2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[jedi]

Question who was the original sponsors for all the other pro-2A bills that have passed this session? Was it Jim Tomes as well?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Question who was the original sponsors for all the other pro-2A bills that have passed this session? Was it Jim Tomes as well?

SB 0094 was introduced by Sen. Holdman
SB 0154 was introduced by Sen. Steele
SB 0292 was introduced by Sen. Tomes
SB 0411 was introduced by Sens. Nugent and Tomes
SB 0434 was introduced by Sens. Hume and Tomes
SB 0506 was introduced by Sens. Tomes and Kruse

 

[Hammerhead]

I e-mailed Rep. Eberhart last night and urged him to help Sen. Tomes and the others to return the bill to its original intent.

That lawyer that Sen. Tomes wrote about seems like an ignorant one.

 

[Britton]

I pushed listeners on 1250AM Saturday morning to contact their representatives and urge them to return SB292 to it's original language and get it passed. Hopefully it will help.

 

[CarmelHP]

Last night from Jim Tomes:

Seems like SB 292 is still red hot news. Below are two letters worth reading. The first one as you'll see has been sent to members of the Indiana State Bar Association. I've left out the names of the attorney....

Ok, it was T.Lex, wasn't it?

 

[Slapstick]

Ok, it was T.Lex, wasn't it?

I don't know. I think it might be the Kirk fellow that lurks around here.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The conference committee meeting will be in room 431 at 1100 tomorrow, 4/26.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, it was T.Lex, wasn't it?

haha

Not me. I'm very curious to find out who did, though. Good to keep track of stated positions on things....

 

[phatgemi]

Any news from the conference meeting? Not getting a good feeling.

 

[Scutter01]

Any news from the conference meeting? Not getting a good feeling.

This was posted on Bryan Ciyou's Facebook page yesterday:

All,

Today, I had the opportunity to testify at length before the Conference Committee addressing harmonizing SB 292 (by Senator Tomes) and answer their questions. The clarifications I testified about are what I believed to be necessary to harmonize the two bills. These are summarized:

First, a promoter or organizer of an event may have rules of conduct governing their events on property leased from local government or a municipal corporation. These may include firearms. However, to give pre-emption meaning and strike the balance for those who lawfully carry firearms, the local government and municipal corporations should not be able to pass their own rules and implement them on promoters or organizers.

Second, a for a shooting range to be regulated by local government, is would have to be their own or public and for profit, but not include someone lawfully shooting on their own property.

Third, if it is necessary to define “lawful discharge”, the examples of “lawful discharge” should be just examples, not the entire list. There are many types of lawful discharge that cannot be properly defined by a simple definition.

Fourth, I testified at some length about why local government does not need more authority. Most broadly, there is no effective and practical way to look up and follow ordinances by law-abiding citizens, nor are they necessary to protect people. If there is improper shooting, there is civil nuisance under state law and criminal recklessness available to local government and individuals.



With any luck, this will get into a conference report and out for vote tomorrow, and before the session ends Friday. Regards, Bryan

 

[Bill of Rights]

From what I was told, they had a meeting, decided nothing, changed nothing, and closed the meeting after hearing some testimony.

This could mean a couple of things, but with Jim Tomes being the author, I think I can safely say that our laws will not become worse, only better. Even if the bill had been placed in a conference committee of Greg Taylor and Tom Wyss on the Senate side and Pat Bauer and whoever on the House side, and they had rewritten it to say, "local governments shall have the power to restrict the ownership of firearms in all places, to include private residences.", Jim would just kill it and the bill would go no further. We would keep the laws we have now and (hopefully Jim is mistaken and he could bring this up again in a legislature composed of more members who actually respect individual rights and their own oaths of office,) we could try again next session.

That's not what happened. The bill went to a committee of four men who have strong pro-gun rights beliefs. They've heard from constituents, and the bill has the support of the leaders of both houses... I think it's fair to say we'll get SOME improvement, it's just not been announced yet.

 

[jedi]

So are they meeting again today? They have until FRI, 29 APR 11 right? What happens on Friday is they don't resolve anything? Is that the deadline to get bills to the governor for this session?

 

[Britton]

I am on WBAT 1400AM out of Marion tomorrow at 5:00PM. I have about 20 minutes of air time. What can I do, push for listeners to email their State Senators?

 

[Bill of Rights]

The bills that address gun rights this session were:

SB 94------- Now known as SEA 0094 (Senate Enrolled Act)
SB 154 ----- Now known as SEA 0154
SB 292 ----- In Conference committee
SB 411 ----- Now known as SEA 0411
SB 434 ----- Now known as SEA 0434
SB 506 ----- Signed by the heads of both Houses and en route to Gov. Daniels' desk

All except 292 and 506 have been signed by Gov. Daniels. SEA 506 is expected to be signed. SB 292 is still an unknown. Tomorrow, 4/29, is the last day of the session. I am hopeful that we will have a positive report, but I have no information either way at this time.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Britton]

Thanks brother!

 

[Britton]

I got this via email just a few minutes ago from a friend in the Senate:

"
David: We approved the Conference Committee Report just this a.m. It appears the only change was to allow local ordinances to stand with regard to the discharge of a firearm.
The other language will still preempt a lawful carrier to take their weapon anywhere they wish, short of the exemptions (schools [federal law], hospitals, court rooms).
A public building with a metal detector would not be able to seize a lawful carrier’s weapon – as long as it was not an exempted location."

 

[T.Lex]

Link to Committee Report, filed at about noon today.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/PDF/SCCF/CC029202.001.pdf

(Cutting it a bit close.)

Edit:
At first glance, a somewhat major item is (as noted by the poster above me) that they left in place any local ordinances regarding discharge. So, to use an example of someone who fired a pistol into the ground in a residential area - arguably in self defense - contrary to a local ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm, that local ordinance would not be voided by this statute.

The stadium, hospital and metal-detector exemptions pretty much remain. There is a somewhat odd exception to the exception about courts and LTCH types. Kinda complicated. But, no matter what the legislature says, judges will generally be able to exclude that stuff on their own.

Maybe not perfect, but incrementally moving towards more legal protection of RKBA.

 

[indytechnerd]

(3) Specifies that a unit that prohibits or restricts the possession
of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit by locating metal detection
devices at each public entrance to the building: (A) must have at least one law enforcement
officer at each public entrance who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of
persons entering the building; and (B) may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a
handgun in the building by a person who has been issued a valid license to carry the
handgun.)

Does 3B mean the city county building?

 

[CarmelHP]

My reading is, not as good as at first, better than the last, and an improvement of things overall. Nothing jumped out as disastrous in my quick glance at it.

 

[T.Lex]

On its face, I think 3B has buildings like the CCB in mind.

However, I also suspect you will see certain entrances designated as "Private" or "Non-public"..... Card holders will still get in free, but it won't be as visible to the public waiting in line.

I think they simply took out that screw-up about ranges and Unigov....