2013 Legislative session

[Bill of Rights]

^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.

I could be mistaken... Jedi, do you mean you want stagnation? No change at all? No bill at all means no HB 1473, no SB 97. Those would have been awfully good, BUT, they had the same possibility of being amended. They didn't get heard at all and are now dead, because the whole "Sandy Hook" thing scared some people in our legislature. I'll bet we see those bills again, though, next year.

Things can go against us. I suspect that if 555 gets amended badly in the House, Sen. Hershman will simply pull it and disallow further consideration... in short, if it becomes anti-gun rights, as the author he will stop it himself.

Again, just my thoughts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

No BoR I'm not looking for stagnation. I'm looking for someone to submit a bill that just repeals all gun luns. So take all the text we have in indiana IC and just strike it out.

Bye bye ltch
Bye bye gun free zones
Etc

But I know that no one expect me if I was ever elected would propse such a thing.
Too much money involved to ever get rid of it all.

However on sb555 and I gasp to think about it I'm willing to stand with the anti-2as to not see it passed and you actually just gave me a good idea. Up here in nwi we sadly sit in the mecha of anti-2a. Too close to chicago that our elected officals are just as corrupt. In any case, I'm sure our area reps would be more than happy to 'poisionq the bill (ie. Make it more anti-2a) in a heartbeat then support the way it is. As such if the posion it enough you say your senator will yank it. =)

Thanks BOR. Now to just get the rest of nwi ingo to read this and make the calls.

 

[reesez]

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

And learning was good today lol.

No BoR I'm not looking for stagnation. I'm looking for someone to submit a bill that just repeals all gun luns. So take all the text we have in indiana IC and just strike it out.

Bye bye ltch
Bye bye gun free zones
Etc

But I know that no one expect me if I was ever elected would propse such a thing.
Too much money involved to ever get rid of it all.

However on sb555 and I gasp to think about it I'm willing to stand with the anti-2as to not see it passed and you actually just gave me a good idea. Up here in nwi we sadly sit in the mecha of anti-2a. Too close to chicago that our elected officals are just as corrupt. In any case, I'm sure our area reps would be more than happy to 'poisionq the bill (ie. Make it more anti-2a) in a heartbeat then support the way it is. As such if the posion it enough you say your senator will yank it. =)

Thanks BOR. Now to just get the rest of nwi ingo to read this and make the calls.

um...k.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No BoR I'm not looking for stagnation. I'm looking for someone to submit a bill that just repeals all gun luns. So take all the text we have in indiana IC and just strike it out.

Bye bye ltch
Bye bye gun free zones
Etc

But I know that no one expect me if I was ever elected would propse such a thing.
Too much money involved to ever get rid of it all.

However on sb555 and I gasp to think about it I'm willing to stand with the anti-2as to not see it passed and you actually just gave me a good idea. Up here in nwi we sadly sit in the mecha of anti-2a. Too close to chicago that our elected officals are just as corrupt. In any case, I'm sure our area reps would be more than happy to 'poisionq the bill (ie. Make it more anti-2a) in a heartbeat then support the way it is. As such if the posion it enough you say your senator will yank it. =)

Thanks BOR. Now to just get the rest of nwi ingo to read this and make the calls.

If that's what you feel like you need to do. do so. Be aware that any poison pills still have to be added in by a vote of a whole committee and then of the full House, and then come back to the Senate via a conference committee, if even one word has changed. If you think that the anti- forces have the stones to pull that off, I'm willing to see this die to show it.

BTW... as we've discussed before, I think as you do, that the LTCH is an unConstitutional infringement of the RKBA. I'm not willing to entirely do away with it, however, as it still has its uses for reciprocity. I still favor Constitutional Carry as far as we can make it reach, though, and the more that happens, the more likely it is to keep happening, until the majority of the nation continues from red to blue (which most have done) and on to green

Blessings,
Bill

 

[asipes]

Calling it like I see it boys and girls. I can see firearms instructors supporting this because they could profit from the surge of people needing training for the new license. No offense Guy... just an observation. I hope 555 does not pass (due to the UC's).

I like everything I've ever seen or heard Guy say (except anything I've heard in favor of 555).

 

[dansgotguns]

At first I didn't know how I felt about this, I couldn't see any good it would do except maybe get us more states we could carry in. But I see it more as a threat than good. I do have to say Guy has been on the money about everything I've seen thus far and seems like a great guy, but that doesn't mean I would follow him blindly, or anyone for that matter *cough* Reesez *cough*

 

[reesez]

At first I didn't know how I felt about this, I couldn't see any good it would do except maybe get us more states we could carry in. But I see it more as a threat than good. I do have to say Guy has been on the money about everything I've seen thus far and seems like a great guy, but that doesn't mean I would follow him blindly, or anyone for that matter *cough* Reesez *cough*

 

[John Galt]

 

[dansgotguns]

Anyone seen this one yet? Safe school zone act of 2013. Full Text of H.R. 35: Safe Schools Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

 

[bw8755]

So, am I correct in that this new license would require a whole new process and large fees as well?

I'd only be interested in this passing IF you could show proof of training and have your LTCH updated to show training has been completed and thus receive any added benefit. Kind of like a trout stamp on a standard fishing license or like a motorcycle endorsement to a drivers license. I do NOT favor another $100+ fee & paperwork process to get a new lifetime license. Show training, pay a $10 paperwork fee to update records and get a new pink slip. Even better, make a true hard card instead of the pink slip.

I am also concerned about UC....

 

[GuyRelford]

This has been a great discussion - and it will be interesting to see where things go from here.

One observation: anyone who thinks that my position on SB555 - or any 2nd Amendment issue - is motivated by "profit" doesn't know me very well.

Guy

 

[asipes]

This has been a great discussion - and it will be interesting to see where things go from here.

One observation: anyone who thinks that my position on SB555 - or any 2nd Amendment issue - is motivated by "profit" doesn't know me very well.

Guy

Guy, forgive me for my "profit" post (seriously). I just can't understand why a gun lawyer of all people would support more hoops to jump through in SB555. I understand the spirit of the bill, but you never know what can happen with a bill once it is proposed.

 

[GuyRelford]

Guy, forgive me for my "profit" post (seriously). I just can't understand why a gun lawyer of all people would support more hoops to jump through in SB555. I understand the spirit of the bill, but you never know what can happen with a bill once it is proposed.

No worries.

But SB555 doesn't provide any hoops to jump through for anyone who doesn't want to jump through them - it is purely optional and voluntary. I am working with Sen. Hershman on some additional amendments that I think are necessary as it goes through the House, but I am very comfortable with the bill.

My entire career is devoted to protecting and promoting Second Amendment rights. If I thought for a moment that SB555 would result in a limitation of those rights, I would be its most aggressive and vocal opponent.

Guy

 

[bartb]

I think someone posted this earlier in the thread. But is a main reason for my opposition.

(c) This subsection applies only to a state or foreign country that recognized an Indiana license to carry a handgun on March 1, 2013. Indiana will not recognize a license to carry a handgun issued by a state or foreign country to which this subsection applies if the state or foreign country:
(1) refuses to recognize a qualified or unlimited license to carry a handgun issued by Indiana under section 3 of this chapter; and
(2) recognizes an Indiana firearms reciprocity license issued under section 3.5 of this chapter.

So its okay for other states to recognize our 2a rights but, we shouldn't recognize other state's citizens rights? Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think someone posted this earlier in the thread. But is a main reason for my opposition.



So its okay for other states to recognize our 2a rights but, we shouldn't recognize other state's citizens rights? Doesn't seem fair to me.

As I understand it, that was a compromise addition to punish states that drop recognition of our existing LTCH in favor of the new, "upper tier" license. It was done to help allay fears and gain votes in the senate.

 

[GuyRelford]

As I understand it, that was a compromise addition to punish states that drop recognition of our existing LTCH in favor of the new, "upper tier" license. It was done to help allay fears and gain votes in the senate.

Exactly.

 

[bartb]

I still can't wrap my head around denying upstanding citizens their constitutionally protected rights.

 

[GuyRelford]

I still can't wrap my head around denying upstanding citizens their constitutionally protected rights.

And you think SB555 does that?

 

[bartb]

And you think SB555 does that?

...Indiana will not recognize a license to carry a handgun issued by a state or foreign country to which this subsection applies if the state or foreign country...

Am I missing something? I agree with many here the LTCH should not be needed. If we are going to make an infringement on our gun rights we should at least accommodate everyone.

 

[GuyRelford]

We do. The idea is to provide a disincentive for any state to drop reciprocity for our current license. If they don't. - and there's no reason now why they would with this language- we continue to recognize every other state's license/permit. Everyone's happy.

Guy