2014 Legislative session

[Bollorollo]

After looking at the district this Breaux represents you would think she would try to pass laws to keep the thug gang members who run ramped robbing, assaulting, and even killing each other off the streets in her district. As we have learn the highest percent of gun crime and murder in the city are by gang members who are killing each other PLUS they all have had a violent criminal pass and lets not forget were on parole or early release from being lock up. If these thugs were not out of their cages then we wouldn't be seeing the rise in murders by a firearm in the city. Instead she wants to try and pass some new laws taking the rights a way from those who are hard working law abiding citizens. Individuals like her seemed to be more of the problem by giving criminals on the streets more protection from someone trying to stop these criminal gang members from attacking innocent people. No wonder why we have a problem on the rise in the city of Indianapolis and the outlining areas with crime by gang members when you have State senators like her in office.

 

[Bill of Rights]

After looking at the district this Breaux represents you would think she would try to pass laws to keep the thug gang members who run ramped robbing, assaulting, and even killing each other off the streets in her district. As we have learn the highest percent of gun crime and murder in the city are by gang members who are killing each other PLUS they all have had a violent criminal pass and lets not forget were on parole or early release from being lock up. If these thugs were not out of their cages then we wouldn't be seeing the rise in murders by a firearm in the city. Instead she wants to try and pass some new laws taking the rights a way from those who are hard working law abiding citizens. Individuals like her seemed to be more of the problem by giving criminals on the streets more protection from someone trying to stop these criminal gang members from attacking innocent people. No wonder why we have a problem on the rise in the city of Indianapolis and the outlining areas with crime by gang members when you have State senators like her in office.

I think I said that... is there an echo in here?

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

To any supporters of the so-called "Democratic" party who happen to be reading, I mean no offense, but as Will Rogers once said, "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bollorollo]

Echo's are a good thing then lol...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nothing new posted yet. I did want to note that bills SB 73 through SB 97 are "vehicle bills", meaning they're essentially "wildcards" that can be used to get a bill on the schedule that might not have been ready by the deadline. I note this only so that any that become active bills can be noted when they do. We have about 2 1/2 weeks before the session starts.

Of note... I REALLY hope they do something to make the General Assembly's website more user-friendly and time-efficient. When it takes over 10 minutes for a page to load on a broadband connection, something is seriously FUBAR. In past years, the site was very responsive and efficient. Now.... not so much.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Langauge of first "gun" or "gun-related" bill released. SB3 (Steele), immunity as to judicial officers.

Here's my neighbor Doug on it: SB 3 ? Judicial Officers, Battery, and Possession of Firearms

 

[Trigger Time]

Langauge of first "gun" or "gun-related" bill released. SB3 (Steele), immunity as to judicial officers.

Here's my neighbor Doug on it: SB 3 ? Judicial Officers, Battery, and Possession of Firearms

Nice. More elitist BS. All us peons are trying to get our constitutional rights to carry back and these guys are making more laws creating more sovereign classes of citizens.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The House bills finally posted! So far, I've seen three from Rep. Lucas, all of which look excellent to me. I'll keep looking, but until I find them, let's get these posted:

HB 1017 - Castle Doctrine and vicarious liability - Rep. Lucas - Castle doctrine and vicarious liability. Defines "person" and provides that a person is immune from civil liability for damages caused by another person's use of force if the other person's use of force was a valid exercise of the other person's right to self-defense.

HB 1018 - Possession of firearms on state property - Rep. Lucas - Possession of firearms on state property. Prohibits a state agency, including a state supported college or university, from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and other structures that are; owned or leased by the state. Provides for certain exceptions. Voids, as of July 1, 2014, any rules or policies enacted or undertaken by a state agency before, on, or after June 30, 2014, concerning possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the state. Allows a person to bring an action against a state agency if the person is adversely affected by a rule, a measure, an enactment, or a policy of the state agency that violates this law.

HB 1048 - Possession of firearms - Rep. Lucas - Possession of firearms. Makes knowingly or intentionally possessing a firearm: (1) in or on school property; (2) in or on property that is not school property and is being used by a school for a school function; or (3) on a school bus; a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Level 6 felony. Provides that for purposes of the law concerning possession of firearms on school property: (1) school property means a building or other structure owned or rented by a school that is being used exclusively by the school for a school function and does not include grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with the building or other structure; (2) property that is not school property that is being used for a school function if the property is being used exclusively by a school for a school function, the property is not accessible to the general public during the school function, and a notice is conspicuously posted at each entrance to the property that 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. Specifies that the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from possessing a firearm or ammunition at the employer's residence.

 

[KLB]

Wow. Those would all be nice if they pass.

 

[Trigger Time]

Not far enough but it's a step in the right direction.

so BOR, would that first one allow us to carry inside the statehouse and government center? Or even on the lawn of the statehouse? also would this if passed allow us to carry at the Indiana state fair?
thanks for posting these! I've been waiting for your posts more than any other on ingo.

 

[Indynic]

What is the likelihood that they will pass????

 

[jetmechG550]

So in reading the legalese, does 1048 say if you can legally carry a firearm, you can have it locked in your vehicle out of sight and your ok or they are making it a misdemeanor instead of felony? The law does not apply statement is cornfuzzing me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry for the delay.

The first one, HB 1017, addresses vicarious liability and the Castle Doctrine. While it's not a perfect solution, it seems to me that it addresses one concern that employers and business owners raise in their refusal to allow carry in and around their properties: liability.

HB 1017 adds a definition of "person" applicable to the new section of the law, and defines that as:

(l) "Person", for purposes of IC 34-30-20-1.5, means:

(1) an individual;
(2) an employer;
(3) a governmental entity;
(4) a corporation;
(5) a firm;
(6) a trust;
(7) a partnership;
(8) an incorporated or unincorporated association that exists
​

under or is authorized by the laws of this state, another state,
or a foreign country; or​

(9) a business.
​

So, why should we go to the trouble to make a new definition of that? Here's why:

[EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014]: Sec. 1.5. (a) Except as provided in
subsection (b), a person is not liable for loss or damage arising
from another person's use of force if the other person's use of force
is justified under IC 35-41-3-2.
(b) The defense in subsection (a) does not apply if:​

(1) the person engaged in gross negligence or willful or
wanton misconduct; and
(2) the gross negligence or misconduct was the proximate
cause of the loss or damage.​

So: A business owner will now not be liable for your use of force in self-defense while on their property, unless they were somehow the cause of you having reason to use that force, such as if an employee were to stop a burglary that the business owner had orchestrated.

HB 1018 defines a couple of terms, then gets into preemption language much as happened a year or two ago. The difference is that this time, it affects state agencies, where the last affected only political subdivisions of the state, such as cities, counties, towns, etc. (as it stands now, the local BMV could put up a sign and not violate preemption statutes, much as state supported universities do.
This bill, if/when it becomes law, presuming that it is not amended in the meantime, will remove those exemptions and truly make the General Assembly the only body that can make firearms law in the state of Indiana.
The bill specifically permits enforcement of state statutes with regard to firearms, ammo, and accessories, and specifically prohibits lower level regulation, literally stating that the term includes state-supported colleges and universities.
It also voids any ordinance, rule, etc., enacted before, during, or after the effective date of the legislation.

The exceptions:
Law enforcement agencies may still regulate what their officers carry on duty.
Judges may still hear cases regarding matters under their jurisdiction
Agreements entered into to avoid time incarcerated, such as community corrections, pre-trial diversions, etc. may still be enforced.
Prosecution of criminal recklessness with a firearm is explicitly permitted.

The "teeth":
This bill, like the previous preemption bill, allows declarative and injunctive relief and the collection of treble damages if a state agency violates it. This means that the rules can be made unenforceable, under pain of contempt of court.

This bill is BIG! I'm not enthusiastic that it will pass specifically because it's so big, and the opposition it will face, but with that said, I WANT to see it pass. I believe it NEEDS to pass. I'm not happy with centralizing government control of firearms into a single body, but I think that's unavoidable, and I think we can better fight what unConstitutional regulations remain if we knock out the ability of other bodies to create more.

Lastly, HB1048.

HB 1048 addresses the unnecessarily hot topic of "guns at schools"
To me, the logic is obvious: For many years, Indiana has had the provision in law that a person transporting someone else to or from a school may have a loaded or unloaded firearm in the vehicle without violating the law. This has presented no problems for anyone while someone was doing so, but it did present a problem for at least one person, as described in Bryan Ciyou's book(s). A vendor drove to a school, parked at the loading dock, and entered the school, leaving his handgun on the seat in plain view. This act was obviously not wise, not the least of reasons why being possible theft, but unfortunately for him, it was also a felony, as he was no longer operating the vehicle. There has never been a lesser charge to which this could be plea-bargained down, either.
HB 1048 removes the exemption in the "parking lot law" that schools have had to date. It changes a definition from the non-specific "person's residence" that you could be prevented from keeping a gun in your vehicle in front of, to the specific residence of your employer.
It does some renumbering, and it specifies explicitly that the definition of "school property" for the purpose of IC 35-47-9 means the building, but not the surrounding lands that are owned or rented by a school corporation, licensed daycare, private school, Head Start, special ed preschool, or developmental childcare, that is being used exclusively by a school for a school function.

Having done all that, it now adds a person who legally possesses a firearm and locks it in his trunk or glovebox, or stores it out of plain sight in his locked vehicle, to the list of those who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm on school property.
It further states that a person who knowingly or intentionally brings a firearm onto school property (recall that this now means into the building), into or onto property that is not school property but is being used by a school for a school function, or onto a school bus is no longer an instant felon, but may find himself answering for an "A" misdemeanor.

Lastly, this bill specifies that property not belonging to a school is being used by a school for a school function if and only if the school is making exclusive use of the property, the property is not accessible to the general public, and a notice is posted at each entrance to the property that it IS being used by a school for a school function.

This is only sensible. What it says, in even simpler terms, is that the good people who carry haven't caused a single problem at a school, and it's time to stop pretending that the mere presence of an inanimate object will create the violence that we all dread. It makes the baby step that this non-issue should no longer be a crime of the higher order we call "felonies", but a simple misdemeanor. It shouldn't even be that, but that makes a step I don't think the legislature is yet ready for, and it states that if you're going to pull the "roving school zone" card out, you better label the property so no one unknowingly becomes embroiled in the legal system.

I would like to thank Rep. Jim Lucas, if he is to become aware of my note here, for listening to our concerns and for taking some HUGE steps to return our lawful ability to exercise our rights. I should hope to make the gentleman's acquaintence when I go to Indy to testify in favor of any of these bills that should make it to committee.

Hope this helps everyone... now let's get those letters written! I would humbly suggest that your own senator and representative hear about these bills and your support of them, but I also think that Speaker Brian Bosma, Sen. David Long, Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann, and Gov. Mike Pence need to hear of our support for these bills. I personally am adding a note to Rep. Jim Lucas, who took a big step out on a limb in his freshman term to introduce these bills.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wow. Those would all be nice if they pass.

Sure would. Got your letters written?

Not far enough but it's a step in the right direction.

so BOR, would that first one allow us to carry inside the statehouse and government center? Or even on the lawn of the statehouse? also would this if passed allow us to carry at the Indiana state fair?
thanks for posting these! I've been waiting for your posts more than any other on ingo.

Thanks. As for "not far enough", remember that these guys are going to have not only some of their constituents who are anti-gun rights, but also the press whipping those who are on the fence into a frenzy over these. They need to stay in office to be able to pass the bills we want to put up next year, too. HB 1018 might end the prohibitions at the IGC and Capitol, but that answer would have to come from someone with a J.D. on the sheepskin they keep on their wall. The state fair, as I see it, would no longer be prohibited, nor shipping ports, nor riverboat casinos.

What is the likelihood that they will pass????

That depends on you and everyone else getting those letters written!

So in reading the legalese, does 1048 say if you can legally carry a firearm, you can have it locked in your vehicle out of sight and your ok or they are making it a misdemeanor instead of felony? The law does not apply statement is cornfuzzing me.

HB 1048, as I read it, says that if you take your kid to school, you no longer have to worry about having to park off campus if you leave your car. It also says, as I read it, that if you step onto the bus with your kid for a moment, you won't be facing a felony rap. An "A" misdemeanor is not trivial... it's still up to 364 days in jail and up to a few thousand dollars fine, but it's not a felony that will remove your lawful ability to have your guns at all.

Standard disclaimers apply. IANAL, IDPOOTV, TINLA and IDSAAHIELN
(I Am Not A Lawyer, I Don't Play One On TV, This Is Not Legal Advice, and I Didn't Sleep At A Holiday Inn Express Last Night.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jetmechG550]

Thanks BoR

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Sorry for the delay.

The first one, HB 1017, addresses vicarious liability and the Castle Doctrine. While it's not a perfect solution, it seems to me that it addresses one concern that employers and business owners raise in their refusal to allow carry in and around their properties: liability.

HB 1017 adds a definition of "person" applicable to the new section of the law, and defines that as:



So, why should we go to the trouble to make a new definition of that? Here's why:



So: A business owner will now not be liable for your use of force in self-defense while on their property, unless they were somehow the cause of you having reason to use that force, such as if an employee were to stop a burglary that the business owner had orchestrated.

HB 1018 defines a couple of terms, then gets into preemption language much as happened a year or two ago. The difference is that this time, it affects state agencies, where the last affected only political subdivisions of the state, such as cities, counties, towns, etc. (as it stands now, the local BMV could put up a sign and not violate preemption statutes, much as state supported universities do.
This bill, if/when it becomes law, presuming that it is not amended in the meantime, will remove those exemptions and truly make the General Assembly the only body that can make firearms law in the state of Indiana.
The bill specifically permits enforcement of state statutes with regard to firearms, ammo, and accessories, and specifically prohibits lower level regulation, literally stating that the term includes state-supported colleges and universities.
It also voids any ordinance, rule, etc., enacted before, during, or after the effective date of the legislation.

The exceptions:
Law enforcement agencies may still regulate what their officers carry on duty.
Judges may still hear cases regarding matters under their jurisdiction
Agreements entered into to avoid time incarcerated, such as community corrections, pre-trial diversions, etc. may still be enforced.
Prosecution of criminal recklessness with a firearm is explicitly permitted.

The "teeth":
This bill, like the previous preemption bill, allows declarative and injunctive relief and the collection of treble damages if a state agency violates it. This means that the rules can be made unenforceable, under pain of contempt of court.

This bill is BIG! I'm not enthusiastic that it will pass specifically because it's so big, and the opposition it will face, but with that said, I WANT to see it pass. I believe it NEEDS to pass. I'm not happy with centralizing government control of firearms into a single body, but I think that's unavoidable, and I think we can better fight what unConstitutional regulations remain if we knock out the ability of other bodies to create more.

Lastly, HB1048.

HB 1048 addresses the unnecessarily hot topic of "guns at schools"
To me, the logic is obvious: For many years, Indiana has had the provision in law that a person transporting someone else to or from a school may have a loaded or unloaded firearm in the vehicle without violating the law. This has presented no problems for anyone while someone was doing so, but it did present a problem for at least one person, as described in Bryan Ciyou's book(s). A vendor drove to a school, parked at the loading dock, and entered the school, leaving his handgun on the seat in plain view. This act was obviously not wise, not the least of reasons why being possible theft, but unfortunately for him, it was also a felony, as he was no longer operating the vehicle. There has never been a lesser charge to which this could be plea-bargained down, either.
HB 1048 removes the exemption in the "parking lot law" that schools have had to date. It changes a definition from the non-specific "person's residence" that you could be prevented from keeping a gun in your vehicle in front of, to the specific residence of your employer.
It does some renumbering, and it specifies explicitly that the definition of "school property" for the purpose of IC 35-47-9 means the building, but not the surrounding lands that are owned or rented by a school corporation, licensed daycare, private school, Head Start, special ed preschool, or developmental childcare, that is being used exclusively by a school for a school function.

Having done all that, it now adds a person who legally possesses a firearm and locks it in his trunk or glovebox, or stores it out of plain sight in his locked vehicle, to the list of those who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm on school property.
It further states that a person who knowingly or intentionally brings a firearm onto school property (recall that this now means into the building), into or onto property that is not school property but is being used by a school for a school function, or onto a school bus is no longer an instant felon, but may find himself answering for an "A" misdemeanor.

Lastly, this bill specifies that property not belonging to a school is being used by a school for a school function if and only if the school is making exclusive use of the property, the property is not accessible to the general public, and a notice is posted at each entrance to the property that it IS being used by a school for a school function.

This is only sensible. What it says, in even simpler terms, is that the good people who carry haven't caused a single problem at a school, and it's time to stop pretending that the mere presence of an inanimate object will create the violence that we all dread. It makes the baby step that this non-issue should no longer be a crime of the higher order we call "felonies", but a simple misdemeanor. It shouldn't even be that, but that makes a step I don't think the legislature is yet ready for, and it states that if you're going to pull the "roving school zone" card out, you better label the property so no one unknowingly becomes embroiled in the legal system.

I would like to thank Rep. Jim Lucas, if he is to become aware of my note here, for listening to our concerns and for taking some HUGE steps to return our lawful ability to exercise our rights. I should hope to make the gentleman's acquaintence when I go to Indy to testify in favor of any of these bills that should make it to committee.

Hope this helps everyone... now let's get those letters written! I would humbly suggest that your own senator and representative hear about these bills and your support of them, but I also think that Speaker Brian Bosma, Sen. David Long, Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann, and Gov. Mike Pence need to hear of our support for these bills. I personally am adding a note to Rep. Jim Lucas, who took a big step out on a limb in his freshman term to introduce these bills.

Blessings,
Bill

So, HB 1018, if passed, states that a public university could no longer say that firearms aren't permitted on campus or in dorms? Would it allow me to carry here at BSU? Or on any other college campus for that matter?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks BoR

You're welcome! It's my pleasure.

So, HB 1018, if passed, states that a public university could no longer say that firearms aren't permitted on campus or in dorms? Would it allow me to carry here at BSU? Or on any other college campus for that matter?

That is my understanding of it, as written. Expect a BIG fight on this one.

The importance of POLITE letters and calls to

• your representative and senator,
• Rep. Bosma ( H88@iga.in.gov ),
• Sen. Long ( Senator.Long@iga.in.gov ),
• Lt. Gov Ellspermann ( Lt. Governor: Constituent Concerns ),
• Gov. Pence ( Governor Pence: Ask Mike),
• Rep. Steuerwald ( h40@iga.in.gov ) and Rep. Dermody ( h20@iga.in.gov ), the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Public Policy committees, respectively,

cannot be overstated if we want these bills heard and voted upon.

Thanks, everyone, for getting involved in your government!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jetmechG550]

I've written Steuerwald before and actually got a letter back from him (non-form type) stating he appreciated my viewpoint and common sense on certain issues I had written about. Signed in ink too LOL. One was the guns in vehicles on school property. I expressed how it wasn't possible in many situations to park off campus or drive all the way to school or daycare then all the way home.

 

[BuckCreek]

The importance of POLITE letters and calls to

• your representative and senator,
• Rep. Bosma ( H88@iga.in.gov ),
• Sen. Long ( Senator.Long@iga.in.gov ),
• Lt. Gov Ellspermann ( Lt. Governor: Constituent Concerns ),
• Gov. Pence ( Governor Pence: Ask Mike),
• Rep. Steuerwald ( h40@iga.in.gov ) and Rep. Dermody ( h20@iga.in.gov ), the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Public Policy committees, respectively,

cannot be overstated if we want these bills heard and voted upon.

Thanks, everyone, for getting involved in your government!

Blessings,
Bill

Emails sent to all the above and to my Senator and Representative. I really hope to see all these pass both bodies and get signed into law. I especially hope HB 1018 and HB 1048 make it all the way.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yes BOR thank you for your work on this! I won't let you (us) down on writing more correspondence.

 

[japartridge]

BoR, as always you are an exceptional human being leading the charge for our rights! I'll be hitting print, send, and dial in the next few days!

I would just about do anything to get 1048 passed, it is such a PITA to have to park off property and then walk (hike!) to my daughters' school! Not to mention the near miss I had after forgetting to remove a small handgun from the car after a range outing, followed by a PTO meeting!
Thank you!