State Senator Jim Tomes Needs OUR help SB 292* and SB 506* 2-7-11

[jedi]

SB 411 had a few more. 38 "yes" votes, 10 "no", one not voting (Sen Yoder) and one excused absent (Sen Alting.)

The "no" votes were cast by Senators Breaux (D), Merritt (R), Simpson (D), Wyss (R), Broden (D), Randolph (D), Tallian (D), Lanane (D), Rogers (D), and Taylor (D).

Of note: There are 13 Democrats in the Senate. Of those, eight voted against this latter bill along with two Republicans and five voted to pass it.
Those five Democrats and Sen. Merritt were the only ones who surprised me, as Sen. Merritt has traditionally voted in favor of gun rights.

Blessings,
Bill

Yup that is my

anti 2A senator for you!

I wonder if my emails to him are even worth my time? Now that I know how he is voting. .

The Senate bills must get 3 readings before they are voted on?
So continue to call tomorrow regarding SB506 then since it has NOT yet been voted on?

BTW NRA-ILA just sent an email alert about the two bills that get did out of the Senate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yup that is my

anti 2A senator for you!

I wonder if my emails to him are even worth my time? Now that I know how he is voting. .

The Senate bills must get 3 readings before they are voted on?
So continue to call tomorrow regarding SB506 then since it has NOT yet been voted on?

BTW NRA-ILA just sent an email alert about the two bills that get did out of the Senate.

Correct. The First Reading is to the committee. Once out of committee, the bill might have been amended, but it goes to the full Senate for a Second Reading and is then "Engrossed". As early as the next day, it can move to Third Reading, where the bill can be discussed, spoken on, the author questioned, etc., and finally, the bill is voted upon. Unless the rule has changed, a bill must receive a majority of the total number of Senators, not just a majority of those present and voting, to be "Enrolled" and pass to the House.
Of note, I've noticed that the first bill a Senator introduces to the Senate will often be noted as such when he is questioned about it on Third Reading, which results in everyone voting against it initially, then changing their vote before the voting machine is closed. Who says politicians have no sense of humor?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

The "no" votes were cast by Senators ....Wyss (R),...

Enough! Wyss must go.

 

[jedi]

NWI District 2 Call Senator DIRECT @ phone below.

NWI INGO here is the message I got back from our senator.

February 9, 2011

​

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I apologize you could not get through to speak with me personally. The number you called is the Senate toll free number and is routed to a phone center. Those lines are very busy during session. If you ever need immediate assistance, you can always call my legislative assistant, Michelle, at (317) 232-9532.

As for the bills you wrote about, I am in the process of gauging the opinion of my constituency in Senate District 2. I will be sure to reflect on your thoughts before making my decision on this legislation.

Once again, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope you will contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Lonnie

Lonnie Randolph
State Senator
District 2
-----

Look what I emphasized! Get your butts on the line tomorrow and call his direct line and let him know how you feel about the bills. We need everyone to call him tomorrow as the bill is going into 2nd reading.

If you don't call I'm not inviting you to the MEET & SHOOT in March.

 

[Britton]

ongrats, Britton, on the passage of 94. Now on to the House.

This is awesome. It shows that we can make a difference. All I did was explain the problem to my Senator and he got the ball rolling. Let's keep the pressure on!

 

[Bill of Rights]

NWI INGO here is the message I got back from our senator.

February 9, 2011
Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I apologize you could not get through to speak with me personally. The number you called is the Senate toll free number and is routed to a phone center. Those lines are very busy during session. If you ever need immediate assistance, you can always call my legislative assistant, Michelle, at (317) 232-9532.

As for the bills you wrote about, I am in the process of gauging the opinion of my constituency in Senate District 2. I will be sure to reflect on your thoughts before making my decision on this legislation.

Once again, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope you will contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Lonnie

Lonnie Randolph
State Senator
District 2
-----

Look what I emphasized! Get your butts on the line tomorrow and call his direct line and let him know how you feel about the bills. We need everyone to call him tomorrow as the bill is going into 2nd reading.

If you don't call I'm not inviting you to the MEET & SHOOT in March.

I LOVE lying politicians! When you can, pull up the archive of the Senate proceedings from yesterday (in chamber) and listen to Sen. Randolph's blatant pandering (about a business not being able to ask employees if they want to go to a party at the "shootin' range" ) and his subsequent bleating about how it's his right to ask that as an employer. Further, listen to Sen. Lanane's about how an employer should be able to ask employee B, who employee A claims threatened to shoot him, if he owns a gun, as if Lanane would have the cojones to even consider approaching such a person. That he asked the question shows me he doesn't have the sense God gave a gnat to even consider it a wise move to confront such a person. That's why we as a society employ police officers (for the wimpy among us who can't stomach the idea of providing an effective deterrent to such a challenge/threat.)

Jedi, in case it's not obvious to you (though I'm sure it is), Randolph is lying to you. He has no interest in gauging the will of his constituents. That he did not vote against SB 94 amazes me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

Jedi, in case it's not obvious to you (though I'm sure it is), Randolph is lying to you. He has no interest in gauging the will of his constituents. That he did not vote against SB 94 amazes me.

Blessings,
Bill

Yes BoR I know Randolph is lying to me. I don't now much about him since I have never kept track of what my Indiana Senator and/or Rep have done or who they are but from what I know about my FEDERAL reps and this area (NWI) I can tell you 2 things.

1) It's a meca for Ds
2) The majority are anti-2A.

Just look at good old Pete V @ the FED level. He lies to us all the time yet the people of NWI continue to vote for him.

I don't need to tell you about our 2 FED Senators.

As for Randolph his district is EC, Gary and parts of Griffith, Highland.
Hes black so playing the race card he gets the majority of Gary.
He is very pro-immigration so he gets the majority of the EC latino vote along with the black vote in EC.

There is NOT enough people in highland/griffith to out vote those other 2 areas so it does not matter what they want. Thus I'm stuck with Randolph.

I'll continue to push NWI INGO group to call him and the other senators up here to vote for these bills. Looks like I need to start looking for a possible replacement canidate for this guy but alas the machine up here will continue to support him.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 has just passed Second Reading. Sen. Tomes amendment #6 was passed without discussion. Sen. Lanane's two amendments #1 and #2 were both soundly defeated.

The amendments are as follows: Sen. Tomes amendment #6 to the bill does allow the prohibition of intentional open carry of a firearm at a governmental or otherwise public meeting. (That is, if your shirt/coat/whatever happened to ride up or you "printed" through your cover garment, that would seem to be OK, but you could not openly carry a firearm due to the "chilling effect" on debate. (These are the words used in the discussion of the latter amendments)) In addition, still permitted is the restriction of carry in a public hospital that contains a secure unit staffed 24/7 by LEO(s) and also, restriction of those participating in community corrections or forensic or pretrial diversion programs is still permitted. I don't see this as Jim acting against us but rather as him taking "baby steps" to get us back to what the Founders intended.

Sen. Lanane's proposed (and defeated) amendments are another matter entirely:
Amendment #1 would have allowed existing local restrictions on the carry of firearms to remain, effectively gutting the bill. Thanks to Sen. Steele and Sen. Nugent for being the voices of reason in getting this amendment defeated.
Amendment #2 would have allowed restriction of the carry of any firearm at any public/governmental meeting on a local whim (not just open carry but any carry) Sen. Broden spoke in favor of both amendments and Sen. Waltz carried the discussion to defeat the latter.

I am a literate man and I like to think I'm fairly well spoken in my command of the English language. That said, in reference to Lanane and Broden and all others who voted in favor of Lanane's amendments, few of the words that come to mind are either polite or printable. The kindest of them would include "nancy-boys" and "pansy". I cannot fathom the workings of their "thought" processes, if indeed they can be called such, for nothing proposed was remotely based in thought or logic, only emotion. Lanane even resorted to the tired old saw about localities prohibiting guns in parks "where children play and slide down slides and swing on swings". More transparent his bleating could not have been, and fortunately, the Senate saw through it. I was heartened to see that even Alting and Wyss voted against his amendments.



<sigh> The Senate reconvenes on Monday, 2/14, at 1330. SB 292 will go to Third Reading some time next week, most likely, and SB 506 should finally get it's Second (and hopefully Third) Reading as well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 506 just came up for Second Reading. Sen. Tomes withdrew the call due to Sen. Vi Simpson (D-Bloomington) raising argument. Sen. Tomes Amendment #6 to the bill had a line in it that allowed " (2) the person (who) carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person; to do so.

She took that to mean (and admittedly, it could be taken as such) to allow unlicensed carry of a firearm anywhere. Sen. Tomes undoubtedly agrees with that being the law, however, considering we have such individuals as Simpson, Wyss, Lanane, etc. in the legislature, he also understands that the whole bill would have been lost had he pushed that. He claimed he would revise the amendment, so I expect the bill to return and pass Second Reading, hopefully today but possibly tomorrow.

Kudos to Sen. Waltz for his efforts to force Sen. Simpson to reveal the fact that she does not believe nor support the oath she took to uphold the US Constitution without picking and choosing which parts she approves of.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 PASSED!!! 38-12

 

[Scutter01]

SB 292 PASSED!!! 38-12

Clarification: "Passed" or "passed 2nd reading"? Where does it go from here?

 

[Ramen]

It passed out of the Senate. It now heads to the House.

 

[CarmelHP]

SB 506 just came up for Second Reading. Sen. Tomes withdrew the call due to Sen. Vi Simpson (D-Bloomington) raising argument.

Vi Simpson is a worthless, shiftless, conniving, evil old *****. I welcome the day we see the last of her.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Vi Simpson is a worthless, shiftless, conniving, evil old *****. I welcome the day we see the last of her.

Don't hold back, Carmel... what do you really think of her? Wait, never mind... I think answering that question would get you banned. Disregard that question.

Of note, if y'all really want to get angry, look at the amendment Sen. Simpson wanted to add to SB 292. Filed Senate Amendment, Senate Bill 0292

It wasn't even introduced to the Senate floor.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 292 PASSED!!! 38-12

Update: The Senators' votes were as follows:

YEAS - 38
Alting Grooms Merritt Tomes
Banks Head Miller Walker
Becker Hershman Mishler Waltz
Boots Holdman Mrvan Waterman
Bray Hume Nugent Yoder
Buck Kruse Paul Young, M
Charbonneau Landske Schneider Young, R
Delph Lawson Skinner Zakas
Eckerty Leising Smith
Glick Long Steele

NAYS - 12
Arnold Gard Randolph Tallian
Breaux Kenley Rogers Taylor
Broden Lanane Simpson Wyss

The colors represent their parties: Republicans in red, Democrats in Blue.

Kenley, BTW, stated in discussion that he wasn't sure how he was going to vote. I guess we found out that he, Gard, and unsurprisingly, Wyss, join most of the Democrats in not honoring their own oaths. Their words are not backed by any honor.

I was not surprised to see Sen. Hume on the yea side of this bill, but Senators Skinner and Mrvan were pleasant surprises to see there. Sen. Richard Young was also good to see amongst the yeas.

Remember this vote, folks, and cast your votes accordingly.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

NAYS - 12
Arnold Gard Randolph Tallian
Breaux Kenley Rogers Taylor
Broden Lanane Simpson Wyss

Hum... that is the 2nd time my Senator votes against 2A but yet he told he is was looking to see how to vote on these bills.

 

[Scutter01]

I'll be sure that my senator understands how disappointed I am that he vote incorrectly.

 

[CarmelHP]

Update: The Senators' votes were as follows:

Breaux Kenley Rogers Taylor
Broden Lanane Simpson Wyss

The anti-gun RINOs Kenley and Wyss need to be shown the exit. Kenley is apparently on a criminal protection and benefit kick, protecting criminals from getting shot and sending them to college for free. Both he and Wyss need to go ASAP.

 

[Bobby]

HEY!!! Senator Gard is my state senator. Looks like I need to do a follow-up and find out her reasoning for voting against SB 292.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 506 passed Second Reading today! I expect a fight on it when it comes to Third, not that there wasn't on Second yesterday and today merely over an amendment to it.

Oh, the amendment?

MADAM PRESIDENT:

I move that Senate Bill 506 be amended to read as follows:

SOURCE: Page 1, line 5; (11)MO050607.1. --> Page 1, line 5, reset in roman "in any vehicle or".
Page 1, line 10, delete "on or about the person's body".
Page 1, delete lines 12 through 17, begin a new line block indented and insert:
" (1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) the person is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded; (B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.".
Page 2, delete lines 1 through 11.

The point of contention was (2) (A). Lanane, Randolph, and Taylor were the loudest voices against it, Taylor holding to the point that, as he put it, someone who was not eligible for a LTCH would, under this bill, be able to carry a gun, even if you were convicted of domestic battery... His mind was made up and he did not wish to be confused with the facts.

Amendment #7 passed.

Sen. Lanane's amendment #1 failed miserably, as it should have.

Third Reading is the next step.