2013 Legislative session

[jedi]

HB 1563 has passed the House!

What's next for the bill?

OK so what's next for the bill?
Who do we need to start calling? Emailing? Writing a letter to?

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK so what's next for the bill?
Who do we need to start calling? Emailing? Writing a letter to?

Start by writing the bill's author and co-authors, and your own rep if he/she voted to pass it.

Sens. Yoder and (R. Michael) Young will be the Senate sponsors. Sen. Long has to assign the bill to a committee to be heard, then it needs to be passed on to the full Senate for Second and Third Readings, and finally to the Governor for signature. As of now, we don't know to which committee it will be assigned.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

Is the list of how the HOUSE voted for it online?
I would like to see if my rep voted for it.

 

[Bill B]

Is the list of how the HOUSE voted for it online?
I would like to see if my rep voted for it.

This is what I've found so far:

Bill No.: HB 1563 Digest: Fish and wildlife matters.
Authors/Coauthors: Eberhart, Arnold, Kersey, VanNatter
02/12/2013 H Third reading: passed; Roll Call 119: yeas 95, nays 2
02/12/2013 H Referred to the Senate
02/12/2013 H Senate sponsors: Senators Yoder and R. Young

 

[jedi]

Only 2 NO! Who were those? =)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is the list of how the HOUSE voted for it online?
I would like to see if my rep voted for it.

Only 2 NO! Who were those? =)

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/Hrollcal/0119.PDF.pdf

Delaney and Saunders. There were three who did not vote, Baird was excused. The Speaker does not typically vote unless needed to break a tie or a close vote, and the other non-vote(Pryor), I cannot explain.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[japartridge]

wow even my rep Pierce voted for it!!! I'll have to email and thank him.

 

[nkdninjafrog]

so, i read through 1563 a few times. i must be blind, cuz i dont see where it says you can hunt with a suppressor. all i see is how you get punished if you poach with one

 

[DaKruiser]

so, i read through 1563 a few times. i must be blind, cuz i dont see where it says you can hunt with a suppressor. all i see is how you get punished if you poach with one

I've read this bill several times in the past and it was there, I just read it again and now I can't find it.

Anybody help us out here, did they amend the good part of the bill?

 

[rs1]

Any word of movement on 1473 or is it going to die in committie

 

[KLB]

I've read this bill several times in the past and it was there, I just read it again and now I can't find it.

Anybody help us out here, did they amend the good part of the bill?

Here

SECTION 5. IC 14-22-6-11 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]

[STRIKE]Sec. 11. (a) This section does not apply to an employee of the
department, employee of a federal wildlife management agency, or
individual who:
(1) is acting in the performance of the employee's or individual's
duties; and
(2) has received the express written consent of the director for the1 employee's or individual's action.
(b) An individual may not:
(1) use or possess an apparatus designed for use with or on a
firearm commonly called a silencer; or
(2) use or possess a device used as a silencer;
in Indiana while in the act of hunting.
SECTION 6. IC 14-22-7-4, AS AMENDED[/STRIKE]

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have been informed that SB 555 is to be heard in room 130 at the State Capitol next Wednesday the 20th at 9AM (Judiciary Committee)

For those who support a training requirement and a photo on your carry license, this is the bill to create that which you desire.

I know the author's intentions are good, and I may actually take advantage of some of the provisions of this bill if it does pass, but I will not be journeying to Indianapolis to testify for its passage. I don't agree with adding more hoops for those who obey laws to jump through.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GuyRelford]

I have been informed that SB 555 is to be heard in room 130 at the State Capitol next Wednesday the 20th at 9AM (Judiciary Committee)

For those who support a training requirement and a photo on your carry license, this is the bill to create that which you desire.

I know the author's intentions are good, and I may actually take advantage of some of the provisions of this bill if it does pass, but I will not be journeying to Indianapolis to testify for its passage. I don't agree with adding more hoops for those who obey laws to jump through.

Blessings,
Bill

FYI, I have been asked to testify at this hearing.

Guy

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 555 passed out of committee 6-1. Some very valid points were made on both sides, and I think that the prediction made, that some of our currently-28 other states that recognize our LTCH will begin recognizing this new license instead of our Lifetime LTCH is the most likely action. While we cannot stop them from doing so other than by not enacting it, I think it would make much more sense to simply remove the stipulation that IN may not issue the Lifetime LTCH to a non-resident and remove the stipulation that one must either live or have a fixed place of business here to obtain the LTCH at all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

SB 555 passed out of committee 6-1. Some very valid points were made on both sides, and I think that the prediction made, that some of our currently-28 other states that recognize our LTCH will begin recognizing this new license instead of our Lifetime LTCH is the most likely action. While we cannot stop them from doing so other than by not enacting it, I think it would make much more sense to simply remove the stipulation that IN may not issue the Lifetime LTCH to a non-resident and remove the stipulation that one must either live or have a fixed place of business here to obtain the LTCH at all.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, I've got the feeling we're being led down the primrose path with this. I think I'm going to write my senator (Steele) and ask him to not support this. I'm not sure where he stands on it, but I don't see this doing anything but morphing into THE Indiana LTCH, over time.

 

[dansgotguns]

Can someone explain to me how Sb 555 is a good thing? I'm not seeing it.

 

[GuyRelford]

I don't see this doing anything but morphing into THE Indiana LTCH, over time.

I understand and respect that perception, but I disagree. The pro-gun majority in the General Assembly is completely committed to maintaining the present lifetime license permanently and will not roll over for an age restriction of "21 and over" or mandatory training. SB555 creates a purely optional and voluntary process for people to obtain a license that could lead to as many as nine additional states recognizing that license. (Although that will remain to be seen - no state is required to grant reciprocity.) If folks don't want to participate, they don't have to and they can keep their current license.

Of course anything can change over time, but that is already true - if the antis gain a majority in the General Assembly they could do whatever they want to with respect to the current licensing scheme - totally irrespective of the possible new "reciprocity license."

I'm just as paranoid as the next person when it comes to our gun rights, but I see a positive development here, which is why I testified in support of the bill at the request of Senator Hershman.

Guy

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is our contention that SB555 needs further study as to where the issues it purports to address are actually addressed.

1. Do we have any evidence that a "lack of a training requirement" is preventing Indiana's LTCH from being more widely accepted? We heard a lot about Ohio today. Has anyone e-mailed or called the Attorney General of Ohio on this?

2. Indiana has reciprocity with states that do require training, e.g. Texas that I cited today.

3. The doctrine of "unintended consequences" is in the language of the bill, not the sponsor's intent I am certain, but in the mechanics of the new reciprocity licensing process itself as to what sort of admin rules are adopted to define "instructor" or the course work itself. Perhaps we our overly paranolid but it seems to us that any possibility of any statute being used as a club against gun owners will be used as said club.

Kirk Freeman
Director at Large
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association

*********************************************************

It is my PERSONAL opinion, not any official opinion of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistil Association, that SB555 would be zealous accepted if the bill did away with the LCTH (implemented "Constitutional Carry") in Indiana. No license required in Indiana but a license available for those that wish to travel. A similar regime to what Arizona has.

One thing the law loves is something to copy.

Kirk Freeman
his own personal opinion

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It is our contention that SB555 needs further study as to where the issues it purports to address are actually addressed.

1. Do we have any evidence that a "lack of a training requirement" is preventing Indiana's LTCH from being more widely accepted? We heard a lot about Ohio today. Has anyone e-mailed or called the Attorney General of Ohio on this?

2. Indiana has reciprocity with states that do require training, e.g. Texas that I cited today.

3. The doctrine of "unintended consequences" is in the language of the bill, not the sponsor's intent I am certain, but in the mechanics of the new reciprocity licensing process itself as to what sort of admin rules are adopted to define "instructor" or the course work itself. Perhaps we our overly paranolid but it seems to us that any possibility of any statute being used as a club against gun owners will be used as said club.

Kirk Freeman
Director at Large
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association

*********************************************************

It is my PERSONAL opinion, not any official opinion of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistil Association, that SB555 would be zealous accepted if the bill did away with the LCTH (implemented "Constitutional Carry") in Indiana. No license required in Indiana but a license available for those that wish to travel. A similar regime to what Arizona has.

One thing the law loves is something to copy.

Kirk Freeman
his own personal opinion

FWIW, with my current understanding, I believe I would be one of those enthusiastically supporting this bill if it resulted in "Constitutional Carry" in Indiana.

Regarding unintended consequences, in addition to the administrative issues mentioned above, I could easily imagine that this law could be used as leverage to morph the current LTCH into THE only LTCH for Indiana or, even worse, over time, transitioning the training requirements over to future LTCH applicants and current LTCH holders. But even more ominous, as BoR points out,I fear states that currently honor IN's LTCH will no longer honor it in favor of the new one.

I just don't believe it's worth it, at this time.

 

[mk2ja]

I understand and respect that perception, but I disagree. The pro-gun majority in the General Assembly is completely committed to maintaining the present lifetime license permanently and will not roll over for an age restriction of "21 and over" or mandatory training. SB555 creates a purely optional and voluntary process for people to obtain a license that could lead to as many as nine additional states recognizing that license. (Although that will remain to be seen - no state is required to grant reciprocity.) If folks don't want to participate, they don't have to and they can keep their current license.

…

Guy

If we could know this will be the case, I would support it.

It is my PERSONAL opinion, not any official opinion of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistil Association, that SB555 would be zealous accepted if the bill did away with the LCTH (implemented "Constitutional Carry") in Indiana. No license required in Indiana but a license available for those that wish to travel. A similar regime to what Arizona has.

One thing the law loves is something to copy.

Kirk Freeman
his own personal opinion

I would definitely support this.
I would wonder what would happen to those holding the current LTCH at that point, though. Would mine cease to be valid in states that currently honor it? Since I am legally still an Indiana resident, I can carry concealed on my LTCH while stationed in Florida; but if Indiana were to establish Constitutional Carry, I wouldn't be surprised if my "old" LTCH no longer let me carry here. (My situation notwithstanding, I would still support this.)