Mother Jones: How Far RKBA Has Come, 99 Laws

[Kirk Freeman]

"I got 99 laws but a ban ain't one." Kay Z.

Ninety-nine laws rolling back the gun control advance, all in just a few years (from 2009-2012).

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions | Mother Jones

If we stop attacking, we lose. Don't stop attacking.

 

[jbombelli]

Now is the time to fight harder, while the momentum is with us.

It's time to crush the Brady Bunch, see the VPC driven before us, and hear the lamentations of the Million Mom March.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Indiana
Allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit on land the person owns or that is owned by another person who has given his or her consent (2011).

Actually, that part of that law has been in place for as long as I can recall. Anyone care to dig into the code revisions to find out when it was first instituted?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That would be 2011.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Mother Jones is great at causing mass hysteria. For example, they criticize Louisana for allowing people to carry in houses of worship. For some reason, these leftists (many of whom hate organized religion) find this shocking. In Indiana, you're fully within your legal right to carry at church--I do it all the time. I'm not alone, either. The Second Amendment protects the First.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Okay. I'll do the research.

The revision history for IC 35-47-2-1 mentions PL118-2007, which is HEA1287-2007, which contains the following:

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-1; (07)HE1287.1.35. --> SECTION 35. IC 35-47-2-1 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

So, the "permission" in question goes back at least to 2007.

Delving deeper...

Next on the revision list is PL98-2004, which is SEA263-2004, which contains the following:

SECTION 155. IC 35-47-2-1, AS AMENDED BY P.L.195-2003, SECTION 6, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

So now, we're back to 2004 with the dwelling exemption.

Delving deeper...

Next on the revision list is PL 195-2003, which is HEA1849, which contains the following:

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-1; (03)HE1849.1.6. --> SECTION 6. IC 35-47-2-1 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003]: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about [STRIKE]his person[/STRIKE] the person's body, except in [STRIKE]his[/STRIKE] the person's dwelling, on [STRIKE]his[/STRIKE] the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in [STRIKE]his[/STRIKE] the person's possession.

So now, we're back to 2003 with the dwelling exception. This is just a simple edit of the even older code to make it seem less sexist and more inclusive. However, the next older revision is 1987, which is not accessible, so I think it safe to say the dwelling exception is at least as old as 1987, but cannot say anything about its existence prior to 1987.

This next part I write more as a note to myself than to anyone else.
Translation of PL numbers to EA numbers: http://www.in.gov/legislative/reports/${YEAR}/PLBL.PDF
Links to specific EA final printings: http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=${YEAR}&session=1&request=all
Look up the PL from the revision list through the first URL, then look up the referred to bill in the second URL.

Okay. I just got the distinction between dwelling and land.

That would certainly clarify ... something subject to future litigation...

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Okay. I'll do the research.

And as you see the amendment was effective 2011 for another person with the property owner's consent.

So, the "permission" in question goes back at least to 2007.

No, 2011. The older statutes you cite pertain to the exemption for the LTCH of property or dwelling owner/tenant, not his invitees.

Why Mother Jones focuses on this relatively minor change and ignores our new preemption statute I do not understand. However, the amendment permitting invitees to carry was in 2011 after some "incidents" in which arrests and threats of arrest were made of non-LTCH holders who were invitees onto another's land.

 

[NYFelon]

Now is the time to fight harder, while the momentum is with us.

It's time to crush the Brady Bunch, see the VPC driven before us, and hear the lamentations of the Million Mom March.

On the lockdown, or I'd rep you so hard your gramma would feel it!

 

[BravoMike]

Um.... I don't know if this matters, but I don't think this is a pro-gun article. One of the authors of this article also wrote this one.

More Guns, More Mass Shootings

 

[Hammerhead]

Um.... I don't know if this matters, but I don't think this is a pro-gun article. One of the authors of this article also wrote this one.

More Guns, More Mass Shootings

I believe the reason Kirk brought it up was because they're griping and moaning about all the pro-firearms legislation. It's probably (without reading it) a surprisingly great propaganda piece, for us. My guess is that is not the intention of the author, but one man's griping is another man's triumph.

We're going with the triumph here.

 

[BravoMike]

I believe the reason Kirk brought it up was because they're griping and moaning about all the pro-firearms legislation. It's probably (without reading it) a surprisingly great propaganda piece, for us. My guess is that is not the intention of the author, but one man's griping is another man's triumph.

We're going with the triumph here.

Ok thanks!

Kirk, next time warn us when you post a link to a liberal website! I got whiplash from the double take on that one!

 

[JimmyR]

Ok thanks!

Kirk, next time warn us when you post a link to a liberal website! I got whiplash from the double take on that one!

Kirk is sneaky like that...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Indiana
Allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit on land the person owns or that is owned by another person who has given his or her consent (2011).

Actually, that part of that law has been in place for as long as I can recall. Anyone care to dig into the code revisions to find out when it was first instituted?

That would be 2011.

Kirk, you've answered her as-written, which is what I'd have expected, however, you've also told us in the past that the main portion of that law or something very similar has existed for far, far longer. If I recall, it's the ability to lawfully exercise your RKBA on your own property sans governmental permission, but excluding any mention of the land of others, and goes back to the Reconstruction-era.

Am I remembering correctly? If not, please fill in the gaps?

Thanks!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If I recall, it's the ability to lawfully exercise your RKBA on your own property sans governmental permission, but excluding any mention of the land of others, and goes back to the Reconstruction-era.

Well, back to 1935 under the URA, UFA, etc.

The problem was one did not need a LTCH to carry around your own property or bidness. However, if you were on your buddy's land carrying a handgun, with your buddy's consent, it was not your property and you needed a LTCH.

There were more than several incidents where decent, normal people were out popping tin cans on a buddy's ground only to run into Deputy or Conservation Officer or whatever who would ask them where their license was.

We've sort of weaved a Dutch concept into the law but I'm all for it. The more holes we can blow into the LTCH requirement the more likely it is to be abolished.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Um.... I don't know if this matters, but I don't think this is a pro-gun article. One of the authors of this article also wrote this one.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation?page=1

Dude, it's Mother Jones! You know who she was right, or do I need to put on my tweed jacket with leather patches on the elbows?

We all know they are Lefties. However, the Lefties at Mother Jones think:

"Oh, noez, the gunnies can gun more, all is lost."

While we think:

"Hey, look at how far we have come."

 

[rambone]

When I click on Indiana:

Allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit on land the person owns or that is owned by another person who has given his or her consent (2011).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rammy, that's what we've been discussing. I am confused why Mother Jones included this minor issue when something like SB292 is a decisive victory for us.

 

[BravoMike]

Yup

0-50 in under an hour! Congrats!

Oh, and to !