2013 Legislative session

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I don't post here much but I emailed Long, Eckerty, and Lutz. The last two are for my district and I know Long is head of the committee for SB-0097 and SB-0130. I would really love to be able to carry on campus. Last fall, there were several people robbed at gun point for three or four weeks straight. The cops never did catch the individuals. And often times when I get done with class and work (on campus) I go somewhere that isn't home but since I can't store my gun in my car I'm disarmed all day.

Are you a fellow BSU student? Because im right there with you my friend. I would love to be able to leave campus on the weekends and feel safe while doing it!

So, who do I need to send my Emails to?

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, SB 181 was scheduled to go for Second Reading today. I'm not sure if it did, but I kinda doubt it. They were in session for about a half hour, then recessed for the Governor's "State of the State" address, which is tonight.

That said, there is a new bill to be aware of... The summary was just posted today:

HB 1473: Possession of firearms on school property. Provides that for purposes of the law concerning possession of firearms on school property: (1) school property does not include grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure owned or rented by a school; (2) property that is being used by a school for a school function if the property is being used exclusively by the school for the school function, the property is not accessible to the general public during the school function, and a notice conspicuously posted at each entrance to the property states that the property is being used by a school for a school function; and (3) the law does not apply to a person who may legally possess a firearm and possesses a firearm that is locked in the trunk of the person's motor vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the person's locked motor vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the person's locked motor vehicle. Removes a provision from the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles that allows a person to adopt a policy or rule that prohibits an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition in or on school property, in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function, or on a school bus in violation of: (1) student discipline laws concerning possession of firearms; or (2) the law concerning possession of firearms on school property and school buses. Author Rep. Jim Lucas

Assigned to the House Committee on Public Policy

Chair: Representative Bill Davis
Vice Chair: Representative L. Jack Lutz
Members: Clere, Eberhart, Lehman, Lucas, Messmer, Smaltz, Wesco. GiaQuinta R.M.M., Austin, Errington, Macer.

I don't know much about this committee. I do recall Reps. GiaQuinta and Austin doing their impressions of "Chicken Little" when pre-emption was being discussed in committee last year. Seeing Rep. Lucas (who was just elected a couple of months ago) on the committee indicates to me that this bill has a good chance of passing.

From a quick scan of it, the main things it does are to remove the prohibition on licensed individuals having a firearm in their vehicle on school grounds (allowing you to lock it up to go in and help your child with something for example) and define the "property being used by a school for a school function" as well. This is an enormously good thing. It would be better if it simply removed the GFSZ entirely, but I can see why they wouldn't want to push too hard right now, sort of like the old story about the old bull and the young bull.

Letters to your reps and senators would be good and please don't forget to let Rep. Lucas know you appreciate his efforts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK, SB 181 was scheduled to go for Second Reading today. I'm not sure if it did, but I kinda doubt it. They were in session for about a half hour, then recessed for the Governor's "State of the State" address, which is tonight.

That said, there is a new bill to be aware of... The summary was just posted today:

HB 1473: Possession of firearms on school property. Provides that for purposes of the law concerning possession of firearms on school property: (1) school property does not include grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure owned or rented by a school; (2) property that is being used by a school for a school function if the property is being used exclusively by the school for the school function, the property is not accessible to the general public during the school function, and a notice conspicuously posted at each entrance to the property states that the property is being used by a school for a school function; and (3) the law does not apply to a person who may legally possess a firearm and possesses a firearm that is locked in the trunk of the person's motor vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the person's locked motor vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the person's locked motor vehicle. Removes a provision from the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles that allows a person to adopt a policy or rule that prohibits an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition in or on school property, in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function, or on a school bus in violation of: (1) student discipline laws concerning possession of firearms; or (2) the law concerning possession of firearms on school property and school buses. Author Rep. Jim Lucas

Assigned to the House Committee on Public Policy

Chair: Representative Bill Davis
Vice Chair: Representative L. Jack Lutz
Members: Clere, Eberhart, Lehman, Lucas, Messmer, Smaltz, Wesco. GiaQuinta R.M.M., Austin, Errington, Macer.

I don't know much about this committee. I do recall Reps. GiaQuinta and Austin doing their impressions of "Chicken Little" when pre-emption was being discussed in committee last year. Seeing Rep. Lucas (who was just elected a couple of months ago) on the committee indicates to me that this bill has a good chance of passing.

From a quick scan of it, the main things it does are to remove the prohibition on licensed individuals having a firearm in their vehicle on school grounds (allowing you to lock it up to go in and help your child with something for example) and define the "property being used by a school for a school function" as well. This is an enormously good thing. It would be better if it simply removed the GFSZ entirely, but I can see why they wouldn't want to push too hard right now, sort of like the old story about the old bull and the young bull.

Letters to your reps and senators would be good and please don't forget to let Rep. Lucas know you appreciate his efforts.

Blessings,
Bill

As I read the "(1)", is that saying that basically guns are permitted on the school grounds, just not inside the school building?

And "(2)" seems to be removing the possibility of accidently being caught carrying a gun, say in a zoo, while a school is having a field trip or something.

Is that the translation you get too?

Emails sent to representative Davisson and senator Steele.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I read the "(1)", is that saying that basically guns are permitted on the school grounds, just not inside the school building?

And "(2)" seems to be removing the possibility of accidently being caught carrying a gun, say in a zoo, while a school is having a field trip or something.

Is that the translation you get too?

Emails sent to representative Davisson and senator Steele.

Sure is. I'm about to send my letter, though I imagine it's going to mean nothing to my rep. No matter. I'm sending it anyway! Thanks for sending yours!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[henktermaat]

Thanks as always for your updates Billo'Rights.

For anyone having a hard time finding out who to contact here in Indiana, here's a district lookup based on your address:

IGA District Lookup Service

 

[Bill of Rights]

You're welcome!
Also, I was in error. SB 181 did pass Second Reading yesterday and was engrossed. I have not yet looked to see if it's on Third Reading today.

 

[henktermaat]

I emailed everyone, including a letter of thanks to Lucas.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't know how I missed commenting on it, but there is a bill before the House Public Policy committee that we need to stand against. I don't really think it has a chance, but the General Assembly has surprised me before, too.

Anyway...

HB 1571: Automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Makes the manufacture, importation into Indiana, sale, purchase, possession, or transfer of an automatic weapon or a convertible semiautomatic weapon a Class C felony. Makes the manufacture, importation into Indiana, sale, purchase, or transfer of a machine gun a Class C felony. Provides that a person who commits dealing in cocaine, a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, or certain controlled substances while in possession of an automatic weapon or convertible semiautomatic weapon may be sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment. Author Rep. Vernon Smith

Referred to the House Public Policy Committee

One neat little feature of this bill is that if you get convicted of dealing in certain substances and happen to possess a firearm while doing so, they can add 5 years to your sentence. If a sawed off shotgun, 10 years. If a suppressor, TWENTY years. In addition to what you're already going to serve.
Now... the easy answer is "well, don't deal drugs!" and I feel confident that none of us do, however my concern is setting this as precedent. What happens when they expand the list of charges of which you can be convicted? What happens when they put @#$%@#$% SUDAFED, which is already "must-sign-for" on the list? Full disclosure: I buy sudafed about once, maybe twice a year. When I do, I buy as much as I legally can in one purchase. Why? Because when I get my annual allergies, I don't want to run out when I most need it. Could that be spun as me trying to make meth? Of course it could. It'd be wrong, but it could be spun that way. Suppose someone gets allergies more often than once or twice a year? I don't want to see anyone get jammed up because they have a choice of being miserable or buying meds that allow them to function, and I can see this happening. If it hasn't already.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dansgotguns]

Thanks bill for telling us of hr1473 hereafter my letter to my senator

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...d_amendment/265324-hr_1473_amd_my_letter.html

 

[asipes]

Concerning HB 1473... I emailed my State Rep! Looking forward to a favorable reply.

Thank you Bill for making us aware of this!

 

[dansgotguns]

Wow brain fart I've been typing r's instead of b's in hb

 

[dansgotguns]

Which one is the one that will allow teachers to carry? Was ot 131 or something like that? Forgot

 

[John Galt]

Which one is the one that will allow teachers to carry? Was ot 131 or something like that? Forgot

Teachers (or others) can currently carry in a school if they have:
A) A LTCH
B) Permission from their school

IC 35-47-9-1

 

[dansgotguns]

Teachers (or others) can currently carry in a school if they have:
A) A LTCH
B) Permission from their school

IC 35-47-9-1

I am aware of this, I read somewhere theres a bill being pushed that will eliminate the need for permission

 

[mshogren]

Thanks bill for telling us of hr1473 hereafter my letter to my senator

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...d_amendment/265324-hr_1473_amd_my_letter.html

I sent off an email to Rep. Turner. I had sent an email last year asking about this topic and at that time (prior to Sandy Hook), this was not on the radar.

Now that we have a bill, I hope my Rep. will support it.

Thanks BoR!

Will let everyone know when I get a response.

Mark

 

[MuncieKat]

Received a response from Sen. Lanane. I wrote in support of SB 097, and he replied:

Thank you for your recent email informing me of your support for your Second Amendment right to bear arms and your desire to see no new restrictions placed on responsible gun owners. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this subject.

Currently, there have been no hearings scheduled on this issue. Please know that I will carefully consider your comments if legislation of this nature comes before me in the Indiana Senate.

Again, thank you for your email. Please continue to keep me informed on state matters of interest to you.

Sincerely,

Timothy S. Lanane
State Senator
District 25

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I just had a conversation with Sen. Brandt Hershman, the author of SB 555, and with trepidation, I will remove my objection to it. The good Senator told me that his goal with the bill was to increase our "acceptance" in the few states that refuse to recognize us due to the absence of a training requirement for the LTCH. We discussed, among other things, the issues of slippery slopes and camels' noses under tents, and he pointed out that the general makeup of the IN General Assembly is fairly staunchly pro-2A, with, of course, notable exceptions. SB 555 would, as I addressed upthread, create a second license, the "Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License", which would require age 21 or higher, a photo as well as have a requirement of training in safe loading, unloading, storage, and carry of a firearm, including handguns and in the relevant law on self-defense, use of force including deadly force, transportation and concealment.

Blessings,
Bill

First thank you much for your work on keeping us updated on the bills.

But I thought up one other possible problem with this bill. And that is with this license available, that some states that currently recognize our LTCH, would stop honoring the regular one and only honor the new one. And while I generally agree that we (IN) should not pass or not bills based on what other states may do, this concerns me.

 

[mk2ja]

First thank you much for your work on keeping us updated on the bills.

But I thought up one other possible problem with this bill. And that is with this license available, that some states that currently recognize our LTCH, would stop honoring the regular one and only honor the new one. And while I generally agree that we (IN) should not pass or not bills based on what other states may do, this concerns me.

Hopefully the states that already honor the LTCH as it is now will keep honoring it. But, yes, that's probably something we should check first!

 

[Bill of Rights]

First thank you much for your work on keeping us updated on the bills.

But I thought up one other possible problem with this bill. And that is with this license available, that some states that currently recognize our LTCH, would stop honoring the regular one and only honor the new one. And while I generally agree that we (IN) should not pass or not bills based on what other states may do, this concerns me.

That's one of the issues I raised with the Senator. The only changes I want to see to the LTCH are that it be made optional and that it be made available for those out of Indiana to obtain it, much as AZ, FL, and UT do now.

In all honesty, if this passes, I'll likely be getting one and will probably obtain the Certified Instructor license as well. It's not that I'm throwing my full support behind it, it's like with the "parking lot bill" from two years ago, augmented last year: I may not completely support the law, but if it's in my favor, I'll likely use it to my benefit.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kaardomos]

HR 1586: Lifetime unlimited handgun license fees. Provides that the following persons are exempt from paying fees in addition to application fees to obtain a lifetime unlimited license to carry a handgun in Indiana: (1) A person who is a resident of Indiana and possesses a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by the state of Utah under the Utah law in effect on July 1, 2013. (2) A person who is a resident of Indiana and has successfully completed a course of instruction conducted by a national, state, or local firearms training organization approved by the Utah bureau of criminal identification under the Utah law concerning permits to carry concealed firearms in effect on July 1, 2013.