2015 Legislative Session

[John Galt]

In all seriousness, is there a strategy involved in not filing the prospective bills ASAP? For example, do they test the waters to see how much support there'll be for a particular bill to see if it's even worth the effort?

Sometimes it's to gather co-authors once a bill is drawn up. A lot of people don't want to put their name on something they haven't seen, but a bill carries a little more weight if it has a bunch of people wanting and willing to put their name on it. Session starts Tuesday, so there won't be too much longer!

I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH how important it is to start politely contacting your Representatives, Senators, House and Senate leadership and Committee Chairs to let them know how important it is to let good gun legislation at least get a chance to get heard. There are 73 Representatives and 36 Senators in the Indiana Statehouse with an NRA "A" rating or higher!

 

[actaeon277]

Wouldn't SENATE BILL No. 48 be good because several states who have the training course does not have reciprocity with Indiana for that reason. No training course no reciprocity????

So a woman needing to get a LTCH to protect her from an abusive ex would then have to come up with more $$$ and wait even longer?????
Sorry. If someone needs to protect themselves, and isn't a psychopathic serial killer, we shouldn't be putting up MORE roadblocks.

 

[T.Lex]

(2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.

Disallowing this might actually be a bad idea, or take a bad situation and make it worse. It looks to me more like it is intended to "combat" Sharia law. If so, that line of legislative reasoning is flawed.

I'm thinking specifically of a court of appeals decision related to a dispute about whether a church properly removed a pastor. It came down to contract law - which ostensibly is secular. But, the local church bylaws incorporated a bunch of the "main" church's policies and doctrine. So, any decision about "for cause" required an interpretation of the doctrine.

If the people can't resort to courts, what recourse do they have?

Just saying there may be unintended consequences that are not good. IMHO, the laws should be silent on that kind of stuff. No need to say anything one way or the other.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In all seriousness, is there a strategy involved in not filing the prospective bills ASAP? For example, do they test the waters to see how much support there'll be for a particular bill to see if it's even worth the effort?

GFGT, it is adherence to the Indiana Constitution. The Indiana Constitution--Article IV, §9--allows the Indiana Senate to pre-file (30 days) but not the Indiana House.

Indiana General Assembly - Ballotpedia

I should do a thread on the Indiana General Assembly so all of INGO could understand the mechanics of the General Assembly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

GFGT, it is adherence to the Indiana Constitution. The Indiana Constitution--Article IV, §9--allows the Indiana Senate to pre-file (30 days) but not the Indiana House.

Indiana General Assembly - Ballotpedia

I should do a thread on the Indiana General Assembly so all of INGO could understand the mechanics of the General Assembly.

Thanks. What's the deal with all of those "vehicle bills"? Is there a reason that specific term is used?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thanks. What's the deal with all of those "vehicle bills"? Is there a reason that specific term is used?

Term of art/jargon for the profession. You can think platform or maybe bridge or sack (your people would say "poke") instead of vehicle if that helps.

Vehicle:

2. a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something.


"I use paint as a vehicle for my ideas"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Term of art/jargon for the profession. You can think platform or maybe bridge or sack (your people would say "poke") instead of vehicle if that helps.

Vehicle:

2. a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something.


"I use paint as a vehicle for my ideas"

I guess To Be Determined or Reserved or some such would be too straight forward.

 

[brotherbill3]

Just a bump for this thread and to make sure you all see the info from your friendly neighborhood IMAGC staffers:
We're here to push you all, and to help inform the un-informed masses and those that won't join a 'gun-board' but support the cause.


LINK (if you're on Facebook, please look it up, like, comment, and share):
https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/743082695783628

The post with the info RE:

An overview of the 2015 Session Legislative Deadlines for the Indiana General Assembly (IGA)

One of the primary roles we try to respond to, is providing clear, timely info on the bills in the IGA, for you, our followers. One of the reasons we PUSH and URGE for so much of your attention, and letter writing, is due to the VERY SHORT legislative calendar for the IGA (while also trying to watch issues at the Federal level too.) In Indiana, the legislature is “part time” and all measures this year will be completed by April 15 (yes, INCOME TAX DAY).

The FULL calendar deadlines are listed below – and can be found at this link:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/deadlines/
All Proposed legislation, without a change to the rules – must be submitted by January 14; and assigned to a committee before the end of the month.

Because of this schedule, we are often spared having to review redundant legislation from uninformed members of the state government; and there is no “ongoing” need to respond year round. However, it DOES mean that we need solid, polite, and factual letters written, not only to YOUR INDIVIDUAL state representatives and senators, but also prompt letters written to the APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON(S) and COMMITTEE MEMBERS (we include links to committee’s when we can). Many bills will die because the committee chairmen, who have sole discretion over what is brought before each committee for a hearing, chose NOT to hear them. Again, this is good and bad; and it is why we urge writing to the committees as soon as we know where legislation is assigned.

Currently, there are 3 particular bills proposed with in the senate we are starting to review; though we expect the numbers to grow quickly in the next few days. If you see a bill that we haven’t or aren’t addressing (related to your 2A / Sec.1 Article 32 rights of course), let us know with a comment. We will do our best to respond.

Thanks for your support, and please, NOW is the time to make your voices heard. We stand a far better chance of making effective changes at the state level, than we do at the federal level. Your voices and letters are VERY important.

Please LIKE, SHARE, and COMMENT. It is vital we reach and continue to educate those who are uninformed. You are our only way to reach more people and be effective.

--- BB3

DEADLINE CALENDAR:

Monday, October 20, 2014 Senators may begin filing bills for the 2015 Session. (Senate Rule 44)
Senators can file no more than a total of ten bills or joint resolutions (Senate Rule 48(a)) Tuesday, November 18, 2014 Organization Day for the 2015 Session (IC 2-2.1-1-2(a))
Representatives may begin filing bills (House Rule 103).
Thursday, January 8, 2015 Senators may file only two bills per business day beginning today. (Senate Rule 48(a))
Monday, January 12, 2015 Latest day session must reconvene (IC 2-2.1-1-2(d))
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 Deadline for filing House bills (Fourth meeting day in January)(House Rule 107.1, not later than 2:00 p.m.)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015 Filing of House vehicle bills (Fifth meeting day in January)(House Rule 106.1)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015 Deadline for filing Senate bills (Senate Rule 48(a)) not later than 4:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Last day Senate bills may be assigned to Senate committees.
(Seven (7) calendar days following the last day for filing Senate bills and resolutions (Senate Rule 49(a))

Ten (10) calendar days after filing ..... Last day House bills may be assigned to committees unless committees have not been appointed, in which case bills shall be referred within ten (10) calendar days after the appointment of committees. (House Rule 112)

Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Last day for 3rd reading of House bills in House (House Rule 147.1)
Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Last day for 3rd reading of Senate bills in Senate (Senate Rule 79(a), subject to Senate Rule 88(b))
Noon Thursday, February 26, 2015 Last day for Senate to receive House bills (Senate Rule 79(c), subject to Senate Rule 88(b))
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Last day for 3rd reading of Senate bills in House (House Rule 148.1)
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Last day for 3rd reading of House bills in the Senate (Senate Rule 79(b))
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Last day for House adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval (House Rule 161.1)
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Last day for Senate adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval (Senate Rule 86(j))
Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Last day for adjournment of both houses (IC 2-2.1-1-2(d))

 

[firecadet613]

FWIW, I sent a letter to all my reps at the statehouse. Today I got a call from Representative Jeffrey Thompson, thanking me for my letter and assuring me he is all for legal gun owners and more guns for a safer America.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sent today:

Dear ______________,



A new session has begun! May it be fruitful and productive for liberty, and on a more personal level, may your regular trips down to Indy be safe throughout.



I am writing to you, as I believe I did before, to ask your support of pro-gun rights laws this coming session, and your opposition to bills that diminish those rights. Specifically, at this point, I'd ask your opposition to such as SB 46 and SB 48, SB 176 and SB 180, HB 1029, and SB 215 and 224. While SB 176 is not directly firearms related, it addresses so-called "bias crimes". This would seem to indicate prejudice on my part, however it does not. The reason I oppose SB 176 is that it embodies prejudice, saying that an attack against a White person is worse than an attack on a Black person, or vice versa, when the simple fact is that it is an attack, and that is what should be addressed in the law, not an attempt to control someone's thoughts about the crime. Matthew Shepard was attacked because he was gay; Reginald Denny was attacked because he was White, and in the wrong place at the wrong time. We don't need laws to make it a criminal act to think in prejudicial ways, we need education that sadly, government can't provide, to reverse those thoughts. In short, the thinking of "we must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." is fallacious.



On a much more positive note, I'd ask your support of SB 107, HB 1143 and HB 1144, and that extreme caution be employed with HB 1086. SB 107 gives an employer an incentive to allow people to protect themselves by removing his liability for their lawful actions, while HB 1086, on the surface addresses punishing a crime, not just the mere possession of an object, but as presently written, does the latter. It should be narrowly constructed to require that the firearm be used in the commission of the crime to trigger (pardon the pun) the enhancement. Finally, HB 1143 expands the preemption put in place in 2011, (SB 292, for which you voted,) and removes the ability for state colleges and universities to discipline a student, staff member, or faculty member for the mere possession of an object on their grounds, and HB 1144 removes the necessity of a government-issued exemption(for a fee) to exercise a Constitutionally protected right. The origin of "permits" was to ensure that "the wrong people" (usually Blacks or Irish or any other group the local police wanted to control) could not lawfully be armed. It's entirely racist, and doesn't belong in our law. It currently discriminates against the poor, as the single mother who feels she is at risk already has to scrape together enough money for the gun itself and the ammo now has to pay for the privilege of being allowed to carry that item with her. I urge the repeal of this law.



Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to discuss these with you in greater detail, if you wish. The favor of a non-form letter response is requested.


Again, blessings and good wishes for a safe, productive legislative session.

 

[firecadet613]

Thanks for posting that. Do you send it to your legislators that may have just received a letter from you?

 

[AndersonIN]

Just completed! Thx

 

[brotherbill3]

Don't miss SB 215 and SB 224 - virtually the same subject, so I'm sure 1 dies easily. They go to the same committee too.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think I've seen this one mentioned or discussed:

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/366#

Senate Bill 366

DIGEST

Prohibits a personal lines property or casualty insurer from taking certain actions in connection with the ownership, possession, or use of a firearm by an insurance applicant, insured, or household member.

 

[draketungsten]

Check out SB 433, repeal of "the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun." I don't actually expect it to pass or make it past committee, but it's out there.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Check out SB 433, repeal of "the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun." I don't actually expect it to pass or make it past committee, but it's out there.

With Arnold and Taylor both on board, this one actually may gain some traction.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Here's a compilation of the house bills.

We need to kill HB 1029 and I heard that Gutwein is pulling the bill but we need to stay on him and your rep on this one.

HB 1144 is Constitutional carry but we must have an amendment to address reciprocity.

I'm particularly enamored with 1244, the "middle finger to the Mommies Who Need Some Action bill" as I call it. Have a read!

STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
HOUSE BILL No. 1029
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 9-24; IC 10-11-2-34; IC 35-47-2-3.
Synopsis: BMV documentation indicating a handgun license. Provides that an individual
must indicate on an application for or a renewal of a driver's license, permit, or
identification card whether the individual possesses a handgun license (license). Requires
the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) to verify whether the individual has a license by
contacting the superintendent of the state police department. Requires the bureau to place
a notation on the individual's driver's license, permit, or identification card that indicates
that the individual possesses a license. Makes a technical correction.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Gutwein
January 6, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Roads and Transportation.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1107
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 35-47-2.
Synopsis: Handgun training and reciprocity license. Provides that a person who: (1) is at
least 21 years of age; and (2) successfully completes a handgun safety and training
course that meets certain requirements; may have the superintendent of state police place
an identifying symbol on the face of the person's four year Indiana handgun license that
the person may refer to in attempting to qualify for a firearms reciprocity license issued by
another state or a political subdivision of another state. Requires the superintendent of
state police to retain a copy of the person's handgun safety and training course certificate
of completion for at least four years.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Burton
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1143
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 35-31.5-2; IC 35-47.
Synopsis: 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, 2015, any rules or policies enacted or undertaken by a state agency
1 of 3
STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
before, on, or after June 30, 2015, 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.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, Eberhart, VanNatter
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1144
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 5-2-1-9; IC 5-2-8-2; IC 10-13-3-40;
IC 11-9-2-4; IC 11-13-1-3.5; IC 14-16-1-23; IC 21-17-5-6;
IC 21-39-4-7; IC 31-30-1-4; IC 35-33-1-1; IC 35-47; IC 35-50-2-13.
Synopsis: Handgun license repeal. Repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a
license to carry a handgun in Indiana. Makes conforming amendments.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, Judy, VanNatter, Ober
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1244
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 34-24-5; IC 34-30-20.5.
Synopsis: Firearms on business premises. Permits a person to bring an action for
damages against a business entity having a policy of barring possession of a firearm on
the entity's property, if: (1) the person suffers a loss due to criminal activity on the entity's
property; and (2) the loss could have been avoided or reduced if the business entity did
not prohibit possession of a firearm on its property. Provides that a person who does not
prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the
person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the
scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on
the person's failure to adopt such a policy.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, VanNatter
January 13, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1494
2 of 3
STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 25-1-9; IC 34-28-8.1.
Synopsis: Firearm ownership and medical records. Prohibits a practitioner or medical
records custodian from disclosing certain information relating to a patient's ownership of a
firearm. Prohibits a political subdivision or the board regulating a practitioner from
requiring the practitioner to: (1) inquire whether a patient owns a firearm; (2) document in a
patient's medical record whether the patient owns a firearm; or (3) notify any governmental
entity of the patient's identification solely on the basis of the patient's ownership of a
firearm.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Judy, Lucas, VanNatter, Morris
January 14, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN

 

[dansgotguns]

Jim lucas said on one of his Facebook posts that his bills aren't going to get heard

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just a reminder:

IMAGC's initial review of this is below

Right now it is STUCK in the House Public Policy Committee waiting on a hearing.

Contact Rep Dermody 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9850 -- h20@iga.in.gov --
HE ALONE controls the fate of this (and HB 1144, HB 1244 and HB 1494)

Dermody needs to FEEL THE HEAT on this. If you're on FB - go like and share so others know to call / e-mail.
If you are not - but have other venues - share it there.
And let the committee members and your own representatives know to support it too.

And then kindly some where make sure that you let people know you've sent stuff or called.
Or I'll have to get on people again.

The only way any of these get heard is if we stand our our boxes 1 and 2 - (mail and soap) ...

LINK TO THE POST:
https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/748318601926704


POST:
-----------------------------------------------

2015 IGA – HB 1143 Possession of Firearms on State Property. ‪#‎CampusCarry‬ ‪#‎SCC‬ ‪#‎2A‬ ‪#‎ConstitutionalCarry‬

We need EVERYONE on board to CALL / E-mail Rep. Dermody on this to request a hearing.

One of the Premier Bills this session is HB 1143, authored by Representatives Lucas, Eberhart and VanNatter. This is a short bill with only 4 sections within the proposed legislation and it is very straight forward. Section 1, 2 and 3 add/expand 3 definitions to the appropriate sections of the IC to completely define the parameters of the proposal. Section 4 of the legislation adds a new chapter: IC-35-47-17, which contains 8 sections. Overall it is very straight forward.

The digest summary describes the additions very well. It 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. There are exceptions included: This does not apply to areas prohibited by State (or Federal) law. This bill only applies to people who are legal residents; those who may legally possess a firearm under the IC; and those who have been adversely affected. The legislation VOIDS, as of July 1, 2015, any RULES or POLICIES enacted or undertaken by a state agency before, on, or after June 30, 2015, concerning possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the state. The final section 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.

What this means is, if you are legally allowed to possess, or carry, a firearm, agencies, such as state universities – would no longer be able to prohibit you from having a firearm on their property. This is very significant. State Law does not outlaw possession on college campuses. However, most colleges have ‘rules’ which prohibit college students (who are adults! NOT children) from having the option to carry or store a firearm on campus, for legal purposes. While not a crime in Indiana – to do so and get caught would mean expulsion and probably end an educational and professional career. Similarly, employees are generally prohibited from even possessing a firearm, even stored in a car, or risk being fired.

A little over 20 to 25 years ago this was not an issue. Then “Gun Free Zones” (GFZ or as I prefer: “Criminal Protection Zones”) were created all over, including at colleges and university by ‘progressive-liberal’ college administrators. We see time and again, most recently in Florida, incidents where armed criminals can injure and kill with no fear from those who cannot defend themselves. I point out the Florida incident, because among those present were an Army Combat Vet and a student member of Florida Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) (who was injured but still warned others). Both of these, had they been armed, had a clear shot to end the attack sooner. Instead these GFZ policies left them defenseless. It is yet another clear case of the failure of a GFZ to protect people. (See Press Release Link)

Ending these policies is a priority for any who have been, or will be in the future attending a college. As adults, we are each responsible for our own self-protection. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not liable or responsible to protect any individual citizen. The State Supreme Court in Virginia ruled similarly that the VA Tech University is not responsible to provide protection, nor liable for failure to protect from violence of ‘third parties’. This was in response to a case from the parents of some of the victims of the mass killing there in 2007.

This incident was a direct reason for the formation SCC, a group we readily try to support. (Links to SCC groups below)

In order to get this legislation passed – we again need to CALL and E-MAIL Rep. Dermody (h20@iga.in.gov phone: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9850) to POLITELY but FIRMLY state our support and request a hearing be granted to this legislation. This is URGENT. We have only a few weeks to get this accomplished. We need a major grass roots push – because when the hearing comes – the minion moms of Mayor Bloomberg will be sure to work to oppose it as well.

Once you have called and/or e-mailed Rep. Dermody, send a similar message to the members of the Public Policy Committee and your own representative urging them to ask for a hearing and to support this. Then, PLEASE SHARE the message with others (by liking, commenting, share, or by cut and paste to other venues). We’d love to get 1,337 or more comments of “Done”, “E-mail Sent” or “Call Made”.

The links to the information supporting this bill are below.

Thank you!!!!

--- BB3

HB 1143: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1143
Committee Membership: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/committees/public_policy_1600
FS SCC Press Release: https://www.facebook.com/Florida.SCC/posts/723176044432489

Student for Campus Carry: Students for Concealed Carry ? Advocating for the Right to Self-Defense on Campus
https://www.facebook.com/ConcealedCampus
ISU SCC: https://www.facebook.com/StudentsForConcealedCarryAtIsu
Ball State SCC: https://www.facebook.com/ConcealCarryBSU
IUPUI SCC: https://www.facebook.com/SCCCatIUPUI
Indiana SCC: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Indiana-Students-for-Concealed-Carry/248792705216596
Purdue SCC: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Students-for-Concealed-Carry-at-Purdue-University/363551473743286

 

[tfarrell]

I believe HB1029 is dead. I don't think it was going anywhere anyway. HB1029 violates HB1068 (already law) that prohibits Indiana Gun Owner's info from going public.