Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[KellyinAvon]

I think what Kirk is pointing out is that the law is:



And as such, the change to Constitutional Carry would make no difference.
The person committing the criminal act of taking another's property by use or threat of force is committing a crime. If he is armed, there is an increase in the severity of the crime.

I know that when a parent brings a small child to the ED with a fever, some of my co-workers over the years have been known to roll their eyes, thinking or saying, "why didn't they give some tylenol or motrin?" or "why is the child still wearing fleece pajamas with feet!?" They forget that what to us is commonplace and routine because we deal with it all the time, is to that parent an emergency (and at times, it *does* mean that a little more will be done, such as testing for and treating infections, but much of that, other than the urgent issue of "well he has a high fever right now!" can be addressed in the doctor's office, and the fever can usually be handled at home, by the same means we're going to use: get them out of that warm sleeper that's keeping heat in and give them tylenol and motrin.) What does this paragraph have to do with the subject? Simple:

I think that sometimes, things which we know well, we forget that others may not. Kirk knows the law and knows it very well. He may sometimes discuss things here in a tone that pre-supposes that the rest of us share that familiarity with it. That's not a failing, and it's one reason that Kirk is high on my short list of people to call if I do ever need someone who knows the law that intimately. It can be a little frustrating to talk with people who, when you're looking for an explanation of something specific, sound like they're speaking in riddles when they're actually just giving you credit for knowing what they know.

Kelly, if I understand the original question, your son was asking based on the belief that "robbery" and "armed robbery" were two different sections of the IC, but they are not. The CWOL would not be chargeable, as it would no longer be a criminal act is all. It's still a crime to rob, and it is worse in the eyes of the law to do so while in possession of a deadly weapon.

I hope that helps, both with the original question and with Kirk's question ("Why would it?") as well.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for the info Bill. While we're going down the CC road we will catch questions that will make us say, hhmmmm. "Can felons carry guns now?" That's an easy one, "not legally".

 

[KellyinAvon]

In the gallery on the fourth floor. All kinds of noisy stuff going on downstairs

 

[KellyinAvon]

I see old Charlie Brown, if I ever shook hands with him I'd count my fingers afterwards. The only reason he got an NRA F grade is there is not a G

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can't be there today, but I'm watching online. And yes, Rep. Brown is... not a nice person. I predict he votes against 1250.

Edit: He did, as he said he would. For those who were not there, Rep. Brown said in committee that he would vote against any bill that expanded lawful access to guns.

Oddly, I don't remember a single effective thing he's done that limits criminal access to guns.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cbhausen]

I can't be there today, but I'm watching online. And yes, Rep. Brown is... not a nice person. I predict he votes against 1250.

So did Rep. Lucas! Hardcore, man... hardcore. Remember what I said about opposing 1250 on principle? Lucas did just that.

Permalink #48 here for my opposition:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ublic-policy-hearing-2-7-3-firearm-hbs-2.html

 

[d.kaufman]

Unfortunately the ahole Charlie Brown is my local representative. There is no getting thru to him and once again, unfortunately the people around here keep reelecting him to office!

 

[Spear Dane]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Unfortunately the ahole Charlie Brown is my local representative. There is no getting thru to him and once again, unfortunately the people around here keep reelecting him to office!

Speaking of the leadership of the small town in Texas in which he lived, my grandfather, rest his soul, was heard to say "What this town needs is a few good funerals." He never made a single comment of which I'm aware indicating that he wished to cause those funerals to happen, only that they would be beneficial to the community.

I'll take a step farther back even from that. I don't want anyone to cause it, but were some event of nature to bring about the need for some of the funerals that I think would benefit certain areas of the state, I would not be saddened by them.

A recommendation, however, for whoever eventually has to process Mr. Brown's body:
Give him an enema, and you'll be able to bury what's left of him afterward in a matchbox.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Spear Dane]

.

 

[Spear Dane]

Unfortunately the ahole Charlie Brown is my local representative. There is no getting thru to him and once again, unfortunately the people around here keep reelecting him to office!

He's so old fate could cause him to involuntarily retire at any given moment. But what good would that do? They will elect someone else just like him.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I dunno Kirk, out of the three of us (me and my 2 sons) there's an MBA, a pre-Pharm major and a Computer Engineering major. No lawyers were in the car. I think it was from a standpoint of robbery vice armed robbery and the chance of pile-on charges (maintaining a common nuisance anyone?) even though possessing a firearms had anything to do with a crime.

I think we are overthinking it. There will be changes to other criminal statutes if Indiana eliminates the Larry requirement.

 

[JTScribe]

Didn't see this posted:

https://soundcloud.com/93wibc/2-18-17-gun-guy-hr-1

https://soundcloud.com/93wibc/2-18-17-gun-guy-hr-2

First time listening. Guy sounds much less like John Wayne than I expected.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What's going on, guys? The screen says the House reconvenes at 1545, and it's now 1630.

I gotta get ready for work soon, so I won't see the debate live, but I'll watch the replay, whenever it shows up on the site.

 

[T.Lex]

So did Rep. Lucas! Hardcore, man... hardcore. Remember what I said about opposing 1250 on principle? Lucas did just that.

I'm confused - why did Jim Lucas vote against 1250? That it doesn't go far enough?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think we are overthinking it. There will be changes to other criminal statutes if Indiana eliminates the Larry requirement.

I'm going back to under thinking things. I don't get as much of a headache that way.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm confused - why did Jim Lucas vote against 1250? That it doesn't go far enough?

Jim Lucas and Charlie brown voted the same way on a gun bill. I checked weather Channel. They didn't say anything about hell freezing over. It could be a procedural thing, since he voted no he gets to do something else later. Or maybe he knew it was passing and it was a statement on Constitutional carry.

 

[cbhausen]

I watched the session until they gaveled it to a close tonight. I don't quite understand what happened with HB 1071. I guess it goes to a third reading now? Could someone who knows how to make sausage please explain? And what's up with the showmanship before the vote? And yes, they were late getting started again after the afternoon recess. KellyinAvon and I had to leave when they recessed mid-afternoon.

 

[brotherbill3]

under a major deadline ... so I missed this - try to check back later for an update.

As to Mr. C.Brown - and you can delete it if you want later (any of the mod's) - but he always makes me think of the Coasters ...

[video=youtube_share;_UnPzp2lmNk]http://youtu.be/_UnPzp2lmNk[/video]

 

[brotherbill3]

I watched the session until they gaveled it to a close tonight. I don't quite understand what happened with HB 1071. I guess it goes to a third reading now? Could someone who knows how to make sausage please explain? And what's up with the showmanship before the vote? And yes, they were late getting started again after the afternoon recess. KellyinAvon and I had to leave when they recessed mid-afternoon.

Can't answer all the questions - but I can explain what happened w/ 1071 ...

2nd reading is time for amendments and disucssion on these on the floor ...

Amd 3 - was Austin's attempt to kill this (despite what her words were ) ... and it was voted down.

Amd 8 - -Nisely's ammend - was essentially to make this HB 1159 - and it was over-ruled as this is a bill that is up for hearing yet. apparently that makes it ineligible ... here ... there was discussion about that before it was ruled ineligbile - like a review from the box.

W/ no amendments passing - it was ordered engrossed and on to 3rd hearing as it stands.

Probably tomorrow - possibly Wednesday for 3rd reading and vote ... to move on to senate ...

 

[cbhausen]

Can't answer all the questions - but I can explain what happened w/ 1071 ...

2nd reading is time for amendments and disucssion on these on the floor ...

Amd 3 - was Austin's attempt to kill this (despite what her words were ) ... and it was voted down.

Amd 8 - -Nisely's ammend - was essentially to make this HB 1159 - and it was over-ruled as this is a bill that is up for hearing yet. apparently that makes it ineligible ... here ... there was discussion about that before it was ruled ineligbile - like a review from the box.

W/ no amendments passing - it was ordered engrossed and on to 3rd hearing as it stands.

Probably tomorrow - possibly Wednesday for 3rd reading and vote ... to move on to senate ...

Thanks for the explanation, the proceedings make sense now.