2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[Scutter01]

Both are in the law.

And get with me, I'll help update the FAQ. We have until July 1 before they become law.

Both will need to be addressed next year. I'm happy to accept them for now in exchange for having SB292 passed. However, I don't like that it seems to permit cities to outlaw open carry (given the undefined nature of "intentionally" and "public meetings"). I also can't fathom why they want to allow Indianapolis (our only first class city, IIRC) to ban legal shooting at a firing range. That makes zero sense unless Indy is maneuvering to outlaw firing ranges altogether.

 

[Scutter01]

It looks like it returns public areas such as parks (bye bye, Monon Trail and Indy Parks restrictions!) and provides real injunctive relief for townships who don't get the hint.

 

[Bill B]

Wow, Stevenson voted Yea on 292 and 506. I guess I'll have to send him a thank you note.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Both will need to be addressed next year. I'm happy to accept them for now in exchange for having SB292 passed. However, I don't like that it seems to permit cities to outlaw open carry (given the undefined nature of "intentionally" and "public meetings"). I also can't fathom why they want to allow Indianapolis (our only first class city, IIRC) to ban legal shooting at a firing range. That makes zero sense unless Indy is maneuvering to outlaw firing ranges altogether.

It's not just Indy, Scutter.

This chapter may not be construed to prevent
...(14) a:
(A) city or town from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the boundaries of the city or town; or
(B) consolidated city from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the territory of the consolidated city that comprised the first class city before it became a consolidated city.

I wrote to everyone I could think of, and no one responded that I've yet seen to explain whether this was a typo or if not, what the reasoning was.

As to the other, the prohibition on OC applies only at those meetings, though based on the lack of other definition, I think it can be inferred that if you are carrying with a cover garment and it simply pulls up, you are not "intentionally displaying". It does prohibit OWB without a cover garment, IMHO and obviously drawing as well. As you said, though, getting it passed is what needed to happen now. Getting it corrected is a task for later.

We should also remember that while the municipalities are given authority to pass these rules, they are not required to do so. The saying is that all politics is local, and it seems to me that if we can have those restrictions removed locally, the state level will follow.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

FYI, for those interested in watching for the bills to be signed, the link you want is here: Governor Daniels: 2011 Bill Watch

So far, SB 411 is the only one signed, though he has 154 and 434 in his office as of Friday. SB 94 is not there yet, though the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has signed it. SB 292 and 506 both go to conference committee first. Once they are approved in identical format by both, they can go to the Governor also.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

I was disappointed that SB 319, the leave-your-gun-in-your-car-at-a-school bill, didn't even make it out of committee. That's an issue that needs to be cleared up.

Next go around perhaps.

Wow, Stevenson voted Yea on 292 and 506. I guess I'll have to send him a thank you note.

Yeah I am happy he voted for them but **BEFORE** you send him a thank you lets see what his "overall" gun-related bills voting record for this session were.

BoR do you know how we can get the voting record for Stevenson for all the gun-related bills for this session.

I still don't trust STEVENSON (for failure to reply) and am leaning on thinking that since he saw the #s were FOR 292 and 506 he saw no reason to vote NO & thus he could say he is Pro-Gun. Follow me on that one Bill B. Yes Ive got a twisted mind and just don't trust any of them anymore.

Also I just had that OMG moment in realizing that 292 or is it 506 don't recall anymore and don't really care have just KILLED the assault weapons ban in EC and GARY!

Plus the Hi-Cap magazine restriction in south bend (that was NOT legal but still on the books).

 

[Scutter01]

Also I just had that OMG moment in realizing that 292 or is it 506 don't recall anymore and don't really care have just KILLED the assault weapons ban in EC and GARY!

Plus the Hi-Cap magazine restriction in south bend (that was NOT legal but still on the books).

Don't forget: We won't have the Speedway concealed carry ordinance to joke about any more, either!

 

[jedi]

Don't forget: We won't have the Speedway concealed carry ordinance to joke about any more, either!

Scutter01 anything south of NEWTON county is not really considered Indiana by us NWI folks u know. Nothing but a bunch of red neck hill billies ya know & thus why we forget about ya. Plus we no like our cousin in Indy since they sell all our tax money.


Bill B here are the full results for Stevenson.

SB94 - YES
SB154 - NO VOTE EXCUSED
SB292 - YES
SB411 - YES
SB434 - NO VOTE EXCUSED
SB506 - YES

So it looks like he is a PRO-2A DEMOCRAT. What a strange mixture indeed.

 

[Scutter01]

Scutter01 anything south of NEWTON county is not really considered Indiana by us NWI folks u know. Nothing but a bunch of red neck hill billies ya know & thus why we forget about ya. Plus we no like our cousin in Indy since they sell all our tax money.

I'm from Detroit. Anything south of the Michigan border is a bunch of red-necked hillbillies.

 

[finity]

So it looks like he is a PRO-2A DEMOCRAT. What a strange mixture indeed.

What am I, chopped liver?

It's not as strange as many try to say it is.

 

[opus1776]

SB 292 and 506 both go to conference committee first. Once they are approved in identical format by both, they can go to the Governor also.

Blessings,
Bill

WARNING!!!!!!!!!


We need to be VERY careful about these two bills--- ANYTHING can happen in a conference committee. Details can be added or removed at will and sometimes things get stuck in the bills that we do not want.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss

You can NEVER be too rich or too thin...

Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours....

 

[Bill of Rights]

WARNING!!!!!!!!!


We need to be VERY careful about these two bills--- ANYTHING can happen in a conference committee. Details can be added or removed at will and sometimes things get stuck in the bills that we do not want.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss

You can NEVER be too rich or too thin...

Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours....

True, Opus, but normally, the author of a bill is put in charge of the conference committee. That would be Jim Tomes. I am confident he will not allow anything awful to happen to those bills between now and when they reach Gov. Daniels' desk.

It's not a sure thing that he'll be in charge of it, but I'll be surprised if he's not.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[kludge]

I also can't fathom why they want to allow Indianapolis (our only first class city, IIRC) to ban legal shooting at a firing range. That makes zero sense unless Indy is maneuvering to outlaw firing ranges altogether.

I wrote to everyone I could think of, and no one responded that I've yet seen to explain whether this was a typo or if not, what the reasoning was.

Things that make you go hmmm....

My representative who was actively responding to my e-mails went DEAD SILENT when I brought this one up.

 

[4sarge]

My last nights e-mail from Jim Tomes regarding legislation

I had written this letter days ago anticipating the outcome of SB 292. I held back from sending it in sincere hope that it would not be necessary.

SB 292 was the first bill I introduced as a newly elected Indiana state senator. It is a pre-emption measure that would perhaps set Indiana at the top of the nation as having the strongest protection for gun owners.

This bill, if it would be come law, would prohibit any public subdivisions, such as local governments including city and county councils, mayors, chiefs of police and other units from adopting any prohibitive gun laws, rules or ordinances that was outside of state and federal laws.

It would also erase all the current ordinances that are currently adopted going back to the beginning of time. On top of that if someone would be damaged by a unit of government violating this proposed law, that citizen would be able to seek treble damages.

I was able to move this bill out of the senate on a 38 to 12 vote. It was a well crafted product when I handed it over to the Republican controlled House. Within a short time the House members have amendmened this bill to a near worthless document.

I have no ill will towards those who have not the courage to place the citizens and their Constitution above the interests of a select group of what some might call elite.

The die has been cast and the bill was given its third reading today with all of its amendments that have reduced it to the state it is now in. It is now back in my hands to try and repair the damage.

I filed a dissent immediately as I promised all those who now have dirty hands. This process is also new for me, but I hope to rebuild this measure back to its sterling condition.

The obstacle that now stands before me is time and the cooperation I need in a conference committee. I'm told it's usual procedure for the author to be appointed as conference chairman. I will see what the next few days left hold for this effort.

I want to thank those who responded to my pleas to make phone calls to their state representatives. You did what you could and I appreciate it.

Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be
strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be
highly rated... Thomas Paine


Jim

 

[jedi]

So as it stands right now for SB292 the PRICE we are paying to have the pre-emption (ie. no AWB in EC and Gary, No Hi-Cap Mag in Sout Bend, no OC required in speedway) is that there will be a ban on firing ranges in Indy?

Am I reading this right?

 

[Bill of Rights]

So as it stands right now for SB292 the PRICE we are paying to have the pre-emption (ie. no AWB in EC and Gary, No Hi-Cap Mag in Sout Bend, no OC required in speedway) is that there will be a ban on firing ranges in Indy?

Am I reading this right?

No. As written, the bill would allow cities and towns to prohibit ranges or more specifically, firing AT the ranges. (could mean a ban, not definite) As Jim's letter (posted by 4Sarge) indicates, he's going to try to repair the damage they did to his bill.

 

[jedi]

No. As written, the bill would allow cities and towns to prohibit ranges or more specifically, firing AT the ranges. (could mean a ban, not definite) As Jim's letter (posted by 4Sarge) indicates, he's going to try to repair the damage they did to his bill.

So then the only places to shoot would be the DNR ranges?
This asummes that the city/town takes the time to pass an ordinance that says no shooting at a range within the city/town limits right?

 

[kludge]

Another e-mail sent! (to one of the House sponsors)

Dear Rep VanNatter,

How did this happen?!?!

In SB292 I now see that a last minute change in the bill that was passed. Shooting ranges that have been protected from being shut down for many many years, no longer have any protection from being effectively shut down!

Sec. 5. This chapter may not be construed to prevent:

(14) a:
(A) city or town from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the boundaries of the city or town; or
(B) consolidated city from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the lawful discharge of a firearm at a shooting range located within the territory of the consolidated city that comprised the first class city before it became a consolidated city.
​

It was bad enough that Indianapolis was getting special privileges to shut down shooting ranges, but now any city or town in the state can do this?

So not only does SB292 allow EVERY political subdivision in Indiana prohibit recreational shooting on private property, cities and towns can now shut down all the shooting ranges too!

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!!!

Best regards,
Kludge

 

[Archaic_Entity]

No. As written, the bill would allow cities and towns to prohibit ranges or more specifically, firing AT the ranges. (could mean a ban, not definite) As Jim's letter (posted by 4Sarge) indicates, he's going to try to repair the damage they did to his bill.

So, to whom do I need to send emails to get this effected? Do you know who's in the conference committee yet that I can bother?

 

[T.Lex]

Uh... I think Tomes (whom I respect) is playing a bit dramatic. At least at the public safety committee last week, he knew what was going on and assented to it - at least in public, can't know what he was doing privately.

Also, keep in mind planning and zoning law/business regulation is very complicated. Any *current* ranges would likely be able to continue. They basically have a vested right in the operation of their business. (Basically, there'd have to be some sort of explicit or implicit 'grandfathering' of them.) If a municipality passed something too onerous, there would be a hefty lawsuit on the other end, most likely.

Now, any new ranges might be problematic. But, that's where local politics comes into play. If you know a gun range is going in somewhere, get to know the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals members (and city/town councilors, too).

Just words to the wise.