Columbus registration.

[jblomenberg16]

Unlikely. The Republic and Johnson County Daily Journal are owned and operated by the same liberal anti-gun folks. If anything I'd look for an editorial praising hizzoner da mayor and the local CPD brainiacs for coming up with such a stupid idea.

They also own the Seymour Tribune, which has been anything but anti-gun. Not sure this is a situation where the newspaper is hiding it. I'd suspect the mayor's office may be intentionally down playing it, who by the way is a "Her".

 

[cagilber]

We could post this on the Mayor's Facebook page and see what kind of response we get....

 

[drysdaleg]

We could post this on the Mayor's Facebook page and see what kind of response we get....

I would like to see that.

On another note, I did email the "list." Does anyone plan on attending the meeting?

 

[cagilber]

Someone I work with shared the NRA-ILA news article and tagged the Mayor asking "is this really happening?"

 

[PUalum04]

There is a reference to Chief Maddix's "Leads Online Proposal" at the bottom of the January 21st Agenda. My brother is one of CPD's finest. I will be sure to ask him about it this evening.

January 2014 - City of Columbus Indiana

 

[dukeboy_318]

Emails sent to all on that list, phoned the mayors office. I cant make the meeting due to work.... anyone going?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The proposal was e-mailed to me 5 minutes ago, I am looking at it now. Will report back.

Proposal registers pawnbrokers, jewelers, valuable metal dealers, second-hand dealers, nothing about firearms.

In fact 9.10 specificially exempts firearms, ammunition and firearm accesories as defined by Indiana law.

I'm going to put this down and then re-read it, but I do NOT see what NRA-ILA sees. Perhaps I need to call Virginia?

 

[JTScribe]

From Mayor Brown's Facebook page:

Yesterday, the NRA issued an erroneous statement regarding our current proposed legislation for electronic pawnbroker reporting. We are very well aware of Indiana Code 35-47-11.1 and its restrictions on any local regulations of firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories.

To prevent any further confusion, we’ve included a clear exclusion for those items in our proposed ordinance: “Section 9.10 FIREARMS, AMMUNITION AND FIREARM ACCESSORIES EXCLUSION. The requirements and processes set forth above shall not in any way apply to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories as defined by Indiana law.”

From the way it reads it sounds to me like the exclusion was only recently added.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Have read it again.

NRA-ILA is chasing shadows. There is no threat here. Can't NRA-ILA like pick up the phone and call an Indiana lawyer before they start running around the conference room table every five frickin' minutes.

This does not help us at all.

 

[87iroc]

False alarm...wonder if it was 'amended' recently as someone suggested. Maybe thats why it was on the agenda a few weeks ago then dropped off...now its back with the Amendment added.

 

[Bennettjh]

Have read it again.

NRA-ILA is chasing shadows. There is no threat here. Can't NRA-ILA like pick up the phone and call an Indiana lawyer before they start running around the conference room table every five frickin' minutes.

This does not help us at all.

I agree. So the way I take it, somebody at NRA-ILA dreamed up that citizens would have to register guns because of this ordinance about pawn shops?

 

[JTScribe]

The fact that one of the council members replied to a member here and agreed with him makes me think that it was, indeed, edited to comply with the IC.

 

[HoughMade]

The fact that one of the council members replied to a member here and agreed with him makes me think that it was, indeed, edited to comply with the IC.

It makes me think that it was never aimed at firearms, specifically, to begin with.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So the way I take it, somebody at NRA-ILA dreamed up that citizens would have to register guns because of this ordinance about pawn shops?

Don't know, but 9.10 is at the every end of the ordinance so maybe it was inserted in by the City Attorney during a revision?

The ordinance defines firearms up front but they exempts firearms at the end.

It makes me think that it was never aimed at firearms, specifically, to begin with.

Yes, think you are right. Even without 9.10 there is nothing but a defintition about firearms.

Final word, safeties on and sling 'em, boys.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Kirk et al, thanks for reading and confirming the actual content. I'm not going to jump on the false alarm bandwagon fellas. We don't know the edit history. Plus, I'd much rather be proactive like this rather than find out about it the hard way after the fact.

 

[scootn103]

Maybe they are taking a play from Obama's playbook i.e. "executive orders".

I have a pen and if it's not what I want I can change it with my pen period .

 

[Bennettjh]

Kirk et al, thanks for reading and confirming the actual content. I'm not going to jump on the false alarm bandwagon fellas. We don't know the edit history. Plus, I'd much rather be proactive like this rather than find out about it the hard way after the fact.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ok, I have the ordinance in my e-mail as an attachment. How can I post it for you guys?

 

[singlesix]

Ok, I have the ordinance in my e-mail as an attachment. How can I post it for you guys?

convert to a jpeg and post as a picture.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It says it cannot open.