2012 Legislative session

[Bill of Rights]

I'm guessing here, but are they trying to close a loop hole where, while the phone cannot be confiscated, the information could?

Could be, and if so, that's reason enough for me to oppose that bill. Anyone else out there have thoughts, either agreeing or differing, with this interpretation?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

T

Could be, and if so, that's reason enough for me to oppose that bill. Anyone else out there have thoughts, either agreeing or differing, with this interpretation?

Blessings,
Bill

Let me clarify.....i guess what I don't know is can an LEO download/take info from your cell phone now, without you permission, without "confiscating" it? If they can, we should support this...if on the other hand, this allows them to do something they currently cannot do, then I'm with you!

 

[Britton]

SB 243 Silencers while hunting. Repeals a law forbidding the use of a silencer while hunting (except for wild turkey or deer) Authors: Sen. Ron Grooms, Sen. Travis Holdman, Sen. John Waterman

Steve from Huntertown Arms and myself will be down at the State House this Tuesday supporting this bill and talking to the senators that will be carrying it through. Wish us luck please and prayers would help as well.

 

[Bill of Rights]

T
Let me clarify.....i guess what I don't know is can an LEO download/take info from your cell phone now, without you permission, without "confiscating" it? If they can, we should support this...if on the other hand, this allows them to do something they currently cannot do, then I'm with you!

Last year's law reads as follows:

IC 9-21-8-59
Use of telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle
Sec. 59. (a) A person may not use a telecommunications device to:
(1) type a text message or an electronic mail message;
(2) transmit a text message or an electronic mail message; or
(3) read a text message or an electronic mail message;
while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology, or unless the device is used to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency.
(b) A police officer may not confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section or confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section.
As added by P.L.185-2011, SEC.4.

"May not". The new bill, as I read it, says, "May not, except..."

I'm standing against it at this point.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Steve from Huntertown Arms and myself will be down at the State House this Tuesday supporting this bill and talking to the senators that will be carrying it through. Wish us luck please and prayers would help as well.

Thank you for taking point on this, gentlemen. I wish I could accompany you, but I will be at work. We will all be standing behind you on this.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

(b) A police officer may not confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section or confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section.

SB 0196 Downloading cell phone information by police. An officer may not do this unless the phone is suspected of having been used in a crime or the officer has a warrant. Author: Sen. Brent Waltz

Yeah, I think this is a watering down of the previous law and should be defeated.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 377 Sawed off shotguns. Removes the state law on this subject so long as applicable federal law is satisfied. Author Sen. John Waterman

Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 6 just passed the committee 8-0. On to the full Senate!

 

[japartridge]

Just sent an email to my House rep concerning HB 1113:

Mr. Pierce,
I am writing you today to voice my concern over this bill. The wording of this bill is wrought with the possibility of abuse. I am concerned that a corrupt Law enforcement officer could use this to falsely charge law-abiding citizens with resisting arrest. If we as citizens are given a verbal command that is impossible to carry out, cause the citizen harm, or be an illegal command, the officer could then use that denial of following a verbal command as a way to arrest the citizen, even though they have done nothing wrong! Also I take issue to the fact that it seems that this bill values the lives of Law Enforcement Officers more than the lives of the citizens it is supposed to protect!

(3) Class B felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person; and
(4) Class A felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of a law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is engaged in the officer's official duties.

Why is a LEO's life worth more than a citizens?


I would hope that common sense prevails and you do not vote for this bill if it comes to a vote.


Thank you for your time,

 

[japartridge]

Response to above letter:

[FONT=&quot]

Jason,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I agree HB 1113 is not good policy and would oppose the bill if it comes to a vote.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm impressed, both that he actually responded, and that he seems to agree!
[/FONT]

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 0006 passed Second Reading today and will be scheduled for Third Reading next, maybe as early as Thursday. There was no recorded vote for this bill, or at least not one shown on the Legislature's website at this time. There is no video footage available at this writing to review for any discussion, nor is the Journal of the Senate online to read.

I would be interested to see if there was argument against the bill today, but as it was engrossed unamended, I would guess that if any was raised, it was appropriately answered. Third Reading may not be so uneventful; we shall see.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Pyroponce]

Since I live in South Bend, I have the great...shall I call it pleasure?...of having Democratic leader Pat Bauer as my representative. Regardless, after considering the potential ramifications of HB 1113, I decided to write up this letter to drop in the mail. Since this is my first letter to a legislator, I would appreciate any constructive criticism from you fine fellows.

Dear Representative Bauer:

I hope this letter finds you well and in good health. I am writing to you regarding HB 1113. This bill would criminalize disobeying the verbal commands of law enforcement officers, regardless of whether or not the command in question is lawful or not. HB 1113 is a terrible idea.

Indiana Code 35-44-3-3 already defines resisting law enforcement as forcibly resisting, obstructing, or interfering with a law enforcement officer while in the execution of his or her lawful duties; the law also criminalizes the act of fleeing from law enforcement officers who have identified themselves and ordered the fleers to stop. There is no good reason to further expand the definition of resisting law enforcement in this way, especially since HB 1113 would grant the force of law to any officer’s verbal command, lawful or otherwise.

This bill essentially makes every law enforcement officer a legislator accountable only unto themselves. HB 1113 states that a person who “disobeys a law enforcement officer's verbal command” commits the crime of resisting law enforcement, which is a Class A misdemeanor. Notice that the bill does not require that the verbal command must be lawful for this crime to be applicable. Law-abiding citizens would be subject to the whims of law enforcement, whether lawful, not specified in the law, or even illegal. Even if the bill were amended to require that the verbal command must be lawful, this would, at best, turn out to be a needless law that law enforcement officers could harass good people with, dragging those who have done no wrong through the criminal justice system with the unlucky offenders spending up to a year in prison.

This bill, amended or not, will not ensnare more criminals that are worth taking off the streets, but rather make criminals out of ordinary, honest people. If an officer attempts to detain a criminal and the criminal wants to resist, a verbal command is not going to make a shred of difference. I cannot support this bill in any form and I strongly urge you to vote against it at any and every opportunity.

Sincerely,

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Since I live in South Bend, I have the great...shall I call it pleasure?...of having Democratic leader Pat Bauer as my representative. Regardless, after considering the potential ramifications of HB 1113, I decided to write up this letter to drop in the mail. Since this is my first letter to a legislator, I would appreciate any constructive criticism from you fine fellows.

Dear Representative Bauer:

I hope this letter finds you well and in good health. I am writing to you regarding HB 1113. This bill would criminalize disobeying the verbal commands of law enforcement officers, regardless of whether or not the command in question is lawful or not. HB 1113 is a terrible idea.

Indiana Code 35-44-3-3 already defines resisting law enforcement as forcibly resisting, obstructing, or interfering with a law enforcement officer while in the execution of his or her lawful duties; the law also criminalizes the act of fleeing from law enforcement officers who have identified themselves and ordered the fleers to stop. There is no good reason to further expand the definition of resisting law enforcement in this way, especially since HB 1113 would grant the force of law to any officer’s verbal command, lawful or otherwise.

This bill essentially makes every law enforcement officer a legislator accountable only unto themselves. HB 1113 states that a person who “disobeys a law enforcement officer's verbal command” commits the crime of resisting law enforcement, which is a Class A misdemeanor. Notice that the bill does not require that the verbal command must be lawful for this crime to be applicable. Law-abiding citizens would be subject to the whims of law enforcement, whether lawful, not specified in the law, or even illegal. Even if the bill were amended to require that the verbal command must be lawful, this would, at best, turn out to be a needless law that law enforcement officers could harass good people with, dragging those who have done no wrong through the criminal justice system with the unlucky offenders spending up to a year in prison.

This bill, amended or not, will not ensnare more criminals that are worth taking off the streets, but rather make criminals out of ordinary, honest people. If an officer attempts to detain a criminal and the criminal wants to resist, a verbal command is not going to make a shred of difference. I cannot support this bill in any form and I strongly urge you to vote against it at any and every opportunity.

Sincerely,

Looks pretty good to me. Let us know how he responds.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I emailed my rep Nancy Dumbowski (did I spell that right? ) about HB 1113 on Sunday, January 15. As of today, January 18, I still have not heard back from her office. If I ever do actually hear back from her, I will post her response.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 6 just passed Third Reading in the Senate!

However, the Senate Judiciary committee has scheduled only SB 243 for hearing, ignoring SB 180, 181, and 377. Please, everyone, if you want to see these become law, write your senators as well as those on the committee, in particular, Senator Bray, the chairman.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

SB 6 just passed Third Reading in the Senate!

However, the Senate Judiciary committee has scheduled only SB 243 for hearing, ignoring SB 180, 181, and 377. Please, everyone, if you want to see these become law, write your senators as well as those on the committee, in particular, Senator Bray, the chairman.

Blessings,
Bill

Why were the other ones ignored?

-Jedi

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why were the other ones ignored?

-Jedi

Sorry, I was on my iPod when I wrote that. What I meant is that Sen. Bray, who sets the agenda for the committee, has scheduled SB 243 to be heard Wed. 1/25. He has not, as of this writing, scheduled the others. I can't say why he's chosen not to do so, but I think that a groundswell of support for him to do so will work wonders getting those bills heard. I do worry that with the Dem walkout (again), our bills may not be heard if they go too long ignored in the Senate.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[hookedonjeep]

SB 377 Sawed off shotguns. Removes the state law on this subject so long as applicable federal law is satisfied. Author Sen. John Waterman

Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.

I almost spit out my coffee when I saw this post.....

Am I correct in understanding that this will allow SBS in Indiana??????

 

[jedi]

I almost spit out my coffee when I saw this post.....

Am I correct in understanding that this will allow SBS in Indiana??????

That is CORRECT **if and only if** the bill gets out of the committee it's in and passed in the House & Senate and the governor signs it.

Here is the text of the bill.


Synopsis: Sawed-off shotguns. Permits a person allowed to manufacture, sell, or possess a sawed-off shotgun under federal law to manufacture, sell, or possess a sawed-off shotgun in Indiana.
Effective: July 1, 2012.

So get on the phone or write those members in the committee and then to your own reps.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Emailed Sen. Joe Zacas, and Rep. Tim Neese about support for SB 377; here is the text:


As a fun loving, gun owning Hoosier, I was excited to see that a decent piece of common sense legislation was up on the table this year, SB 377. In case you are not familiar with it, in essence it removes the restriction on ownership of short barreled shotguns for our beloved state - a restriction that never did make sense to me. I strongly urge you to support this bill, and ask that you to do what you can to see that it makes it all the way to Govenor Daniels for signing.
Thank you in advance for your support of this bill, SB 377.
Sincerly,
Jason M. Fendrick
Elkhart, IN

We shall see what happens next!