2011 Legislative session---FINALLY!

[kludge]

They also took out the nonsense about "legal discharge" that would have allowed any political subdivision (including counties) from banning shooting on private property except when you're hunting.

12 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold](6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting[/FONT][/FONT]
13 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public[/FONT][/FONT]
14 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]meeting.[/FONT][/FONT]

Except for not narrowly defining "public meeting" this is a big step.​

 

[Hammerhead]

Ok, I'm seeing this, tell me if I'm wrong.

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:

...

(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or
enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession
of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit
if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at
least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct
inspections of persons entering the building by use of
metal detection devices and proper physical pat down
searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public
entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the
individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in
clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a
building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or
restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in
a building owned or administered by the unit if the person
who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to
carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.

Basically, they can enact local regulations against carry into a building with metal detectors, so long as someone with proper training is there to search people and bags at a public entrance, unless you are legally licensed to carry, unless it's a courthouse. Does this seem similar to the law enacted in Texas where the legislature realized that legal carriers aren't the bad guys and now allow them to bypass the search and carry in the statehouse?

There's also the part about restricting in buildings with courtrooms, unless there's other businesses there too, in which case the common areas and the areas occupied by other tenants are exempted from restrictions.

So what T.Lex was talking about, about the convoluted LTCH/courtroom carry might be in this. You can't carry into a courthouse, but if the city has a traffic court in a strip mall, you can't be restricted. If the city gov has a building they want to restrict, they can, but not for LTCH holders.

That seems like a win.

The "intentional display" at a "public meeting" still seems to vague. I hope that can be adjusted in the future. For now, I guess we CC or hybrid carry (cover, but not care if it shows) at public meetings.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is what I get for being out and about today...

OK, here's the filed report:

SB 292-1_ Filed 04/29/2011, 11:59

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT​

DIGEST FOR ESB 292​

Citations Affected: IC 14-22-31.5-5; IC 35-47.

Synopsis: Preemption of local firearm regulation. Conference committee report for ESB 292. Prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. Allows a person to file an action against a political subdivision if the person is adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy of the political subdivision that violates the law. Repeals a conflicting statute concerning local regulation of firearms. (This conference committee report does the following: (1) Specifies a political subdivision may not regulate: (A) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (B) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (C) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. (2) Removes: (A) references to"lawful discharge"; and (B) an exception concerning a city or town 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 a 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. (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.)

Effective: July 1, 2011.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT​

MADAM PRESIDENT:
Your Conference Committee appointed to confer with a like committee from the House upon Engrossed House Amendments to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 292 respectfully reports that said two committees have conferred and agreed as follows to wit:

that the Senate recede from its dissent from all House amendments and that the Senate now concur in all House amendments to the bill and that the bill be further amended as follows:

Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:


SOURCE: IC 14-22-31.5-5; (11)CC029202.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-22-31.5-5 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 5. Except as specifically prohibited by this chapter and subject to IC 35-47-11.1, a local unit of government may regulate the location, use, operation, safety, and construction of a shooting range.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-1-2.5; (11)CC029202.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 35-47-1-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 2.5. "Ammunition", for purposes of IC 35-47-11.1, means:
(1) fixed cartridge ammunition;
(2) shotgun shells;
(3) the individual components of fixed cartridge ammunition and shotgun shells;
(4) projectiles for muzzle loading firearms; and
(5) any propellant used in a firearm or in firearm ammunition.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-1-5.1; (11)CC029202.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 35-47-1-5.1 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 5.1. "Firearm accessory" means:
(1) any device specifically adapted to enable:
(A) the wearing or carrying about one's person; or
(B) the storage or mounting in or on any conveyance;
of a firearm; and
(2) any attachment or device specifically adapted to be inserted into or affixed onto any firearm to enable, alter, or improve the functioning or capabilities of the firearm.


SOURCE: IC 35-47-11.1; (11)CC029202.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 35-47-11.1 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]:
Chapter 11.1. Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to a political subdivision (as defined in IC 3-5-2-38).
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
(1) enacted or undertaken before, on, or after June 30, 2011; and
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.
(7) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours a day.
(8) The imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1).
(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm.
(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.
(11) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23.
(12) A unit from using the unit's planing and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a building owned or administered by the unit if the person who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.
Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
(1) declarative and injunctive relief; and
(2) actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation.
Sec. 6. A person is "adversely affected" for purposes of section 5 of this chapter if either of the following applies:
(1) The person is an individual who meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The individual lawfully resides within the United States.
(B) The individual may legally possess a firearm under the laws of Indiana.
(C) The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 5 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.
(2) The person is a membership organization that:
(A) includes two (2) or more individuals described in subdivision (1); and
(B) is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the rights of persons who possess, own, or use firearms for competitive, sporting, defensive, or other lawful purposes.
Sec. 7. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 5 of this chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the following:
(1) The greater of the following:
(A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
(B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees.
(2) Court costs (including fees).
(3) Reasonable attorney's fees.


SOURCE: IC 35-47-11; (11)CC029202.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 35-47-11 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]
(Reference is to ESB 292 as reprinted April 18, 2011.)

Conference Committee Report​

on​

Engrossed Senate Bill 292​

Text Box

S
igned by:





____________________________ ____________________________
Senator HershmanRepresentative Torr
Chairperson



____________________________ ____________________________
Senator HumeRepresentative Goodin

Senate Conferees House Conferees



CC029202/DI 69

2011​

With deference to the fine practitioners of law above, here is my read of the effects of the bill:

(This conference committee report does the following:

(1) Specifies a political subdivision may not regulate:

(A) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(B) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(C) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.
​

(2) Removes:

(A) references to"lawful discharge"; and
(B) an exception concerning a city or town 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 a 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.
​

(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.)​

1) is self explanatory. Cities can't address anything except discharge of a firearm.
2) removes specifications of what is "lawful" discharge as well as the exemption for Indy.
3) Allows the prohibition of firearms in the buildings that do not contain courtrooms, but only ones not carried lawfully, that is, with a LTCH or by someone exempted due to being a LEO or other similar professional, such as a judge. Buildings containing courtrooms may still prohibit carry of a firearm anywhere in the building.

They did keep the pointless section allowing the prohibition of sales of firearms within 200 feet of a school by a business that did not sell firearms within 200 feet of a school in 1994 as well as the spelling out of the exception for properties leased from governmental units to bar firearms from those properties.

I think that this bill passed at all is excellent news. That it did so without the "lawful discharge" language is an enormous win for the rights of the individual. It's not perfect... such things rarely are when they require a consensus of different people with different views... but it's a very positive step, IMHO, and I'm exceptionally pleased.

Thanks to everyone who had a part in writing to legislators and of course to the legislators who did the work of hammering out compromises on it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok, I'm seeing this, tell me if I'm wrong.

Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:

...

(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or
enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession
of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit
if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at
least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct
inspections of persons entering the building by use of
metal detection devices and proper physical pat down
searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public
entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the
individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in
clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a
building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or
restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in
a building owned or administered by the unit if the person
who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to
carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.

Basically, they can enact local regulations against carry into a building with metal detectors, so long as someone with proper training is there to search people and bags at a public entrance, unless you are legally licensed to carry, unless it's a courthouse. Does this seem similar to the law enacted in Texas where the legislature realized that legal carriers aren't the bad guys and now allow them to bypass the search and carry in the statehouse?

There's also the part about restricting in buildings with courtrooms, unless there's other businesses there too, in which case the common areas and the areas occupied by other tenants are exempted from restrictions.

So what T.Lex was talking about, about the convoluted LTCH/courtroom carry might be in this. You can't carry into a courthouse, but if the city has a traffic court in a strip mall, you can't be restricted. If the city gov has a building they want to restrict, they can, but not for LTCH holders.

That seems like a win.

The "intentional display" at a "public meeting" still seems to vague. I hope that can be adjusted in the future. For now, I guess we CC or hybrid carry (cover, but not care if it shows) at public meetings.

With the underlined sentence above, no.

(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.

Traffic court would still be that of a city or town. They can't prohibit in a city or county office building, for example, nor in, say, the BMV, unless there's a courtroom in the building.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

I meant to add "in the rest of the strip mall". Thanks Bill, I knew I forgot something.

 

[Quad]

Wow! Props to all of you guys for keeping us updated on the events at the statehouse! We really appreciate it!

Looks to be a good year for law abiding, gun toting Hoosiers statewide!

 

[Coaster]

A big Thank You to all of you guys for keeping us informed. I do a lot more reading than posting but have really appreciated all the info on this session of our legislature. The continuing posts allowed us to follow and understand each of the bills especially SB292. Again, thank you!

 

[Rookie]

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."

Hospitals? What's that mean?

 

[phatgemi]

So what is the next step????

 

[Bill B]

Hospitals? What's that mean?

IIRC it means hospitals with a lock-down ward that is guarded.

 

[Rookie]

So regular hospitals aren't included?

 

[Bill of Rights]

County-owned hospitals may still ban firearms under the new law. Presumably, this is because those are places that the local police might have to take criminals from jail.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Indiana Senate approved the Conference committee report earlier today. The Indiana House just did likewise! Rep Bosma and Sen. Long or Lt. Gov. Skillman will need to sign it, then it goes to Gov. Daniels!

Six for six!

 

[kludge]

Now... how huge was the last election?

 

[jedi]

Too much to read right now and take it but riddle me this?
SB 292 as the FINAL text is written will it VOID the
- AWB in East Chicago, IN and Gary, IN
- Hi-Cap magazine ban in South Bend, IN
- ONLY OC in Speedway, IN

The rest I'll have to make heads and tails later but at least the AWB in EC and Gary are what I am looking for an answer on.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Too much to read right now and take it but riddle me this?
SB 292 as the FINAL text is written will it VOID the
- AWB in East Chicago, IN and Gary, IN GONE
- Hi-Cap magazine ban in South Bend, IN GONE
- ONLY OC in Speedway, IN GONE

The rest I'll have to make heads and tails later but at least the AWB in EC and Gary are what I am looking for an answer on.

Answers in red, above. All as of July 1, 2011, presuming Gov. Daniels does not veto it. I cannot imagine him doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

- ONLY OC in Speedway, IN GONE

Gotta admit... I'm kinda sad to see this one go...







(not really.)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Gotta admit... I'm kinda sad to see this one go...







(not really.)

I'm just waiting to see what spin will be put on the new laws by the puppets that are a sizable and unfortunately powerful part of the Fourth Estate.

I already read a USA Today piece on it... The thing to remember in your letters to the editor and conversations about these laws, especially SB 292, is that the laws in question only restricted those of us who obey laws. The people about whom the sheeple need to worry didn't care about the old laws any more or less than they will about the new ones.

It is my hope that the legislature will next year address the stupidity of some of our remaining gun laws, such as stamped SBSs, ballistic knives, OC without LTCH, and when a school property is not a school property. I don't think they're ready yet to consider repeal of the LTCH requirement even for OC, let alone Constitutional carry, but I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LP1]

What effect does SB292 have on possession in a vehicle on a property where there is a licensed day care? School property? (Or is this all federal law?)

IANALADNWTB (I am not a lawyer and do not want to be)

 

[ATM]

What effect does SB292 have on possession in a vehicle on a property where there is a licensed day care? School property? (Or is this all federal law?)

IANALADNWTB (I am not a lawyer and do not want to be)

none. none. (no.)

IANALBIAATM