Good gun bills

[John Galt]

HB1143, HB1144 & HB1244 will not be getting a hearing in the Public Policy Committee this year.

 

[SteveM4A1]

surprise surprise...oh wait

 

[Rookie]

So much for the "A" rating.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I just got this email from Brent Steele.

GFGT,

Thank you for taking the time to write. I am the author of SB 107 (civil liability) and I am a co-author of SB 433. I have told Senator Tomes that I will be hearing his SB 433 (SBS) and I'm leaning towards also hearing SB 107 as well.

Thank you so much for being involved and for your support of our 2nd amendment rights

Brent

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From our friends a IMAGC (for those that don't Facebook)

This will hit IMAGC later tonight (sorry if the link doesn't work to the FB post):

If any of you NFA / Legal type see anything off that needs to be corrected (substantially inaccurate) Let me know here.
other wise it is in review and posts about 9 pm ...

LINK https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/753790738046157


The post and 1st comment:

IGA Legislation Update – SB 433 Shotguns – Hearing Wed Jan 28 – #NRA #GOA #NFA - Senate Judiciary Comm. at 9 AM.

SB 433 “Shotguns” is another piece of legislation we support. This bill was introduced with a great deal of support within the Senate. There are 3 republic senators listed as author, and another 9 as co-authors; PLUS – Senator J. Arnold, District 8, a democrat, who is well versed and supportive of your Article 1, Section 32 and Second Amendment rights.

The Digest (and legislation) using (IMO) very poor, and biased terminology, reads:
DIGEST
Repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun. Provides for a 10 year sentence enhancement if a person possesses a sawed-off shotgun in violation of federal law while committing certain offenses. Makes conforming amendments.

The term “Sawed Off Shotgun” (SOS) clearly carries with it a “criminal” connotation and an “intimidating” sounding proposition. A more correct term is a “Short Barreled Shotgun” (or SBS); though reviewing the legislation – SOS is used. (This is definitely an item to include in your letters to have corrected!!)

The current rules in Indiana are that a shotgun must have a minimum 18” barrel; and a minimum overall length of 26” and cannot be ‘cut down’ or swap the stock on the receiver to shorten the gun below 26” overall**. The National Firearms Act, 1934 (NFA, federal law) allows SBSs in states that allow them – with the appropriate NFA background checks and obtaining a Federal Tax Stamp. Currently, Indiana does not currently recognize one’s right to possess a SBS, even under the NFA restrictions; but does allow a variety of other NFA types, including suppressors, SB Rifles (SBR), and even some fully automatic machine guns.

I am not “well enough invested” (financially, myself) – to have good understanding of all of the aspects of the NFA; the issues with it are well beyond my financial means. Until this law’s onerous restrictions are lifted; I probably will not pursue much in the way of NFA items for myself. We do support your rights on this however. There are clearly cases where an SBS would be a useful tool to have.**

The legislation is simple enough to explain. There are 5 sections:
Section 1: Strikes code referencing SBS prohibitions
Section 2: Defines what an SOS is; (Note: we would like to see this revises to SBS)
Sections 3 and 4: Strikes prior SOS definition; and code section prohibiting possession, sale, manufacture or transfer of SOS (SBS).
Section 5: Enhancement for (some) crimes committed while in possession of an SBS.

We support this legislation as it is very straight forward, and a good step towards restoring a bit of the freedom that has been usurped by the Government over the years. One little step at time.

Calls and e-mail to support this legislation need to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee, to get the passed to the full Senate. While you are busy writing, sending and calling the Senate Judiciary Committee, please remember to send / contact (or re-send / re-contact) Speaker Bosma and Rep. Dermody – to ask that the legislation currently being held in the House Public Policy Committee receive a hearing so that it can be passed out to the entire State House for a vote. We are running out of time on this!!! So we hope you are ALL continuing to apply pressure, and also getting others to send e-mail or call about these measures. Note this list of legislation includes HB 1143, and HB 1144, which are the 2 strongest bills this session, along with 5 others.

I will include a sample letter with my next post for any of you to start from; and send to the senate committee on SB 433. Please see the links below for the full language of SB 433, a link to the committee members, and our last post the house legislation.

And then please like, comment and share! We still have a few weeks to get all of this through. There are now over 20 firearms related bills that have been proposed through last week, (by the close of the submittal period); and in the House PP committee there are 38 bills proposed, 7 are “arms” related; while 14 are alcohol related.

Thanks for your continued support; Please let us know how we are doing!

--- BB3

Link to SB 433: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/433

Link to Senate Judiciary Committee:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/committees/judiciary_4200

Link to last post on HB 1143 / HB 1144:
https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/750307608394470



Add via Comments:

** Current Code reads:
SECTION 3. IC 35-47-1-10
Sec. 10. "Sawed-off shotgun" means:
… (1) a shotgun having one (1) or more barrels less than eighteen (18) inches in length; and
… (2) any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if … … the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.



** SCOTUS Ruling on the 1930’s SOS case – NOTE From memory of reading about this – The ruling was without information on the US military using the SOS / SBS during WWI; knowledge which is indicated in later reviews that might have turned the case to a different conclusion. (Link: United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I would add that, IMO, there are a great number of ‘irregularities with this case.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The ruling was without information on the US military using the SOS / SBS during WWI; knowledge which is indicated in later reviews that might have turned the case to a different conclusion. (Link: United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I would add that, IMO, there are a great number of ‘irregularities with this case.

The dude does not know the half of it.

 

[brotherbill3]

The dude does not know the half of it.

HEY. IANAL. I and this it written for sheep of the TV IDOL Deflate gate that are waking up. gimme a break. I do the best I can. Fill in the gaps for us.
start a thread.

Also somebody Rep GFGT - cause I cannot. I can't get over here as often as I'd like and he's trying to help keep you guys informed of IMAGC's work to inform more of the masses. "outside" of just this community.

THANKS GFGT.!!!!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

HEY. IANAL. I and this it written for sheep of the TV IDOL Deflate gate that are waking up. gimme a break. I do the best I can. Fill in the gaps for us.
start a thread.

Also somebody Rep GFGT - cause I cannot. I can't get over here as often as I'd like and he's trying to help keep you guys informed of IMAGC's work to inform more of the masses. "outside" of just this community.

THANKS GFGT.!!!!

You're welcome! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help...And a rep to you for doing what you do!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From our friends at IMAGC. If you haven't written or called Bosma/Demody/Your Rep, please do.

POST LINK to IMAGC latest w/ sample letter: https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/758798937545337

POST:

Feb 4 Draft Letter – IGA House Public Policy Comm. #NRA #GOA #SCC #CampusCarry #ConstitutionalCarry #2A


I sent (more or less) the sample letter below to Speaker Bosma and Representative Dermody, Chair of the House Public Policy Committee. Rep. Dermody is the key, but the most prevalent influence over his decision on what to hear within the House, would be the speaker.
Speaker Bosma: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9677 -- h88@iga.in.gov --
Rep Dermody: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9850 -- h20@iga.in.gov --

Time is nearly out; there are only 2 more weeks to get a hearing, and next week’s agenda has already been posted (and it is noted in the letter). We encourage you to voice your support for these bills; and to do so strongly, we also ask that you remain polite and on fact with the legislators and their staff members.

On a footnote from last evenings post: SB 433 “Shotguns” – did pass the senate with a vote of 44 to 6. It now moves to the House; and likely to the Public Policy Committee. Thus are need to continue to voice our cause there.

Thank you all for the support, and continued calls to legislators. Please continue to Like, Comment and Share our posts. You’re grass roots action is our greatest strength.

--- BB3


Sample Letter:


Mr. Dermody and Speaker Bosma,

I am writing again in support of and to urge your support of HB 1143, HB 1144, and the other 5 bills which protect and strengthen Hoosier's rights with regards to arms, and which are stuck waiting a hearing in the house Public Policy Committee.

I have read Mr. Dermody’s comments on his reasoning for not granting any of these matters a hearing in an article published by “Campus Reform” (link following signature); I have also heard similar statements via other on-line sources. In the article, Mr. Dermody is quoted stating that he was focusing on legislation from the summer interim study session and those with a “significant fiscal impact”. “Gaming” is the noted objective of the summer study session, yet only 1 of the 9 bills that have been or are on the schedule agenda through February 11, 2015 are related to this subject. The other 8 bills are all related to the sale of alcohol. A similar check on “fiscal impact”, by reviewing the fiscal impact statements filed with each bill on-line, shows that most of these are very limited to their anticipated fiscal impact.

Per my reading of these statements, the “net” impact fiscally, the balance between revenue and expenditures, for the state for most of the bills is that they will not generally provide a significant increase in revenue to a greater degree than the increase in expenditures to properly administer the changes. In several cases, the net gain in revenue is due to fines and violations. One would hope that “ideally” – there are no fines or violations, while knowing that some fines are going to occur. It seems that basing the state budgetary numbers on the estimate of fines and violations is inconsistent with the idea that most citizens are law abiding and it is also a bit like gaming, since this is not guaranteed income; unless the plan is to make everyone a criminal.

The political double-speak is the only “Gaming” I see occurring here, by not hearing HB 1143, in particular, or HB 1144 or the any of the other arms related measures. Your decision forces people to continue to gamble between their safety, their education and their career. What risk do they choose: the risk to go unarmed or the risk to end their career or education? We have seen repeatedly, that criminals will violate these policies; and even laws which limit ONLY the ability of the law abiding citizen to provide for their own safety. Safety, which is not the responsibility or liability of the state or the state agency to provide; as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States and other State’s in their jurisdictions.

HB 1143 should be nearly revenue neutral, provided policies are promptly changed, and enforced according to the state law. HB 1144 could cause some revenue loss to the state budget; yet I would ask: What other right protected by the Constitutions of both Indiana and the United States, must be purchased from the state to be exercised.

By not hearing these or any other legislation relating to arms, you almost appear afraid to lead and prepare for hard issues. To say that this legislation has not been vetted is also a poor excuse; it is nearly identical to legislation introduced several times over the last several years, both by Mr. Lucas, and by others before he began to serve.

There are 38 bills before this committee, 14 of which are alcohol bills; 11 of which are gaming; and 7 are related to arms. Yet of the 9 bills scheduled or heard thus far, 8 are related to minor revisions to the sales of alcohol. Please end the political gamesmanship and double talk. I urge you again to grant one of these measures, in particular HB 1143 and/or HB 1144, a hearing in the House Public Policy Committee before this session ends.

Thank you for your time and service to our great state.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR TOWN, INDIANA
Concerned Citizen;
Supporter of Indiana Moms Against Gun Control

Link to Campus Reform Article: Lawmaker wants to fight campus sexual assault with concealed carry