Republican Leadership Kills Constitutional Carry Again in 2018

[Ark]

Yes, but although it is unpopular to say around here, Constitutional carry was a loser in most of the legislative surveys that they sent out and got back. I have heard this firsthand from a rep whose default position would be in favor of Constitutional carry. It was the case even in many rural and diehard Republican areas.

This honestly wouldn't surprise me at all. Of course it's a big hit with gun enthusiasts and current permit holders: No more dealing with permits for something we already do.

It's everyone else that is the problem. Non-owners and anti-gunners crap their pants at the phrase "the law would allow people to carry guns without a permit". Nevermind that Indiana's permit requirements are basically "can you buy a gun in the first place? Then you're good.". They assume that a permit means something, or has some kind of limits that will keep them safe from their internal stereotype of the knuckle-dragging redneck with a .45 hanging out of his pants who goes around looking for people to shoot. On top of that, you have opposition from the fudds who don't believe in the right to anything but a shotgun for deer.

The odds were long from the moment "the law would allow people to carry guns without a permit" became the popularly understood explanation. Anyone who didn't have a gun immediately went "Oh my gawd, there are gonna be people with guns everywhere! How will we survive!?", not stopping for an instant to think they're already surrounded by people with guns every day and nothing bad ever happens.

It would be nice, but fact is even in Indiana it's a tough sell.

 

[Trigger Time]

Once again, Bosma is a politician, I don't think this is some sort of principled stand on his part. He will go where his political winds direct him. It is up to us to change the direction that wind is blowing both from his constituents and from the LE groups.

It's sucks that most politicians are like that and Instead of honoring an oath they took they honor donors and buddies who give them VP jobs and an office with an empty desk with a big sallary for doing nothing at big companies except looking out for that companies interest when a vote comes.
Shameful sellout traitors is what the name for politician should be in the dictionary

 

[brotherbill3]

Two reasons come to mind. First, considering the makeup of his district, it is going to take a near miracle for the GOP there to even consider losing the clout that comes with having the speaker as their rep. Secondly, if you don't unseat him, which constituency do you think will get zero consideration of its proposals?

From where I sit, that is a war we currently have no chance of winning. I would all but guarantee that a majority of GOP voters in his district do not currently support CC, much less be willing to lose the speakership over it.

I know of a few that support ConC in District 88 ... a handful, maybe 2. ... just sayin' (BTW I'd rep you on about 4 posts but ... "no rep for fargo at this time keeps popping up")

 

[Fargo]

It's sucks that most politicians are like that and Instead of honoring an oath they took they honor donors and buddies who give them VP jobs and an office with an empty desk with a big sallary for doing nothing at big companies except looking out for that companies interest when a vote comes.
Shameful sellout traitors is what the name for politician should be in the dictionary

The voices of disabled vets carry a good deal of clout in the legislature, just saying if you want to go up next time....

 

[brotherbill3]

The point Fargo and GFGT made up thread about this not being sold to the public is very true. We heard this last year. And they are correct.
Do you, Have you, ever talked to "non-gun" or - Non-"carry a gun" people ? This isn't on their radar, and the "anti-rights" people lose the mind over it.

The summer study was supposed to help sell it - and - TO A POINT - it did and does. Too the point that the FACT which shoot down the arguments of
1) LEO about 'Vetting' and 'danger to their jobs' -
2) Blood in the streets
3) FUNDING - Yes even funding arguments
Were pretty much ENTIRELY debunked.

The problem is we need get this out to the rest of the world. ... NOT the one's that are opposed to guns/carry in general
- (those we have to just get off the case against us - it's a longer, slower process).

But the gun owners that should KNOW better (we need to bring them in); and get semi or partly interested folks around us to participate.

Oh and as to "Primarying" Bosma - the deadline for a new candidate to enter the primary is Feb 9 ...
The candidate needs funding info filed too.

The only good thing about this is - Bosma - is not listed yet either.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh and as to "Primarying" Bosma - the deadline for a new candidate to enter the primary is Feb 9 ...
The candidate needs funding info filed too.

The only good thing about this is - Bosma - is not listed yet either.

I mentioned this earlier (I'm not sure where) but it should cause us all at least a little bit of concern that Jim Lucas recently mentioned that he's got (2) primary threats this year. I'd bet the one is the rino-publican that is in the pocket of the teacher's union and occasionally will comment on his FB pages but I have no idea who the other is and what his/her deal is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think Guy Relford is that guy, but you're right. He has no financial backing or organizational support. Kelly in Avon brought this up earlier. We'll need to organize better if we're ever going to cram CC down Bosma's throat.

I was thinking more along the lines of shoved up his ass, but I agree in general.

 

[Woobie]

It isn't unrealistic because we don't actually have to change their minds on some principle, we only have to change the perception of it. 1022 and 1424 both tightened restrictions on felons, but no one even really mentioned it.

If the legislative survey question reads: "Do you favor doing away with the LTCH requirement if restrictions on felons are enhanced and tightened?" I guarantee you we get a vastly more favorable response than we have gotten so far despite having basically the same bill.

I see what you mean. The comment I was responding to made it seem like you thought we could build a large group of support for CC independent of the felon restriction conversation. I'm in agreement with you, then.

 

[HKUSP]

Am I reading the mood in here correctly? There's enough support for a state level NRA type organization?

 

[Woobie]

Am I reading the mood in here correctly? There's enough support for a state level NRA type organization?

I'm not sure NRA type is what I would prefer. But yes, a legislatively minded organization dedicated to the furtherance of pro-2A reforms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Am I reading the mood in here correctly? There's enough support for a state level NRA type organization?

I'm not sure NRA type is what I would prefer. But yes, a legislatively minded organization dedicated to the furtherance of pro-2A reforms.

Sounds like a plan to me!

 

[Spear Dane]

There is already such an organization. Not that it did us any good whatsoever. Indiana State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state level NRA.

 

[Thumper]

There is nothing wrong with the way it is.Be happy with Indiana laws could be like Illinois

 

[KellyinAvon]

We need a Schwarzkopf to lead an incredibly diverse coalition. Whether its one individual or an organization, we need a plan to get behind and goals we can work towards. Please note I didn't say we need a Napoleon-like sugar daddy.

 

[bwframe]

There is already such an organization. Not that it did us any good whatsoever. Indiana State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state level NRA.

Really?

Do they lobby at all?
Where are their press releases?
Where is their TV, radio and social media coverage?
Do they rate our state legislators on the 2A like the NRA on the federal level?
Do our state legislators or Bosma even know the name of the organization?


I'm not knocking the ISRPA. I just don't think they do the same thing as the NRA does.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That's unrealistic. It just isn't something most people are going to care about enough to make noise...

..and the ones who do care about it aren't going to vote for anyone without an (R) after their name regardless. There's zero reason to expend any political capital on the issue. I said the same thing really early on in the debate. I wouldn't have been totally surprised if it moved forward, but I'm definitely not surprised in the slightest that it didn't.

 

[d.kaufman]

There is nothing wrong with the way it is.Be happy with Indiana laws could be like Illinois

Thinking like that is part of the problem! There is always room for improvement in taking back our God given, constitutionally protected rights.

 

[KellyinAvon]

There is nothing wrong with the way it is.Be happy with Indiana laws could be like Illinois

I guess we should be happy we're not Honduras or California.

 

[brotherbill3]

We need a Schwarzkopf to lead an incredibly diverse coalition. Whether its one individual or an organization, we need a plan to get behind and goals we can work towards. Please note I didn't say we need a Napoleon-like sugar daddy.

QFT - and what influence I have with IMAGC ... is there ...
Interestingly enough - I met and got to know Mr. Lucas, because of the efforts in 2013-2014 sessions -
we (all 6 to 8 at the time) of us and about 1000-1200 followers on FB - were noted by Mr. Lucas as playing a significant role in getting several items passed.

Time have change and we've lost some of the 'small but mighty' ... family additions, job and career changes ... differences in the expectations.

oh and QFT on the Coalition ... any one recall who was the 1 primary ringleader of all of the people in Boston Circa late 1774 - early 1775? how many groups? etc?

lastly - I can't rep you KellyinAvon so ... quoting.

 

[Fargo]

Am I reading the mood in here correctly? There's enough support for a state level NRA type organization?

I am happy to work, but my work/home commitments are going to limit that.