2019 Legislative Session Thread

[2A_Tom]

A Tommy Gun reminds me of a Saint Bernard: really cool but very expensive to feed.

Please, be careful what you say or you will be called a Fudd because you do not care about machine gun rights.

Purpled that so you don't think I'm calling you a Fudd.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Please, be careful what you say or you will be called a Fudd because you do not care about machine gun rights.

Purpled that so you don't think I'm calling you a Fudd.

Thanks for the (positive) rep BF. I'm for repealing NFA of 1934, but I have a couple pump shotguns with wood furniture so I may get called a Fudd anyway.

 

[2A_Tom]

I actually do not have a firearm that is on anyone's "current" hit list. I am for repeal of the NFA '34, Hughes Amendment, and every other current infringement.

 

[brotherbill3]

I still can't rep youse guys ... but Agree whole heartedly ... KIA ... I will digest later ... I still want the legal beagles to clarify some - it seems like if you hand an MG to a person under 18 at a MG shoot - you'd be in violation ... I dunno - I gotta go l look again. THANK YOU FOR CHECKING! HUGE (proper engrish) thanks!

 

[brotherbill3]

nothing new added - but bills file by the deadline probably get introduced next week until Wednesday or Thursday.

 

[KellyinAvon]

No new activity on bills getting scheduled for committee hearings. I'll try to keep an eye out, a lot of wait and hurry up at the Statehouse.

 

[brotherbill3]

No new activity on bills getting scheduled for committee hearings. I'll try to keep an eye out, a lot of wait and hurry up at the Statehouse.

Isn't "Hurry Up and Wait" SOP for this?
Also - looking for listings and the IGA site is not loading properly.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Isn't "Hurry Up and Wait" SOP for this?
Also - looking for listings and the IGA site is not loading properly.

Hurry up and wait is .mil. Indiana General Assembly is wait and hurry up. Nothing new on the four committees to watch, The IGA site was acting weird earlier.
edit new bills on house side

 

[brotherbill3]

Our non-acute Senatorial friend is at it a bit more - Tack SB 468 to Mr. G.Taylor Esqueeegee

Senate Bill 468 - Universal background checks for firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session -

Oh - it is UBC's ... (with a huge fail) ... NOPE.

Universal background checks for firearms. Requires a person wishing to sell, trade, or transfer a firearm to another person to transact the sale, trade, or transfer through a firearms dealer (dealer). Specifies certain exemptions. Requires a dealer to complete the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm if the following conditions are met: (1) The dealer agrees to transact the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm. (2) The dealer is able to successfully contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). (3) The dealer receives authorization from NICS to complete the sale, trade, or transfer of the firearm. (4) The recipient of the firearm being sold, traded, or transferred: (A) is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law; and (B) is in compliance with all federal and state laws pertaining to the possession and transfer of certain firearms as defined under the National Firearms Act (NFA firearm), if applicable. Allows a dealer to refuse to transact the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm for any reason. Requires a dealer to abort the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm when: (1) the seller of a firearm; (2) the intended recipient of a firearm; or (3) both; are not eligible to possess a firearm or an NFA firearm, as applicable. Requires a dealer to abort the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm if the firearm to be sold, traded, or transferred is: (1) reported lost; (2) reported stolen; or (3) used in the commission of a crime. Provides that a dealer is not required to return payment issued to the dealer for the dealer's role in transacting the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm in certain instances. Provides a dealer with immunity from civil liability and damages in certain instances. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally makes a materially false statement to a dealer for the purpose of completing the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm commits firearms transfer fraud, a Level 6 felony. Enhances the offense to a Level 5 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense. Provides that a dealer who transacts the sale, trade, or transfer of a firearm in violation of certain requirements commits unlawful transfer of a firearm, a Level 6 felony. Provides that the offense is a Level 5 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense. Specifies certain defenses. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments.

 

[KellyinAvon]

OK, SB 493: Employer firearms polices. Authored by Jon Ford (R 38th District, NRA-ILA A)

Below is the synopsis, that's pretty much all of it. I'd like to say I'm on board, but it's really confusing. It seems like the whole "post-secondary educational institution" part need to be a separate paragraph or something.


Synopsis: Employer firearms policies. Provides that a person who: (1) discovers, as a result of an illegal entry into a motor vehicle owned or possessed by the person, that a firearm legally owned or possessed by the person was stolen from the motor vehicle; and (2) reports the theft of the firearm from the motor vehicle to a law enforcement agency; is immune from any adverse administrative sanction concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution in certain instances. Provides that a person is required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person did not knowingly or intentionally violate any administrative regulation or comparable prohibition concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution when raising the defense of immunity.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Our non-acute Senatorial friend is at it a bit more - Tack SB 468 to Mr. G.Taylor Esqueeegee

Senate Bill 468 - Universal background checks for firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session -

Oh - it is UBC's ... (with a huge fail) ... NOPE.

At least HB 1291 was short. This crap is unreadable. Dumps all kinds of stuff on the FFL, does absolutely nothing to stop criminals SINCE THEY DON'T GO THROUGH LAWFUL PROCESSES!! Another one to keep an eye out for in the Judiciary Committee.

Thanks Bill! Senator Obtuse is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[2A_Tom]

In 2003, the 1993 AWB was allowed to sunset. One of the reasons was that it was, is because the FBI reported that the AWB made no perceptible decrease in crime.


Long guns of all types, shotguns, single shot, lever actions and semi-auto rifles account for less than 3% of all murders in the United States. The use of "Modern" military "style" rifles (as opposed to Earlier "military style" rifles lever action, single shot, muzzle loading or even shot guns) in crime is not even recorded separately by the FBI because it is so minuscule.


I ask you to make this information that is readily available known to your fellow law makers in the Senate.


I am requesting a response and hope it is not a carefully worded noncommittal statement.


Thank you.

 

[KellyinAvon]

More drafts coming soon. Good thing the anti's mostly copy/paste, just change the bill #, or oppose all at once!

 

[brotherbill3]

OK, SB 493: Employer firearms polices. Authored by Jon Ford (R 38th District, NRA-ILA A)

Below is the synopsis, that's pretty much all of it. I'd like to say I'm on board, but it's really confusing. It seems like the whole "post-secondary educational institution" part need to be a separate paragraph or something.


Synopsis: Employer firearms policies. Provides that a person who: (1) discovers, as a result of an illegal entry into a motor vehicle owned or possessed by the person, that a firearm legally owned or possessed by the person was stolen from the motor vehicle; and (2) reports the theft of the firearm from the motor vehicle to a law enforcement agency; is immune from any adverse administrative sanction concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution in certain instances. Provides that a person is required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person did not knowingly or intentionally violate any administrative regulation or comparable prohibition concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution when raising the defense of immunity.

Good grief - I missed this - good catch.

 

[brotherbill3]

Gonna say - I like part - and dislike it more for the short comings.

OK, SB 493: Employer firearms polices. Authored by Jon Ford (R 38th District, NRA-ILA A)

Below is the synopsis, that's pretty much all of it. I'd like to say I'm on board, but it's really confusing. It seems like the whole "post-secondary educational institution" part need to be a separate paragraph or something.


Synopsis: Employer firearms policies. Provides that a person who: (1) discovers, as a result of an illegal entry into a motor vehicle owned or possessed by the person, that a firearm legally owned or possessed by the person was stolen from the motor vehicle; and (2) reports the theft of the firearm from the motor vehicle to a law enforcement agency; is immune from any adverse administrative sanction concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution in certain instances. Provides that a person is required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person did not knowingly or intentionally violate any administrative regulation or comparable prohibition concerning the possession of a firearm or ammunition on the property of an approved postsecondary educational institution when raising the defense of immunity.

This appears to apply to colleges ("post 2nd-ary") ... So if gun/ammo/related prohibited (by administration rules, not laws) stolen - you can report without sanctions (expulsion/ fired)

BUT

you must PROVE that you didn't "knowingly or intentionally" violate the 'admin rule'? WTF?

so you can report it but ONLY if you didn't carry it in the car "knowingly" or "intentionally" ...
exchange:
Boss: Your fired -
You: but the law protects me - cause I forgot that I carry the gun in there ("everyday") oops
Boss FIRED.

what?

 

[dangar]

Post-secondary

As someone that spends a good bit of time on the campus of a state educational institution, I would sure like some clarification added here...or remove the "post-secondary" language entirely.

Gonna say - I like part - and dislike it more for the short comings.



This appears to apply to colleges ("post 2nd-ary") ... So if gun/ammo/related prohibited (by administration rules, not laws) stolen - you can report without sanctions (expulsion/ fired)

BUT

you must PROVE that you didn't "knowingly or intentionally" violate the 'admin rule'? WTF?

so you can report it but ONLY if you didn't carry it in the car "knowingly" or "intentionally" ...
exchange:
Boss: Your fired -
You: but the law protects me - cause I forgot that I carry the gun in there ("everyday") oops
Boss FIRED.

what?

 

[dangar]

While I appreciate the effort, HB 1469 - Don't Tread on Me license plate doesn't do much for me if any of these anti-gun bills become law.

 

[KellyinAvon]

While I appreciate the effort, HB 1469 - Don't Tread on Me license plate doesn't do much for me if any of these anti-gun bills become law.

I missed that one, good eye Dangar. These would be the same cost as In God We Trust or those horrid covered bridge tags. No Step on Snek tag on the old truck, In God We Trust on my wife's CRV, USAF Veteran on my Civic, trifecta!!

Synopsis: Don't Tread on Me license plate. Establishes the Don't Tread on Me license plate (plate). Specifies that: (1) the plate must bear the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" and a depiction of a coiled snake; (2) the plate is not a special group recognition license plate; and (3) the cost for the plate is an annual registration fee for a vehicle of the same classification and any other fee or tax required of a person registering a vehicle.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Probably not my best work, but I managed to oppose four bills on unconstitutional storage requirements and support the Lucas/Smaltz Tax Credit for firearms safety expenses.

(Senator/Representative name here),
I’m writing to encourage your opposition to SB 309, HB 1040, HB 1048, and HB 1149: Storage of Firearms.
Under Indiana Code 35-47-10, dangerous control of a weapon and dangerous control of a child are both felonies. The bills in question go much further to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
Vague language such as “The person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm” is particularly concerning. If anyone under the age of 18 (by definition a child) is in the home the bills require firearms to be securely stored or made inoperable.
This type of requirement was the law in the District of Columbia prior to the landmark DC v Heller case in 2008. In the majority opinion it was found that such restrictions “would fail Constitutional muster”.
To encourage safe storage and handling of firearms without violating Supreme Court rulings, I’d recommend supporting HB 1109: Income tax credit for firearms safety expenses, authored by James Lucas and co-authored by Ben Smaltz.
HB 1109 provides a tax credit of $200 or $400 (depending on filing status) for purchase of storage devices and receiving training from NRA-certified instructors. This encourages safe handling and storage of firearms opposed to an unconstitutional mandate.
Your opposition to SB 309, HB 1040, HB 1048, HB 1149, and support of HB 1109 is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[MCgrease08]

Thanks Kelly. Taking this to send to my rep.