-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!
- Thread starter Bill of Rights
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
We have a breaking news conference from Senator Tomes detailing that he is shocked, shocked to find out what is in the bill. And now, Senator Tomes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc
Todays E-mail from Jim Tomes
T Rex, I personally know Jim Tomes to be an honest, forthright, virtuous man and you, only from your own admissions in the Liberty Sanders Mockery of Justice Trial, Carmel Style and You are Not Jim Tomes
I won't go to that extent, Sarge, but I do agree with you about Jim Tomes. He's proven his dedication to the 2A and to our rights that precede it. I don't agree with his position on everything, but I da*n sure do on 2A issues and "grandstand" he does not.
T. Lex has PMd with me a few times and in general, I believe him to be pro-2A, but I think that his support of those rights is qualified and that he would support some limitation on the rights, even if someone has not been denied the ability to lawfully exercise those rights by due process. Jim has my full support on correcting this bill back to the form he originally drafted.
Blessings,
Bill
I have not seen that the committee has been appointed as yet.
Not so much "shocked" to find what's in it but more disgusted at the way the members of the House decided they had to screw with it to make it more palatable to small-minded anti-freedom legislators who preferred to pander to localities and units rather than support and defend the Constitutions and the rights they protect that the legislators' oath would seem to demand they do.
Kirk, maybe I'm naive, but I don't think so. Coming down on Jim Tomes is, IMHO, uncalled-for.
Blessings,
Bill
Please don't use an asterisk to hide foul language, let teh Filter do that 4 u..k? thx bye..
Please don't use an asterisk to hide foul language, let teh Filter do that 4 u..k? thx bye..
Could be taken either as an R or an M. Either way, the filter doesn't block it. I do, by choice. If I knew the filter blocked either, I'd be specific and use the other one or would block the whole word myself.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
BoR, fair enough, drama queen actions are part of politics, so, no snarking the good guys until I see the final bill.
Whoa!
I never claimed to be Jim Tomes, and, I'm pretty sure, I also stated my respect for him.
Ya'all need to look behind the curtain a bit, though, and see how politics works. All I'm saying is Jim Tomes offered absolutely no criticism of the amendments in the public meeting, and appeared to agree with them. That's part of the reason I thought (and still think) that regulation of gun ranges bit is mistake. Ask him about whether he fought against the amendment at the committee meeting.
I suspect he will say (appropriately) that it wasn't the time or place, that he was actively working against it behind the scenes, etc. However, to a pro-2A audience, he is going to emphasize (dramatically) his pro-2A stance.
As for my own 2A opinions, I have very specifically kept those to myself. I am more inclined to articulate what the state of the law is, or was if we are speaking historically, than what my own opinion is. I believe the closest I've come to stating my own position is to talk about what I carry.
I never claimed to be Jim Tomes, and, I'm pretty sure, I also stated my respect for him.
Ya'all need to look behind the curtain a bit, though, and see how politics works. All I'm saying is Jim Tomes offered absolutely no criticism of the amendments in the public meeting, and appeared to agree with them. That's part of the reason I thought (and still think) that regulation of gun ranges bit is mistake. Ask him about whether he fought against the amendment at the committee meeting.
I suspect he will say (appropriately) that it wasn't the time or place, that he was actively working against it behind the scenes, etc. However, to a pro-2A audience, he is going to emphasize (dramatically) his pro-2A stance.
As for my own 2A opinions, I have very specifically kept those to myself. I am more inclined to articulate what the state of the law is, or was if we are speaking historically, than what my own opinion is. I believe the closest I've come to stating my own position is to talk about what I carry.
The Senate half of the conference committee is assigned. I'm somewhat surprised at what I see here, though perhaps the Senate leadership decided someone else should shepherd this through the process. (Of note, Sen. Long voted FOR the Senate version of the bill)
The Senators on the conference committee for SB 292 are:
Brant Hershman(Chairman) and Lindel Hume
The advisors are:
Jim Tomes, Greg Taylor, Tim Lanane and Brent Waltz
This could be better, but it could be worse, too.
Brant Hershman and Lindel Hume, despite being from opposite parties, are both pretty solidly pro-gun rights.
Brent Waltz and Jim Tomes are likewise.
Greg Taylor and Tim Lanane both strike me as the type of person (I can't say "men") who roll on their backs and wet their panties at the first sign of danger, or indeed the very idea of men standing up for themselves physically.
The House side has yet to be assigned. I've mailed Rep. Bosma, the Speaker, to ask that he use any influence and power he has to ensure that the original Senate version of the bill be what comes out of the committee.
Blessings,
Bill
The Senators on the conference committee for SB 292 are:
Brant Hershman(Chairman) and Lindel Hume
The advisors are:
Jim Tomes, Greg Taylor, Tim Lanane and Brent Waltz
This could be better, but it could be worse, too.
Brant Hershman and Lindel Hume, despite being from opposite parties, are both pretty solidly pro-gun rights.
Brent Waltz and Jim Tomes are likewise.
Greg Taylor and Tim Lanane both strike me as the type of person (I can't say "men") who roll on their backs and wet their panties at the first sign of danger, or indeed the very idea of men standing up for themselves physically.
The House side has yet to be assigned. I've mailed Rep. Bosma, the Speaker, to ask that he use any influence and power he has to ensure that the original Senate version of the bill be what comes out of the committee.
Blessings,
Bill
Ok so help us layperson understand what occurs now.
You have x # of senators and y # of house rep who need to get together and iron out the text of the bill. They can add and delete from the bill?
Whatever they end up with they can then give to the governor to sign? Who within this group can kill the bill? Original author?
Can they add anything they want? (ie. no gay marriages, 1000% tax hike?) I know these are crazy but just want to undertstand this part of the processes.
How come the original author of the bill does not get to lead this? becuase he is a freshman? thanks!
You have x # of senators and y # of house rep who need to get together and iron out the text of the bill. They can add and delete from the bill?
Whatever they end up with they can then give to the governor to sign? Who within this group can kill the bill? Original author?
Can they add anything they want? (ie. no gay marriages, 1000% tax hike?) I know these are crazy but just want to undertstand this part of the processes.
How come the original author of the bill does not get to lead this? becuase he is a freshman? thanks!
Correct. Two of each, one from each major party.Ok so help us layperson understand what occurs now.
You have x # of senators and y # of house rep who need to get together and iron out the text of the bill. They can add and delete from the bill?
Correct. The Speaker of the House and the President (or President Pro Tempore) of the Senate sign off on it, too.
Correct. He's the only one, as I understand it, who can outright kill the bill.
No, I don't think so. I think whatever they add has to be relevant to the original subject of the bill.
Not crazy at all. You learn by asking. That's how I learned it, too.
Good question. I have no answer at this time. It could also be because Sen. Hershman may have more experience in doing this and be more capable of obtaining a consensus, but any answer I offer on this is just guesswork on my part. Please take it as such.
You're welcome!
Blessings,
Bill
I think this version of the Senate rules is updated.
I think this is somewhat self-policed. Such as, if everyone agrees something needs to be done, and no one pitches a stink about it, an amendment may not be particularly 'germane' to the bill.
Regarding conference committee members:
There are probably seniority issues, and traditions of not having the author/main sponsor of a bill be in the conference committee. That would kinda make it less likely to get a compromise, most often.
I believe the conference changes still need to be voted on, by roll call, in each house, but that rule may be suspendable.
Edit: Here's hoping Speedy is one of the conferees from the House. He's a freshman, though, too, so unlikely.
I think this is somewhat self-policed. Such as, if everyone agrees something needs to be done, and no one pitches a stink about it, an amendment may not be particularly 'germane' to the bill.
Regarding conference committee members:
There are probably seniority issues, and traditions of not having the author/main sponsor of a bill be in the conference committee. That would kinda make it less likely to get a compromise, most often.
I believe the conference changes still need to be voted on, by roll call, in each house, but that rule may be suspendable.
Edit: Here's hoping Speedy is one of the conferees from the House. He's a freshman, though, too, so unlikely.
SB 154 and SB 434 have been signed by Gov. Daniels today, 4/20/11.
SB 154 removed the prohibition on lawful carry of a firearm while on an off-road vehicle or snowmobile.
SB 434 provides that instead of doing so every two years, FFL dealers who sell handguns may renew their state license to do so every six years. The fee remains unchanged at $10/year.
Blessings,
Bill
SB 154 removed the prohibition on lawful carry of a firearm while on an off-road vehicle or snowmobile.
SB 434 provides that instead of doing so every two years, FFL dealers who sell handguns may renew their state license to do so every six years. The fee remains unchanged at $10/year.
Blessings,
Bill
Close. 154, 411, and 434 have been signed. 94 is in the Governor's office and 506 will be. 292 is in conference, and yes, it's a win.
Blessings,
Bill
Last edited:
Depends on who's point of view you look at it from. I don't think these 2 think "it's a win".
and
But then again I don't think BoR cares what these 2 think.
FYI for those that may not know this is James and Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign.
Quite correct, Jedi.
My concern for what those two or any of their ilk think cannot even be measured in MICRO give-a-
s.
I reiterate... This is a win.
Blessings,
Bill
My concern for what those two or any of their ilk think cannot even be measured in MICRO give-a-
s.I reiterate... This is a win.
Blessings,
Bill
Site Supporter
Members online
- Stubbleducker
- K9stang
- DragonGunner
- AndreusMaximus
- bogus
- Luka93A
- Nakatomi
- bacon#1
- ComeJesuscome
- Ingomike
- deo62
- rkwhyte2
- Judamonster
- KRN123060
- tjones
- operatorj
- AlienRayGun
- Gandalf
- tsilveus
- Kirk Freeman
- Twinsen
- Willie
- scattergunner
- jamil
- NyleRN
- red_zr24x4
- DoggyDaddy
- profjeremy
- Jeffforpresident
- oze
- JayCo
- squeals99
- injb
- PTSC
- Godbybe
- Leadeye
- Jim McKalip
- XDdreams
- bkflyer
- 10mm
- Mgderf
- irl104
- Born2vette
- RugerRog
- thedreamer
- Bennettjh
- Mikey1911
- nucular
- Ethanhoosier1
- Jmoody27