IndyBeerman
Was a real life Beerman.....
We'll see when they start broadcasting... which should have been ten minutes ago.
Blessings,
Bill
Which room?
We'll see when they start broadcasting... which should have been ten minutes ago.
Blessings,
Bill
Oops. My error. House [strike]is up now[/strike], main House chamber (They were. Now they're in recess till 1030.)Which room?
a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the state, a political subdivision, or any other person may not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during:
(1) a disaster emergency;
(2) an energy emergency; or
(3) a local disaster emergency;
declared under this chapter.
(b) Subsection (a) does not authorize the possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency described in subsection (a):
.
.
(7) at a person's residence; or (?)
.
.
BoR got it before , just deleted my response.
What am I missing here????
This seems very strange.
I just hope it will be interpreted that way.
Emphasis mine, obviously, but directly stated:IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
The point is moot where Lilly is concerned. The bill specifically exempts them from the law. Lilly employees will not be allowed to carry their firearms if this passes.Notice the CEO of Lilly chimed in on this Bill in the Star.
He's anti of course.
The bill excludes employees at schools, universities, jails and prisons, domestic violence shelters and child care centers. Also exempted during the final negotiations are investor-owned utilities, chemical facilities that are covered by federal Department of Homeland Security regulations, nuclear facilities and employees who use their personal vehicles to drive patients at centers for the developmentally disabled.
The exception for the chemical facilities means that employees of Eli Lilly and Co. and Roche Diagnostics are not covered in the bill.
To be clear, this bill does not address carry at all, only possession in one's locked vehicle.The point is moot where Lilly is concerned. The bill specifically exempts them from the law. Lilly employees will not be allowed to carry their firearms if this passes.
From The Star
I'm pretty sure we all know what the bill's about by now. They won't be allowed to carry it in their vehicle. Better?To be clear, this bill does not address carry at all, only possession in one's locked vehicle.
Vote today on Indiana gun-at-work bill | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
Bill is worthless to me now, my company has been "excluded"....
The point is moot where Lilly is concerned. The bill specifically exempts them from the law. Lilly employees [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] may still not be allowed to carry their firearms if this passes.
(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal
HB 1065 just cleared it's last hurdle in the Senate.
I have not heard it clear the House, but I was watching the Senate feed.
Where is this feed of which you speak?