2014 Legislative session

[lonehoosier]

Indiana ports are off limits to guns. I have a few friends that work there. It's just like the steel mills.

 

[actaeon277]

Indiana ports are off limits to guns. I have a few friends that work there. It's just like the steel mills.

Yes, but it's not because of Indiana law.
It is because of Federal law.

 

[lonehoosier]

Yes, but it's not because of Indiana law.
It is because of Federal law.

I don't think I was saying it wasn't. The steel mills are under federal law too right?

 

[actaeon277]

I don't think I was saying it wasn't. The steel mills are under federal law too right?

I was merely mentioning it, cause he had mentioned State law.
But ports are under Federal law. And steel mills have ports, therefore, covered by Federal law.

I would still like to find the actual wording of the law myself.
It was explained to me, that the law was written so that even if I go to a steel mill building, in downtown Merrillville, it is still GFZ.
Because it says it applies to all "properties".

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, but it's not because of Indiana law.
It is because of Federal law.

I don't think I was saying it wasn't. The steel mills are under federal law too right?

I don't have the cite offhand, but I'll look for it. IIRC, though, gents, you are mistaken. IN law forbids firearms at shipping ports, and IN law allows steel mills to have regulations against guns on the property (parking lot law, I think. Imma go look that up and get back to you.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Here we go. Seven minutes... I think that's a new record.

130 IAC 4-1-7 Firearms and explosives
Authority: IC 8-10-1-7; IC 8-10-1-9
Affected: IC 8-10-1
Sec. 7. (a) No person except port security, conservation officers, police officers, customs officers, or members of the armed
forces of the United States on official duty shall carry any firearms, concealed weapons, explosives, or similar inflammable materials
on the port area.
(b) All persons other than the excepted classes shall:
(1) surrender all objects described in subsection (a) to the port security on guard at the entrance gate or to the port director;
(2) be given a receipt; and
(3) recover the object upon leaving the port area and surrendering the receipt.
(c) Shooting anywhere on the port area, either over or on the water or land, within the confines of any port boundary is
prohibited without the consent of the port director. (Ports of Indiana; 130 IAC 4-1-7; filed Jun 6, 2002, 11:22 a.m.: 25 IR 3709;
readopted filed Nov 7, 2008, 1:50 p.m.: 20081203-IR-130080612RFA)
130 IAC 4-1-8 Prohibited articles
Authority: IC 8-10-1-7; IC 8-10-1-9
Affected: IC 8-10-1
Sec. 8. No person shall transport or carry on the port property any of the following:
(1) Alcoholic beverages (excepting, however, alcoholic beverages permitted to be brought into the United States on cruise
ships and in course of shipment).
(2) Firearms.
(3) Weapons.
(4) Explosives.
(5) Narcotics.
(6) Obscene literature.
(Ports of Indiana; 130 IAC 4-1-8; filed Jun 6, 2002, 11:22 a.m.: 25 IR 3709; readopted filed Nov 7, 2008, 1:50 p.m.: 20081203-IR-
130080612RFA)

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(1) 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 IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9-2;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center;
in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(4) in violation of federal law;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(6) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(7) at a person's residence;

---

(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(9) on property owned by:
(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1; or
(10) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
(A) works directly with individuals with developmental disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into the individuals' community or least restrictive environment; and
(B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting an individual with developmental disabilities.
As added by P.L.90-2010, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.114-2012, SEC.66.
(emphasis mine)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

Thanks BOR.
I've been looking in the wrong area (Federal).
Guess I was WRONG.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Glad I could help, and thanks for the rep! Too, you might be correct as well... Just because there's a state law against it doesn't mean there's not a similar federal law as well.

I just wish all of these da*n GFZs would go away.

Hey, a guy can hope.

Thanks BOR.
I've been looking in the wrong area (Federal).
Guess I was WRONG.

 

[RyanGSams]

Thanks BOR.
I've been looking in the wrong area (Federal).
Guess I was WRONG.

I thought it might fall under federal, but might as well start at the state level and move from there.

Glad I could help, and thanks for the rep! Too, you might be correct as well... Just because there's a state law against it doesn't mean there's not a similar federal law as well.

I just wish all of these da*n GFZs would go away.

Hey, a guy can hope.

Thank you for looking up the IC. With reading that, it sounds that the guard should take and hold my handgun while in the port, I wonder how that would work. Guess I can shoot them an email about that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just a note: I just checked, and the list of bills has not yet been posted. When it is, I'll see what I see there and post interesting or relevant bills here.

 

[Trigger Time]

Thank you BOR!

 

[DaKruiser]

Yes, thank you BOR!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Still nothing, other than to note that the General Assembly has a new website. It will take some time to get used to where everything is on here. The list of bills seems like it will be located here:

Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

 

[Trigger Time]

Thanks for the update BOR! I've been waiting with much anticipation. Is it normal for it to take this long for them to post them?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think the delay has been at least in part caused by of the new, exceptionally slow website, however, the bills are slowly being posted.

There are some of interest, of course, including a couple that looked good to me for diminishing governmental power. Thanks to Sen. Waltz and Sen. Zakas for those, despite those bills not being firearms-related.

The three I see so far (that is, through SB 100 at this writing, but not including the not-yet-posted SB 1 and SB 99) that are of direct impact on this community all look like they need vigorous opposition.

SB 7 Retention of confiscated firearms (Sen. Arnold) Allows a LEA to retain confiscated firearms for training of LEOs or other training purposes.

SB 45 Handgun training (Sen. Breaux) Requires a person who applies for LTCH after 12/31/14 to complete an 8 hr handgun and safety training program.

SB 46 Self defense (Sen. Breaux) Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against another person if the person using force: (1) is the initial aggressor; (2) has reached a place of safety after escaping an attack and immediately returns to the location of the attack (unless the location is the person's property or residence); or (3) is pursuing an attacker or trespasser who has retreated and no longer presents a threat to the person.

I can maybe see a benefit to SB 7, in that an officer who might be intimately familiar with his Sig .40 might be unfamiliar with a wheelgun or a 1911, such as the story Kirk has related on here of his encounter in Broad Ripple, in which a LEO, unfamiliar with the 1911 Kirk was carrying, swept several people in an effort to unload it. That said, I also see potential for abuse if the confiscating department directly benefits from the confiscation of property. I also see an issue in the application of it, in that the taking of firearms from PunkA** Gangsta would be something we'd all support, if PunkA** was apprehended committing a violent crime and the gun he carried was stolen; such firearm should be returned to its lawful owner. However, we have to consider that some departments might not be so forthright in their application of said law: I could, for example, imagine the TH, FW or SB PDs, with their demonstrated stances against the private ownership and carry of firearms, abusing such a law to simply gain for their department some new toys.

Given that one of our Founders (Mr. Jefferson, I believe) warned us that laws must be considered in light of the worst possible abuse of them, rather than their noble intentions stated at the time of passage, I find I must oppose SB 7.

SB 45 seeks to make mandatory a "handgun training and safety" class for any who apply for LTCH after 12/31/14. Why? Because IL is doing it now, to the tune of 16 hrs? As has been reported here before, IN does not have demonstrably more, or more serious, incidents with negligent treatment of or behavior with, firearms by LTCH holders than other states that do have mandatory training. Further, once this camel's nose is under the tent, you can expect to see the demand that the people who hold LTCH from prior to that date have until XXX date to prove they also have training, or their Lifetime LTCH will mean nothing. "Oh, but it's Lifetime! They can't do that!", I hear being said already.

Do you really want to trust a gun grabber like Breaux or any of the others of her ilk with that kind of supposition? Even with the extremely pro-rights makeup of the General Assembly, I don't!

I'm all for incentivizing training. Make it a deduction from the cost of the LTCH. Make it deductible on the state income tax. Make it a ream of targets and a case of ammo given to whomever shows they've gotten training, such that they can continue to do so. Making it mandatory is not acceptable. Doing so only makes the carry by those who have not the means to pay for the training AND the license AND the firearm and ammo an impossibility, in effect nullifying the right of the people who are of lower or fixed incomes.

For these reasons, I oppose SB 45.

Finally, SB 46 seeks to diminish our Castle Doctrine. This, as best I can tell, is capitalizing on the whole Trayvon Martin fiasco. In short, if you feel threatened by someone, you should not be limited in the means you choose to stop that threat. The aggressor won't be limited, so why should the intended victim be shackled by a law only s/he will obey?

I oppose SB 46.

Of note, both Sen. Arnold and Sen. Breaux represent the (so-called) Democratic Party.

Oh, and before anyone asks, I don't know why SB 1 and 99 are not yet posted.

I would expect more bills on the Senate side and the full House slate to be coming soon, but as I said, they are not posted as of this writing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[draketungsten]

Once these bills start to get traction you should be able to track them with Indiana Bill Watch (accessIndiana BillWatch) so you don't have to bookmark them and remember to check them periodically. They'll email you when movement is made on the bill.

That's how I've always done it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

True story, and thanks for the link! The only problem is that they only email you after something is done, not when it's about to happen. When a bill is assigned to committee, that's one thing, but for when it's going to be heard, you have to watch the calendar and contact legislators so they vote the right way. Please don't think I'm disagreeing with you that BillWatch is a good thing. You just sometimes need to do a little more than that, too.

Blessings,
Bill

Once these bills start to get traction you should be able to track them with Indiana Bill Watch (accessIndiana BillWatch) so you don't have to bookmark them and remember to check them periodically. They'll email you when movement is made on the bill.

That's how I've always done it.

 

[KLB]

True story, and thanks for the link! The only problem is that they only email you after something is done, not when it's about to happen. When a bill is assigned to committee, that's one thing, but for when it's going to be heard, you have to watch the calendar and contact legislators so they vote the right way. Please don't think I'm disagreeing with you that BillWatch is a good thing. You just sometimes need to do a little more than that, too.

Blessings,
Bill

And that is why we have BoR watch!

 

[japartridge]

And that is why we have BoR watch!

funny, but yet sooooooooo true! Looks like it's time to start firing up the fax and email systems!

 

[Bill of Rights]

And that is why we have BoR watch!

[video=youtube;Ji-cT58rgNc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-cT58rgNc[/video]

Thank you, sir.