2014 Legislative session

[SteveM4A1]

I've written Reps Macer, Austin, and Lawson with some facts, not emotions, on the issues as well.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I just googled this and couldn't figure out if it was a Pro 2nd Amendment bill or what the significance was? Sorry I'm not caught up on all the bills.

At first blush, based on the digest of the bill, I'd say this is a bill to argue against, as it seems to emplace more rules, such as a state-level requirement of background checks at gun shows (which basically will mean that only FFL dealers can sell there, no more private sales; expect that one to get slippery-sloped into, "well... You can't even buy a gun at a gun show without having to have a background check! Why should you be able to sell a gun to just anyone without one?"

While I think it may be too late to prevent this from passing (it's going to conference committee now) it's still worth trying to do so. We just may be able to kill it. Actually, it's my understanding that the author of a bill can kill it at any time.... maybe that's where we need to focus attention. I'm going to read the actual text of the bill and then see about amending this post.

ETA: It seems on re-reading that all they're doing is studying the benefit of that action... I can support looking for information. Facts do tend to support our position, after all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[brotherbill3]

I met Rep. Macer. I was also told that she is VERY pro-gun, though I didn't get much opportunity to get into that discussion with her. I'll say that when I was told that, I was surprised... Her appearance gave me the impression of "soccer mom", which I don't at all mean derogatorily, but rather... well... they say a picture speaks a thousand words:

She is good evidence of not judging a book by its cover: She is a young, attractive woman from the city (or at least representing an urban district) and a Democrat. She's married, with two kids, according to votesmart.org, and seems to me by appearance that she'd be more at home in an SUV with her kids strapped in to the point of suffocation than up in a tree stand or out on a range with gunpowder residue on her fingers. I was both pleasantly surprised and a bit self-embarrassed to find I'd misjudged her based solely on appearance. We had only a brief moment to talk, but I think based on what I was told outside of the general pleasantries of an introduction that we can expect good things from her when votes come up... provided we can get her the information to change "pro-gun" to "pro-gun RIGHTS". Sadly, it appears that Rep. Macer did vote against Rep. Lucas' bill being amended into SB 229. What I don't know is if this is a "party vote", a "political cover" vote, or an actual vote based on her own beliefs (and perhaps ignorance of the relevant facts.)

Anyone in her district want to write to her and see if a few facts will change her vote for Third Reading, on Monday?

Blessings,
Bill

PART 1:
MinuteMan ... something - was speaking with her aid (notes in other thread) - She is/was getting pressure from MdA types and school folk;
... As I recall she did not vote at ALL (for or against) in committee. ... I'm sure her image - is partly why MDA focusing on her. ...

At first blush, based on the digest of the bill, I'd say this is a bill to argue against, as it seems to emplace more rules, such as a state-level requirement of background checks at gun shows (which basically will mean that only FFL dealers can sell there, no more private sales; expect that one to get slippery-sloped into, "well... You can't even buy a gun at a gun show without having to have a background check! Why should you be able to sell a gun to just anyone without one?"

While I think it may be too late to prevent this from passing (it's going to conference committee now) it's still worth trying to do so. We just may be able to kill it. Actually, it's my understanding that the author of a bill can kill it at any time.... maybe that's where we need to focus attention. I'm going to read the actual text of the bill and then see about amending this post.

ETA: It seems on re-reading that all they're doing is studying the benefit of that action... I can support looking for information. Facts do tend to support our position, after all.

Blessings,
Bill

Part 2:
I dont' recall seeing anythign about state level NICS checs at gun show; BUT I also haven't had time to review the House Amended version
- I am almost certian this is going to Conference Committee - so I do plan to re-review this. -

 

[SteveM4A1]

From what I have read of 169, it "urges" them to pass legislation to require background checks at gun shows in the future, but does not actually state it in the IC. It only gives legal exceptions to the selling of firearms to ineligible persons if they go through NICS. I could be wrong though, I didn't read the whole 20 pages. Please correct me or update it when you get a chance.

 

[brotherbill3]

From what I have read of 169, it "urges" them to pass legislation to require background checks at gun shows in the future, but does not actually state it in the IC. It only gives legal exceptions to the selling of firearms to ineligible persons if they go through NICS. I could be wrong though, I didn't read the whole 20 pages. Please correct me or update it when you get a chance.

I / we (IMAGC, who are mostly on here too) ... are looking into it; I'm sure BoR will as well, and a few others.

AND - Thanks for the heads up guys - I think all this got added at the house level; and I missed that testimony.
unlike some of our opposition - I got a day job.

 

[87iroc]

I just emailed my rep again...

Not looking for a cookie...looking for others to keep the pressure on. I guarantee the anti's have stepped up their pressure this weekend.

 

[firecadet613]

Just called my rep. Have you called today?

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 229 just passed Third Reading!

There was an impassioned speech by Rep. Lawson against it, but ultimately, common sense prevailed.

I did find it interesting that one of the Democrat arguments was that when people get emotional is when they do their worst critical thinking. (I don't recall the exact phrasing) Oddly enough, the Democrats, at least in this instance, were arguing from emotion.

This bill now has to go back to the Senate for concurrence. There is still a chance that this may get amended (badly) in the conference committee, so don't let up the pressure. As soon as I know who the conference committee members are, I'll post that info.

To those who have written and called, thank you!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[brotherbill3]

i have a screen shot of votes

 

[Rookie]

Yes! Now what?

 

[stephen87]

What's that mean, BoR? Where do we go from here?

I admit, I'm ignorant when it comes to this stuff.

 

[brotherbill3]

As said - goes to senate ... they can - A) pass as amended (not likely) ... B) it goes to Conference committee - from there a 'conformed bill' i.e. - all same language - must be approved by both houses - so we aren't finished yet. ...

no idea who will be conference committee (yet).

 

[87iroc]

Thanks for helping with keeping us informed. I'll be on the lookout for who to contact next.

 

[brotherbill3]

 

[VERT]

Thanks for helping with keeping us informed. I'll be on the lookout for who to contact next.

Ditto

 

[ColdSteel223]

Just sent my Rep a thank you for voting yes.

 

[MisterChester]

Was the language for eliminating roving school zones kept?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Was the language for eliminating roving school zones kept?

Yes.

 

[Smokepole]

I'd really like to see the elimination of the prohibition of carry in a facility that contains a licensed day care center. Eliminating all GFZs seems like an ambitious goal, but removal of the ones that are difficult to comply with would be a good start. It would be nice to be able to go places without having to research the legality of carrying there first, as was the case when I wanted to take my kid to the Indianapolis Children's Museum.

Yeah, you can pretty much count on there being a school field trip there just about any weekday and some Saturday's. Enough that you might as well just consider the place a GF school zone EVERY day of the week.

 

[Smokepole]

SB 229 just passed Third Reading!

There was an impassioned speech by Rep. Lawson against it, but ultimately, common sense prevailed.

I did find it interesting that one of the Democrat arguments was that when people get emotional is when they do their worst critical thinking. (I don't recall the exact phrasing) Oddly enough, the Democrats, at least in this instance, were arguing from emotion.

This bill now has to go back to the Senate for concurrence. There is still a chance that this may get amended (badly) in the conference committee, so don't let up the pressure. As soon as I know who the conference committee members are, I'll post that info.

To those who have written and called, thank you!

Blessings,
Bill

Isn't it ironic that it is in EXACTLY such times that DEMOCRATS work the HARDEST to pass legislation that is the MOST DAMAGING OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, Sandy Hook, Aurora CO., Columbine, Giffords shooting, pretty much EVERY school/College shooting, etc. And pushing the EMOTION button and hard and as often as is humanly possible if not more. And I find it just as ironic (if not more) to hear THIS OBSERVATION coming from the mouth of a Democrat. You just can't make this stuff up. BUT I digress..