Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[MarkC]

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.

I might have some insights here, based on my experience working with the legislative process in a prior life, coupled with still having a friend or two over at the statehouse.

Rep. Austin's Amendment 3 would have removed the substantive provisions, and kicked the issue of persons protected by a protective order being permitted to carry a handgun without a LTCH for a limited 60 days to a summer study committee. So yes, it would have killed the bill for now.

As for Rep. Nisly's amendment, it was a backdoor effort to circumvent what was probably the decision of the caucus; that is, stuff the permitless carry provisions into this bill, contrary to the decision of the group. A long-standing House rule has a "bill pending" provision, holding that the provisions of another bill cannot be stuffed into a different bill, so Nisly's amendment was a no-go, and when he tried to challenge the ruling from the chair, no one was with him.

From my experience during the nine years that I did legislative work for a state agency, I learned that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. If often takes several sessions for a new or controversial concept to become law. For example, Sunday Sales keeps coming back, and it is creeping in by bits and pieces (growlers of craft beer for Sunday carryout, farm winery carryout sales, and now artisan distiller Sunday sales of hard liquor).

Keep building relationships and do not devolve into ugly behavior, be patient, but be persistent. Of course, also recognize that some members, such as Rep. C. Brown (D-the region) will never be on board.

 

[brotherbill3]

I might have some insights here, based on my experience working with the legislative process in a prior life, coupled with still having a friend or two over at the statehouse.

Rep. Austin's Amendment 3 would have removed the substantive provisions, and kicked the issue of persons protected by a protective order being permitted to carry a handgun without a LTCH for a limited 60 days to a summer study committee. So yes, it would have killed the bill for now.

As for Rep. Nisly's amendment, it was a backdoor effort to circumvent what was probably the decision of the caucus; that is, stuff the permitless carry provisions into this bill, contrary to the decision of the group. A long-standing House rule has a "bill pending" provision, holding that the provisions of another bill cannot be stuffed into a different bill, so Nisly's amendment was a no-go, and when he tried to challenge the ruling from the chair, no one was with him.

From my experience during the nine years that I did legislative work for a state agency, I learned that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. If often takes several sessions for a new or controversial concept to become law. For example, Sunday Sales keeps coming back, and it is creeping in by bits and pieces (growlers of craft beer for Sunday carryout, farm winery carryout sales, and now artisan distiller Sunday sales of hard liquor).

Keep building relationships and do not devolve into ugly behavior, be patient, but be persistent. Of course, also recognize that some members, such as Rep. C. Brown (D-the region) will never be on board.

This makes sense based on what I saw when I watched; - the only catch being - the contents of HB 1159 (constitutional permitless carry) that is the "other bill" that Nisely was trying to amend in - ARE a part of HB1071 as a summer study already. Hence our discussion of it in the CC thread. This was done by the committee and Jointly by the authors of both 1071 and 1159 in the committee session.

It will make a lot of folks supporting Constitutional Carry less happy; but we are still progressing to territory we've not been in for the prior 3 years of the proposal.

Thanks for the added insights.!!!

 

[MarkC]

This makes sense based on what I saw when I watched; - the only catch being - the contents of HB 1159 (constitutional permitless carry) that is the "other bill" that Nisely was trying to amend in - ARE a part of HB1071 as a summer study already. Hence our discussion of it in the CC thread. This was done by the committee and Jointly by the authors of both 1071 and 1159 in the committee session.

It will make a lot of folks supporting Constitutional Carry less happy; but we are still progressing to territory we've not been in for the prior 3 years of the proposal.

Thanks for the added insights.!!!

Ahhh, you're welcome, and thank you for the additional information about HB1071 Summer Study containing HB 1159's topics. I should have caught that, but didn't.

Study committees are where topics that are too much to handle in one session go to get more fully examined, or to cool down until they are palatable, and/or to get the program put into a form where enough folks can get on board. Constitutional permitless carry going to a study committee is actually a positive think, IMHO, as they did not just kill it outright, and they must feel that it a) has enough merit that it deserves a deeper look, or b) has enough popularity that they didn't kill it outright, or (likely) c), a little of both.

 

[John Galt]

Rep. Nisly's efforts, while seemingly directed at restoring Constitutional Carry language back into 1071, was nothing more than a dangerous PR stunt that could have upset years of work. By some miracle and had he become successful at his attempt, it would have essentially killed the summer study and the bill itself, as it would have been toxic and not have a strong foundation to work from. He did ZERO work behind the scenes by not talking to anyone, including the authors of 1159 and 1071, to garner support for his amendment before it was presented.
1071 gets heard today and should pass the House. This is VERY IMPORTANT, as 1159 was amended into 1071 and once it gets out of the House, it goes to the Senate where the original Constitutional Carry language of 1159 CAN BE AMENDED BACK INTO THE BILL on the Senate side. Even if that doesn't happen, it goes to summer study where the public, and police agencies, can be educated on the issue and gain momentum for next year. Bottom line is that we are closer than we've ever been and making substantial, behind the scenes progress and Nisly's little PR stunt could have been a serious setback.

 

[brotherbill3]

Ahhh, you're welcome, and thank you for the additional information about HB1071 Summer Study containing HB 1159's topics. I should have caught that, but didn't.

Study committees are where topics that are too much to handle in one session go to get more fully examined, or to cool down until they are palatable, and/or to get the program put into a form where enough folks can get on board. Constitutional permitless carry going to a study committee is actually a positive think, IMHO, as they did not just kill it outright, and they must feel that it a) has enough merit that it deserves a deeper look, or b) has enough popularity that they didn't kill it outright, or (likely) c), a little of both.

D - Both a and b - but not enough wide spread popular support or understanding to feel that it would be passed despite the super-majority and the (constitutionally correct) rabid attitudes of pro-gun supporters (in and out of the legislature) who are not in servant leadership positions. ... or something like that. whatever.

I'll probably be trampled but I'm not quitting pushing for it either. but when "pro-2A" areas are showing marginal support at best ... it means we have public and legislator (and LEO in this case) perception problem.

and if we're going to have rules - then we need to follow them - even when we don't like them. ...

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I have a friend who knows Brian Bosma personally. He will be speaking with him soon in an informal informational conversation. They know and respect one another. If anyone here would be willing to call my friend and speak with him on the subject of HB1159 contact me and I will give you his name and cell (by his permission). My friend is not a gun guy, but definitely a conservative thinker and proactive person. If he believes it's in the best interest of the citizens of Indiana he will champion that idea. However, he's not knowledgeable on HB1159 and it's true benefits to the common citizen. If you are a knowledgeable person on the subject and would like to talk to my friend, let me know. He needs all the information he can get.

 

[MarkC]

Rep. Nisly's efforts, while seemingly directed at restoring Constitutional Carry language back into 1071, was nothing more than a dangerous PR stunt that could have upset years of work. By some miracle and had he become successful at his attempt, it would have essentially killed the summer study and the bill itself, as it would have been toxic and not have a strong foundation to work from. He did ZERO work behind the scenes by not talking to anyone, including the authors of 1159 and 1071, to garner support for his amendment before it was presented.
1071 gets heard today and should pass the House. This is VERY IMPORTANT, as 1159 was amended into 1071 and once it gets out of the House, it goes to the Senate where the original Constitutional Carry language of 1159 CAN BE AMENDED BACK INTO THE BILL on the Senate side. Even if that doesn't happen, it goes to summer study where the public, and police agencies, can be educated on the issue and gain momentum for next year. Bottom line is that we are closer than we've ever been and making substantial, behind the scenes progress and Nisly's little PR stunt could have been a serious setback.

John Galt is spot on here, IMHO, especially with his assessment that Nisly's stunt could (and I think would) have been a serious setback.

Persistence and education are the keys here, I believe. Not an individual procedural stunt that lacked the support of even one other member of the House (i.e. no one would second Nisly's challenge to the Speaker's determination that his amendment was covered in another bill, and not appropriate to amend into an unrelated bill).

Also well-taken is his observation that another bite at the apple can come during Senate committee hearings.

Constitutional permitless carry may not happen during the session, but if not, it looks like there will be more opportunities during the interim.

 

[Spear Dane]

I have a friend who knows Brian Bosma personally. He will be speaking with him soon in an informal informational conversation. They know and respect one another. If anyone here would be willing to call my friend and speak with him on the subject of HB1159 contact me and I will give you his name and cell (by his permission). My friend is not a gun guy, but definitely a conservative thinker and proactive person. If he believes it's in the best interest of the citizens of Indiana he will champion that idea. However, he's not knowledgeable on HB1159 and it's true benefits to the common citizen. If you are a knowledgeable person on the subject and would like to talk to my friend, let me know. He needs all the information he can get.

I would suggest either Guy or Bill. Don't let just anyone get his number.

 

[brotherbill3]

I would suggest either Guy or Bill. Don't let just anyone get his number.

Not sure which Bill you mean (probably BoR) if you meant me -
1) Thanks, and 2) I would consider if neither of the other 2 (Guy or BoR) care too.
(1b) and if not sorry to make that leap)

However, the arguments to present should be just a viable and more convincing if they come from a known person.
Meaning JeremiahJohnson - could and would probably be able to articulate this well enough. ... ?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not sure which Bill you mean (probably BoR) if you meant me -
1) Thanks, and 2) I would consider if neither of the other 2 (Guy or BoR) care too.
(1b) and if not sorry to make that leap)

However, the arguments to present should be just a viable and more convincing if they come from a known person.
Meaning JeremiahJohnson - could and would probably be able to articulate this well enough. ... ?

I will be available, but feel I do not have the legal expertise to adequately present a convincing case. "Bill" has responded, Guy has been contacted, hope to get a couple more willing - those who have said expertise.

 

[Bill of Rights]

HB 1071 has passed the House!

 

[K_W]

HB 1071 has passed the House!

 

[87iroc]

 

[Spear Dane]

Not sure which Bill you mean (probably BoR) if you meant me -
1) Thanks, and 2) I would consider if neither of the other 2 (Guy or BoR) care too.
(1b) and if not sorry to make that leap)

However, the arguments to present should be just a viable and more convincing if they come from a known person.
Meaning JeremiahJohnson - could and would probably be able to articulate this well enough. ... ?

Sorry, yes I meant you, mainly because I figured out who you are and think you would be great at talking to people.

 

[cbhausen]

Here's the tally:

https://iga.in.gov/documents/e6275c7f

 

[trophyhunter]

Here's the tally:

https://iga.in.gov/documents/e6275c7f

Impressive numbers of support, that's really encouraging to see to a 72 to 26 majority with only 2 MIA!

 

[K_W]

I have to say though the 60-day stipulation kind of lessens the intent aof the bill, it should be good for the duration of the order of protection or until the license arrives.

I'm sure most of us remember a year or so ago when licenses were taking six months to process and arrive.

 

[brotherbill3]

I have to say though the 60-day stipulation kind of lessens the intent aof the bill, it should be good for the duration of the order of protection or until the license arrives.

I'm sure most of us remember a year or so ago when licenses were taking six months to process and arrive.

It's 60 days from issuance of the order; and this can be extended another 60 - IF - you have applied for the LTCH and are waiting on it - for the time periods in 1071.

 

[K_W]

It's 60 days from issuance of the order; and this can be extended another 60 - IF - you have applied for the LTCH and are waiting on it - for the time periods in 1071.

But again we know the process can sometimes take longer than 60 days, much longer.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Looks like NAGR has taken a side. And they've tagged Jim Lucas on their post.