2014 Legislative session

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the kind words.

One thing that's important to remember, folks, is that when you're writing these POLITE letters to the Representatives, especially the committee chairmen, is that even if one that we want to see pass is not heard in committee, we still need to be polite and positive about all of the bills. That is to say, any of these bills passing would be a victory for us. We want it all, of course, but personally, I'll take any gain we can achieve. Recall as well that the antis are probably mobilizing already, given the short session, and we need to stay ahead of them.

As for your letter... yes, you, the one reading this... If you're thinking that your one letter is meaningless and will be ignored, you are mistaken. Your one letter will be one of many, but only if you send it. Representatives make decisions as to what to support or oppose based on contact from their constituents, of which lobbying organizations are a part, yes, but it helps to have some of those on our side, and we do. It also helps if they have a favorable opinion of us already, and many of them do. Please, don't put off your contact. Make it as soon as you read this. Email can be sent anytime, and it can be read anytime (including on their phones.... I've actually texted with a representative while he was on the floor of the legislature...)

Those of us who have written these POLITE letters know that when it's heard and passed and signed into law, we had a part in it. If it doesn't pass, it's not because we didn't try. If you didn't try... the question will always be there: What if I had?

Rep Thomas Dermody ( h20@iga.in.gov ) chairs Public Policy, which has HB 1018 and HB 1048 assigned to it. He's solidly pro-2A, personally. Let's let him know we support that.

Rep. Greg Steuerwald ( h40@iga.in.gov ) chairs Judiciary, which has been assigned HB 1017. I don't know his stance, so let's convince him what's right.

Keep them civil, keep them polite. These guys get enough negativity. "Supportive" goes a long way.

Blessings,
Bill

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Trigger Time]

Emails sent to both. One is a standard "your opinion is important to me and my staff ...". The other actualy have his LA's phone number and email for future concerns.
Lets hope freedom prevails after this session.

this year I've sent more emails, letters and phone calls to more elected officials than ever before. I've almost given up hope that they listen anymore or care about our rights. I hope I'm proven wrong

 

[Bill of Rights]

Some of them have their emails set up to send an autoreply in response to any mail arriving. I can't speak for all of the representatives and/or senators, but I do know that some of them read every letter they receive. That's not to say that their staff members don't also, but only that some actually do read them. I was contacted by my Senator's LA last session when I wrote to him, saying that the Senator wanted to speak with me about one of his bills. We chatted by phone for about 45 min. or so about it, and as a result, since I saw his point, I was not outspoken in opposition to his bill. I know that at least two of the gentlemen I wrote to specified in their autoreplies that they read them all, and one of them is Rep. Dermody.

I call this a good sign.

Thanks for your help and participation!

Blessings,
Bill

Emails sent to both. One is a standard "your opinion is important to me and my staff ...". The other actualy have his LA's phone number and email for future concerns.
Lets hope freedom prevails after this session.

this year I've sent more emails, letters and phone calls to more elected officials than ever before. I've almost given up hope that they listen anymore or care about our rights. I hope I'm proven wrong

 

[Trigger Time]

The one I sent to bosma a while back was also a form response. I hope he reads it.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I sent two separate emails out: one for bills I oppose, and one for bills I support. I received an email back from my state senator regarding the bills I support (which happen to be house bills). He kind of lectured me on how the legislative process works, as if I didn't already know. I see no harm in letting him know my opinion of certain bills, even if he may never get to vote on said bills. I want my position known. Ironically, he never replied to the senate bills I oppose from Sen. Breaux.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You'd be surprised how many people don't know how the process works, so he probably tells everyone that. No, there's no harm, of course.

The fact that he didn't comment on the Senate bills may indicate that those are not predicted to go anywhere, but that also might be reading more into it than is there. Gun rights are pretty safe in the Senate, though there are some who still retain the misguided notion that laws actually control anyone who obeys them. There is a bill I'm on the fence on, of that nature. The bill will make it a felony to provide a firearm to a felon if you have reason to believe they may not possess one under the law, and/or if they use it to commit a crime. While I don't think we should be giving guns to people whom we know will commit crimes with them, that also involves some attempt to predict the future. I've long said that I see no reason why someone who is said to have "paid his debt to society" is still paying even after that by the inability to effectively protect him/herself and family within the law, especially considering that that person's former associates might wish to do him/her harm.

Thus, were "Joe INGOer" to provide a gun to his friend "Susie", who is home alone (or with the kids) many nights while her husband "Frank" drives a truck, and Frank, unknown to Joe, has a felony theft from a shoplifting case when he was much younger, all it takes is for someone to try to break in when Frank is home one night and the actual criminal might be captured, injured, dead, or some combination of those, but Frank and Joe (and maybe Susie as well) will be charged as well, even though none of them has actually done anything wrong. Joe helped a friend, the friend wanted only to protect herself and her kids, and her husband did his duty to provide that protection. He STOPPED a crime, in this hypothetical example.

So... While at present it is a malum prohibitum "crime" to provide a firearm to a felon, I think this is a law that should be repealed, not strengthened. If this has to be a crime, it should be based on proof of prior knowledge of a crime being planned. That is, if Joe gave the gun to Frank, knowing Frank planned to rob a liquor store, sure, he's complicit... But Frank's prior record really affect that? Or is it just a way to divide the people and pit the majority against a group that none will defend? Niemoller comes to mind.

Blessings,
Bill

I sent two separate emails out: one for bills I oppose, and one for bills I support. I received an email back from my state senator regarding the bills I support (which happen to be house bills). He kind of lectured me on how the legislative process works, as if I didn't already know. I see no harm in letting him know my opinion of certain bills, even if he may never get to vote on said bills. I want my position known. Ironically, he never replied to the senate bills I oppose from Sen. Breaux.

 

[engineerpower]

A felony is how our society legally codifies someone who has broken their contract with society, and Society (though the "Justice" system) imposes sanctions and punishments in an attempt to deter others from breaching the contract as well. Society releases them from imprisonment, but reserves the recognition of certain rights from the transgressor. Having said that, I think what we need to do in our legal code is separate the violent crime from the nonviolent crime in how we handle the aftermath. There is a huge difference between a rapist and a petty thief such as "Frank" from the above post, and I don't think their rights should be handled in the same way regardless of their actual crimes. I would be open to restoring 2A Right recognition to non-violent convicts if use or threat of use of weapons didn't factor into the offense; but this is probably a bit beyond the baby steps legislatures are hoping for anymore.

Personally, though, I would make all violent crime a capitol offense, and be done with it. Society has no need for those that not only break their contract with society but also impose harm onto another.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The problem is that too many things are now called "felony". What once would have been a simple shoplifting charge now is handled by charging a felony theft. (I've posted in the past about a young woman I know who had this happen over a 99 cent bag of chips she was eating as she shopped.)

Over less than a dollar's worth of product, a store wanted to charge this woman with a felony, with everything that entails. She was not a criminal, merely absent-minded: the money was in her pocket to pay for it.

I agree with you that we need to differentiate. Violent and or serious crimes, that is, with an actual victim who suffers real, demonstrable damages are what I'd call felonies.

One further point though: Capital punishment is an awfully big step to take. How many have been found later to be innocent who were wrongly found guilty?

Just some food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

A felony is how our society legally codifies someone who has broken their contract with society, and Society (though the "Justice" system) imposes sanctions and punishments in an attempt to deter others from breaching the contract as well. Society releases them from imprisonment, but reserves the recognition of certain rights from the transgressor. Having said that, I think what we need to do in our legal code is separate the violent crime from the nonviolent crime in how we handle the aftermath. There is a huge difference between a rapist and a petty thief such as "Frank" from the above post, and I don't think their rights should be handled in the same way regardless of their actual crimes. I would be open to restoring 2A Right recognition to non-violent convicts if use or threat of use of weapons didn't factor into the offense; but this is probably a bit beyond the baby steps legislatures are hoping for anymore.

Personally, though, I would make all violent crime a capitol offense, and be done with it. Society has no need for those that not only break their contract with society but also impose harm onto another.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Open States: discover politics in your state - Open States

C'mon folks! If 10% of the folks logging into INGO today called or wrote their Representative in the Statehouse voicing their support for these three House Bills, we could extend and secure our rights in this state. If you don't know who your local reps are, use the link at the top to find them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have just returned home from Indianapolis. I spoke this morning, along with several others, on HB 1048. Speaking in favor were a representative from the NRA, from ISRPA, and me. Speaking... well... not exactly in favor, but not standing against, were a representative from the Superintendent's Association and a representative from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney's Association. (apologies if I've misnamed any of the groups. I didn't take written notes as to who was who.)
Prior to any of us speaking, the committee accepted an amendment to the bill, returning the penalty to a Level 6 felony, not an A misdemeanor.
The prosecutors were going to request that, their speaker said, and they also had a couple of questions about some apparent contradictions in the text. They did try to carve out an exception or two, but to all appearances today, seemed to have been "shut down". I did notice Rep. Lucas speaking with them at length afterward as well.
The superintendent's association had a couple of questions that were clarified by explanation, and once explained, their speaker stated aloud in the meeting that the bill had their support.
The ISRPA rep and the NRA both support the bill, needless to say, as did I.

Of the committee members, I got the impression of strong support from Rep. Dermody and several others. Although the Democrat committee members asked several questions, they seemed to see the wisdom of it's passage once they were presented with facts and data to support the pro-rights position. All in all, I'm pleased with this bill and the reception it received. Rep. Lucas is a rock-solid 2A representative of the people, and I would be exceptionally surprised if his NRA rating after his freshman term as a legislator is not equally rock-solid A+. Reps Dermody, Eberhart, Clere, and Messmer spoke positively during the meeting, and they and others spoke briefly to me afterward, thanking me for participating. They held the bill, meaning they plan to vote on it next week to pass it on to the full House.

I'd like to thank those who have written to support this bill and also HB 1017 and 1018.
I've also realized that I've not said anything to support SB 229, from Sen. Tomes, which basically outlaws the practice of LEAs buying guns from the public among other good provisions. Sen. Tomes has been a good friend to Indiana's gun owners and I trust his judgment on what a good bill is on this topic. I heard a rumor that his bill is to be heard next week some time, but this is only rumor at this point.

Ladies and gents, I think we won this round, but the battle is not over, nor are any of the others. Polite, civil letters and phone contacts helped get us this far. Let's keep them up. HB 1017, HB 1018, and SB 229 have yet to be heard. HB 1048 has been heard, but not voted upon, and they all have to move to the house that did not originate them after they get the votes to pass their originating house.

When you write to support these, make sure you note that in the "poll" thread (Link here) I created, too. I'm looking to see 300 letters (less than 1% of INGO members!) to support these bills, and we have a long way to go to reach that.

Thanks again to all who have gotten involved!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mshogren]

I sent emails off to everyone suggested today!

Mark

 

[brotherbill3]

I have just returned home from Indianapolis. I spoke this morning, along with several others, on HB 1048. Speaking in favor were a representative from the NRA, from ISRPA, and me. Speaking... well... not exactly in favor, but not standing against, were a representative from the Superintendent's Association and a representative from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney's Association. (apologies if I've misnamed any of the groups. I didn't take written notes as to who was who.)
Prior to any of us speaking, the committee accepted an amendment to the bill, returning the penalty to a Level 6 felony, not an A misdemeanor.
The prosecutors were going to request that, their speaker said, and they also had a couple of questions about some apparent contradictions in the text. They did try to carve out an exception or two, but to all appearances today, seemed to have been "shut down". I did notice Rep. Lucas speaking with them at length afterward as well.
The superintendent's association had a couple of questions that were clarified by explanation, and once explained, their speaker stated aloud in the meeting that the bill had their support.
The ISRPA rep and the NRA both support the bill, needless to say, as did I.

Of the committee members, I got the impression of strong support from Rep. Dermody and several others. Although the Democrat committee members asked several questions, they seemed to see the wisdom of it's passage once they were presented with facts and data to support the pro-rights position. All in all, I'm pleased with this bill and the reception it received. Rep. Lucas is a rock-solid 2A representative of the people, and I would be exceptionally surprised if his NRA rating after his freshman term as a legislator is not equally rock-solid A+. Reps Dermody, Eberhart, Clere, and Messmer spoke positively during the meeting, and they and others spoke briefly to me afterward, thanking me for participating. They held the bill, meaning they plan to vote on it next week to pass it on to the full House.

I'd like to thank those who have written to support this bill and also HB 1017 and 1018.
I've also realized that I've not said anything to support SB 229, from Sen. Tomes, which basically outlaws the practice of LEAs buying guns from the public among other good provisions. Sen. Tomes has been a good friend to Indiana's gun owners and I trust his judgment on what a good bill is on this topic. I heard a rumor that his bill is to be heard next week some time, but this is only rumor at this point.

Ladies and gents, I think we won this round, but the battle is not over, nor are any of the others. Polite, civil letters and phone contacts helped get us this far. Let's keep them up. HB 1017, HB 1018, and SB 229 have yet to be heard. HB 1048 has been heard, but not voted upon, and they all have to move to the house that did not originate them after they get the votes to pass their originating house.

When you write to support these, make sure you note that in the "poll" thread (Link here) I created, too. I'm looking to see 300 letters (less than 1% of INGO members!) to support these bills, and we have a long way to go to reach that.

Thanks again to all who have gotten involved!

Blessings,
Bill

Bill - Excellent thread and update.
Hope you do not mind if I share some of the update info on IMAGC
(I don't know if you're on Facebook, or follow us there)
and on other forums?

Thanks. keep up the good work. We're trying.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't mind. Put a link to here, if you would, though. As for the other... no, I'm not on Facepalm ..... Bookface..... whatever.
Whatever help we can get getting these good bills through, though... I'll take it, if you'll take my thanks.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill - Excellent thread and update.
Hope you do not mind if I share some of the update info on IMAGC
(I don't know if you're on Facebook, or follow us there)
and on other forums?

Thanks. keep up the good work. We're trying.

 

[MisterChester]

Does that mean that now the felony is part of the bill now? Or does it mean that it just needs to be voted on to be added?

 

[KW730]

Does that mean that now the felony is part of the bill now? Or does it mean that it just needs to be voted on to be added?

If the committee accepts the amendment, I believe the bill is amended. It's still a lesser charge than it currently is, even if it would still cause you to lose your "right."

 

[Bill of Rights]

The amendment to add the felony charge back into the bill was accepted without argument, but I don't think LSA changes it until there is an actual vote on the bill itself, which from what Rep. Dermody said, would be next week. While that's something I wish they'd not done, I can tolerate it (begrudgingly) given that we still have the reduction in location to an actual school building (not the surrounding land, parking lots, etc.) and the removal of the roaming school zone, and the extension of the "parking lot bill" to include schools. That is, while a clean sweep would have been preferable, three out of four is still pretty solid. In addition, this is on the House side. The Senate has, prior to this year, been far friendlier to us. I am very pleased to see both houses looking upon us with more respect not only for our natural rights, but for us as people.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MisterChester]

BoR when you say it'll be voted on next week, do you mean in the committee or the actual legislature?

 

[Bill of Rights]

BoR when you say it'll be voted on next week, do you mean in the committee or the actual legislature?

First will be the committee. They heard what people had to say on it, but did not yet vote. They'll do that in committee next week and hopefully send it on to the House, who will subsequently vote on it and hopefully send it on to the Senate.

 

[Rookie]

To clarify....

LTCH
Gun locked in vehicle
Out of sight
No felony.

Right?

 

[John Galt]

To clarify....

LTCH
Gun locked in vehicle
Out of sight
No felony.

Right?

Correct.