lift felon restrictions, you may as well stick a fork in it as nobody in the legislature is interested.

- There is a federal complete felon ban already in existence regardless of Indiana law. Once again, if you want to repeal the Brady Bill, go for it, but tying it to CC is both meaningless and one way to make sure it never gets a hearing, much less out of committee.


It already exists. IC 35-50-2-11. 5 to 20 extra years for using a handgun in violent crime. Adding a duplicate (and less harsh) enhancement to CC isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Plus, the reason no one really knows or cares about the enhancement is that to the criminal mind, an additional 5-20 is meaningless when the original offense already exposes them to decades in prison.



In my decade plus in the criminal system, it generally is not an effective deterrent. It just isn't how the criminal mind works. They already know they are looking at decades for bumping over a convenience store they know has less that $150 in the till. Yet they still do it...



All of that was already done a few years ago. Yet Marion Co. remains how it is.

Lets consider the history of what we have been trying to do here with CC:

1. We have repub supermajorities.

2. We have a public which generally favors gun rights.

3. We have reps willing to go to bat.

4. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN A FLOOR VOTE.

Now is the time to reassess why we arent' getting anywhere, not to demand a more idealogically pure bill than the one we can't get out of committee.

I know it is nice to think of primarying Bosma, but if anyone thinks the fine folks north of Indy are going to lose having their rep as Speaker over our gun rights they are on a fantasy island. If anyone thinks that running a thumb-in-the-eye token candidate against him is going to do anything other than make sure there is no way CC ever sees the floor, I question if they have any political experience/understanding.

Indiana has a ton of caselaw going back a 100 years saying that licensing is perfectly permissible as a carry restriction. The current Indiana Sup. Ct. is not going to declare the LTCH law unconstitutional; it simply isn't what they are about. They are going to say it is a legislative issue to be dealt with by elected representatives.

Reframing 1022 and 1424 in the light of fixing the wierd anomalies of Indiana's felon restrictions is a way to give up little to nothing while forcing the LE admin groups who have SUCCESSFULLY blocked CC to either get out of the way or publicly oppose restricting convicted felon's carrying handguns. I actually think we could do this; I have two elected Law Enforcement chief officers who are open to testifying in favor. If framed the way I propose, I would guess we could get a decent number of additional LE's to come in our side.

Or, we could make our stand on behalf of the already prohibited felons....

No offense to you personally Fargo but this is why lawyers should never be allowed to run government. Over complicating things that should just be simple. Our judicial system is overwhelmed by itself and broken. Our political system and laws are broken and a joke. Opinions that become law have ****ed our country

 

[Fargo]

No offense to you personally Fargo but this is why lawyers should never be allowed to run government. Over complicating things that should just be simple. Our judicial system is overwhelmed by itself and broken. Our political system and laws are broken and a joke. Opinions that become law have ****ed our country

You and I are in complete agreement that the current Indiana criminal code is grotesquely confusing, filled with redundancies, and written in a needlessly complicated way which makes it very difficult for both lawyers and laypeople to have an easy grasp of how it all works and what exactly is prohibited. And yes, at least part of the blame goes to lawyers who can't get out of their own damn way.