2013 Legislative session

[lonehoosier]

^This I want this bill dead!

I hope it dies too. Making phone calls tomorrow. Thanks for the info Bill.

 

[jedi]

I hope it dies too. Making phone calls tomorrow. Thanks for the info Bill.

So start calling the house reps right? Since it's over on the senate side.
UC is my biggest concern. UC...

 

[GuyRelford]

Why don't you share those concerns? Anything that makes you hesitant?

Nope. I just don't see this bill resulting in any negative effect on the current lifetime license or on the number of states that recognize the current license. And as an upside, we have an opportunity to gain several additional states that will recognize the new license - for anyone who chooses, as a purely voluntary option, to obtain that license.

I also think that the new license will provide an incentive for thousands of additional Hoosiers (and non-residents) to seek out training who may never have sought training before - also purely voluntary. And while I would never support mandatory training, the more trained gun owners we have out there the better - for safety, security and the long-term preservation of our rights.

Guy

 

[reesez]

If Guy is for, it must be a good thing. I support it.

 

[Bill B]

The best intentions, etc. I'll b calling my rep against it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sen. Hershman made the point at the microphone that the NRA had contacted him and was not supportive of the provision withdrawing recognition from a state that now recognizes our LTCH but chooses at a later time to recognize only the IFRL. He said that that was inserted to allay the fears of two other senators, and from his own remarks, I'd bet one was Jim Tomes, but that if the NRA was uncomfortable with that language, he would work to get it removed. With that language removed, he said the NRA was neutral on it, as opposed to against it. That's at least one amendment. As Guy said, I think they'll tweak the training some... Currently, the minimum number of rounds is 45, but there is no maximum. I'd be surprised if that stays as-is. There may be others as well, but I can't predict other than as I've said here.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

So start calling the house reps right? Since it's over on the senate side.
UC is my biggest concern. UC...

UC? I'm not sure I follow, Jedi. Universal Checks?

 

[Rookie]

Unintended consequences.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

UC? I'm not sure I follow, Jedi. Universal Checks?

I took it to mean Unintended Consequences.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why don't you share those concerns? Anything that makes you hesitant?

We, the ISRPA, had the concerns which I detailed above.

I was happy to make our objections part of the record. We shall wait and see what happens in the House.

I pray that our concerns do not come back and bite us, but I think we all hope for that.

 

[jedi]

UC? I'm not sure I follow, Jedi. Universal Checks?

Unintended consequences.

I took it to mean Unintended Consequences.

^
These!

It's in my sig line as ATFOTRAF.
This will come back to bite us as all laws do all the time.

The idea proposal of this (who posted on INGO) who asked his senator to do it did not do it as a Pro-2A move but more for a personal selfish reason. Elitist comes to mind but that is for another topic. Point is it's voluntary today but in the future it will be mandatory. Just like it was voluntary to get permission from the states to OC/CC and yet now we have to ask for permission to CC. No good can come of this.

You BoR have told me time and time again we need to take baby steps if we want to get back to the original 2A. You know I am in the all or nothing camp and if it was me I would just ask to repeal all firearms law. Not tweaks, no fixing them just repeal. But you keep telling me we have to take baby steps.

ex.
We can't ask for removal of gun-free schools so instead we should focus on allowed LTCH's with guns in the parking lot, then LTCH's guns in private schools, etc.. until we get to the end goal.

Well the opposite is what I see with this proposed bill. They ask for voluntary training right now. Why not just make it mandatory next time.

Unintended consequences...

 

[mk2ja]

Well, now I'm very very torn about SB 555. I see the benefits of the bill, but I do also share the concerns such as jedi is mentioning.

 

[reesez]

^
These!

It's in my sig line as ATFOTRAF.
This will come back to bite us as all laws do all the time.

The idea proposal of this (who posted on INGO) who asked his senator to do it did not do it as a Pro-2A move but more for a personal selfish reason. Elitist comes to mind but that is for another topic. Point is it's voluntary today but in the future it will be mandatory. Just like it was voluntary to get permission from the states to OC/CC and yet now we have to ask for permission to CC. No good can come of this.

You BoR have told me time and time again we need to take baby steps if we want to get back to the original 2A. You know I am in the all or nothing camp and if it was me I would just ask to repeal all firearms law. Not tweaks, no fixing them just repeal. But you keep telling me we have to take baby steps.

ex.
We can't ask for removal of gun-free schools so instead we should focus on allowed LTCH's with guns in the parking lot, then LTCH's guns in private schools, etc.. until we get to the end goal.

Well the opposite is what I see with this proposed bill. They ask for voluntary training right now. Why not just make it mandatory next time.

Unintended consequences...

Well, now I'm very very torn about SB 555. I see the benefits of the bill, but I do also share the concerns such as jedi is mentioning.

Then there needs to be an amendment protecting such concerns.

 

[mk2ja]

Then there needs to be an amendment protecting such concerns.

Maybe I'm just off my game tonight, but I can't quite figure out what the amendment would have to say in order to really quell the concerns.

 

[reesez]

Maybe I'm just off my game tonight, but I can't quite figure out what the amendment would have to say in order to really quell the concerns.

Well I am not a lawyer, nor do I practice the art of legalese, so I don't know what to tell ya. I would think that an amendment prohibiting any further amendments of the higher tier LTCH would suffice.

 

[jedi]

Then there needs to be an amendment protecting such concerns.

Well I am not a lawyer, nor do I practice the art of legalese, so I don't know what to tell ya. I would think that an amendment prohibiting any further amendments of the higher tier LTCH would suffice.

Maybe I'm just off my game tonight, but I can't quite figure out what the amendment would have to say in order to really quell the concerns.

^This!
no text is needed. Laws only do 1 thing. They restrict our freedoms. Think about it.

There is a law against speeding, a law against you not paying taxes, a law against you not doing this or that. At the core laws restrict your freedoms and or make you act/do things in a certain way. The affordable act care (obamacare) will fine you if you don't get health insurance.

So no text you add will stop this as by their very nature laws restrict freedom. Only bill I want to see is this...



---
Yup you see the empty space above. That means NO BILL, NO restrictions of our freedoms on 2A or any other of our rights.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well I am not a lawyer, nor do I practice the art of legalese, so I don't know what to tell ya. I would think that an amendment prohibiting any further amendments of the higher tier LTCH would suffice.

No law is immune from change once it's enacted--either in a good way or a bad way.

 

[Bill of Rights]

^
These!

It's in my sig line as ATFOTRAF.
This will come back to bite us as all laws do all the time.

The idea proposal of this (who posted on INGO) who asked his senator to do it did not do it as a Pro-2A move but more for a personal selfish reason. Elitist comes to mind but that is for another topic. Point is it's voluntary today but in the future it will be mandatory. Just like it was voluntary to get permission from the states to OC/CC and yet now we have to ask for permission to CC. No good can come of this.

You BoR have told me time and time again we need to take baby steps if we want to get back to the original 2A. You know I am in the all or nothing camp and if it was me I would just ask to repeal all firearms law. Not tweaks, no fixing them just repeal. But you keep telling me we have to take baby steps.

ex.
We can't ask for removal of gun-free schools so instead we should focus on allowed LTCH's with guns in the parking lot, then LTCH's guns in private schools, etc.. until we get to the end goal.

Well the opposite is what I see with this proposed bill. They ask for voluntary training right now. Why not just make it mandatory next time.

Unintended consequences...

I understand. And yes, I have told you that and stand by it, though I don't like it much at all.

Here's where I am with it: Originally saw, stood against. Talked with the author, whom I know to be on our side. Removed objection, didn't stand with it, but no longer against. Today, I saw some very positive changes. I'm not fully on board with it, but I can see this going the route of Arizona, too. They accepted my "training" from my Utah CFP as fulfilling their requirement, and I obtained their permit to get me three states I'm not likely to visit. However, if I ever visit Arizona again, I'll need no permit to carry there. I don't know that we'll see it in Indiana. I don't know that we won't. But IIRC, things tightened up just a little in Alaska before they approved Constitutional Carry.

Again, I'm not fully in favor of this. I still worry about those unintended consequences, too. I'm a little more in favor of this than I was originally, but whatever support I have is with some misgivings. I respect those of you of differing opinions, of course, and thank you for your input.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[reesez]

^This!
no text is needed. Laws only do 1 thing. They restrict our freedoms. Think about it.

There is a law against speeding, a law against you not paying taxes, a law against you not doing this or that. At the core laws restrict your freedoms and or make you act/do things in a certain way. The affordable act care (obamacare) will fine you if you don't get health insurance.

So no text you add will stop this as by their very nature laws restrict freedom. Only bill I want to see is this...



---
Yup you see the empty space above. That means NO BILL, NO restrictions of our freedoms on 2A or any other of our rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Then there needs to be an amendment protecting such concerns.

Well I am not a lawyer, nor do I practice the art of legalese, so I don't know what to tell ya. I would think that an amendment prohibiting any further amendments of the higher tier LTCH would suffice.

Maybe I'm just off my game tonight, but I can't quite figure out what the amendment would have to say in order to really quell the concerns.

As has been quoted, no legislature can bind a future legislature's actions. There's no way to prohibit change at all.

Our state legislature has been pro-gun rights, at least passively so (meaning not pushing for nor allowing to be heard restrictions on those rights) for many years, even with a Democrat-led House. I don't see that changing unless there was somehow a wholesale change of both houses of the legislature at the same time AND a change to an anti-rights governor.

I judge the possibility of a change of that magnitude to be highly unlikely, and thus, the chance of this being perverted to the antis purposes minimal at best.

I'm one guy. My opinion means nothing, alone. As a political force, though, with this site (and others) as a means of making ourselves heard, I think if 1% of us were to all contact our legislators at the same time, saying the same thing, 290 voices raised together would speak volumes.

I won't tell anyone what to think on these bills. I'll tell you what I think. If someone wants to share my opinion, s/he's welcome to do so. If everyone wants to oppose me, that's OK, too. Just get involved. I'm good with that, really.

Blessings,
Bill