Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Spear Dane]

Well I'm confused. That does not sound like what happened according to what I read here.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Well I'm confused. That does not sound like what happened according to what I read here.

Here's Kelly's take: Nisly's amendment was a no-go from the start because it changed HB 1071 into Constitutional Carry. That was not really amending the bill so you can't do that.

I'm all-in for CC. It shouldn't be this hard since as Guy pointed out on his show last Saturday several of the CC states aren't as pro-gun as Indiana. We're fighting up-hill against the antis as well as the "Fudds and Butters" (GodFearinGunTotin, 2017) and we must work within the system we have. The system sucks but it's what we've got.

This is not a sprint, it's a marathon. New Hampshire (CC #13) didn't just start down this road, they've been at it since 2011.

 

[goldtrigger]

Looks like HoosierCarry has a similiar take as NAGR. Got this in an email tonight:

[FONT=&quot]Gun owners constantly ask what the chances are that Indiana will pass Constitutional Carry.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The answer has always been: We have to get a recorded vote to know; there will be self-proclaimed "pro gun" legislators who oppose it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yesterday the Honorable Representative Curt Nisly tried to get that vote by offering an amendment to HB 1071 that would exempted all persons over the age of 18, not barred from possessing a firearm under state or federal law, from having to get permis[/FONT][FONT=&quot]sion from the state to carry a firearm to defend themselves and their families.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This was the critical vote that gun owners in Indiana both needed and deserved this year.[/FONT]

But thanks to Michael Bloomberg's newest best friend, Rep. Jerry Torr, that vote didn't happen. Rather than support the Second Amendment Jerry Torr chose to help kill this important pro-gun legislation by motioning to stop Curt Nisly's amendment.

[FONT=&quot]Of course Speaker Brian Bosma ruled against Rep. Curt Nisly, but Rep. Nisly stood his ground and appealed the decision of the chair.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rep. Curt Nisly needed a "second" from one of his colleagues to get the roll call vote gun owners deserved, but not one of the other representatives spoke up.[/FONT]

The silence was deafening.

Every one of the "three letter gun group" endorsed Representatives present knows that leadership is stonewalling gun owners on this issue and yet they remained silent. They left Rep. Curt Nisly, the only one willing to stand up to leadership on behalf of gun owners, out on his own.

[FONT=&quot]Because of the importance of Rep. Curt Nisly's amendment Hoosier Carry is scoring the silence of the entire chamber as an anti-gun action by everyone else present.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I hope that every gun owner that reads this will contact the Honorable Rep. Curt Nisly at [/FONT]h22@iga.in.gov[FONT=&quot] and thank him for standing with gun owners when no one else would.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then contact Jerry Torr at [/FONT]317-232-9619[FONT=&quot] and demand an apology for his anti-gun actions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You can also help us spread the word by liking and sharing this post on [/FONT]facebook[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Liberty,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Michael Thomas[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Executive Director[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]P.S. I urge you to thank the Honorable Curt Nisly for standing up to leadership on behalf of gun owners across the state, you can reach him at: [/FONT]h22@iga.in.gov

[FONT=&quot]Next contact Rep. Jerry Torr at [/FONT]317-232-9619[FONT=&quot] and demand an apology for motioning to kill Curt's pro gun amendment.[/FONT]

 

[JTScribe]

Is somebody jealous of Jim Lucas? Why is he coming under coordinated fire for specious reasons?

 

[MarkC]

The Nisly stunt was just that, a stunt with no chance of passage and the side effect of alienating other members of his party. These groups supporting Nisly and slamming the consistent and effective Jim Lucas are coming across as radicals and the people in the middle will stop listening.

As noted by others, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Education, persuasion of the proposition's merits, and persistence will pay off. Poorly thought out and unsupportable stunts will not. Compare this to Sunday alcohol sales, which is gaining ground piecemeal, and that has taken several years.

 

[MarkC]

Here's Kelly's take: Nisly's amendment was a no-go from the start because it changed HB 1071 into Constitutional Carry. That was not really amending the bill so you can't do that.

I'm all-in for CC. It shouldn't be this hard since as Guy pointed out on his show last Saturday several of the CC states aren't as pro-gun as Indiana. We're fighting up-hill against the antis as well as the "Fudds and Butters" (GodFearinGunTotin, 2017) and we must work within the system we have. The system sucks but it's what we've got.

This is not a sprint, it's a marathon. New Hampshire (CC #13) didn't just start down this road, they've been at it since 2011.

Kelly's take is spot-on, in my opinion. Also, getting Constitutional permitless carry moved to a study committee (instead of just killing it completely) is a positive step.

 

[JTScribe]

Wow. I posted multiple comments directing people to INGO and trying to point out NAGR was jumping from conclusions. It looks like they've deleted all of my comments and blocked me from replying to any more. Nothing I said was rude or used foul language.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Kelly's take is spot-on, in my opinion. Also, getting Constitutional permitless carry moved to a study committee (instead of just killing it completely) is a positive step.

Thanks for the rep, Mark. A small step in the right direction is better than getting dragged back to the starting line again.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It seems to me that HoosierCarry and NAGR are in the "all or nothing" camp, believing that if we demand everything, they will HAVE to give it to us. They are wrong, in that they are forgetting that "all or nothing" can result in "nothing", which is far easier to accomplish than "everything".

Simply, if Rep. Nisly had done the legwork, he'd have had a broad base of support. Considering that his amendment violates House Rule 118, it was a non-starter, and no one would have supported it, least of all Jim Lucas, knowing the work he's put into making this happen for three years running. He'd have had someone to second his challenge to the rule from the chair. Of 98 other Representatives, NONE of them were willing to do so.

(ETA: House Rule 118. Substituting Another Bill. No bill may be amended by annexing to it or incorporating with it any other bill pending before the House.)

By posting this and attacking Rep. Jim Lucas, NAGR has guaranteed that until Mr. Lucas gets a formal apology, NAGR will never see another dime from me. Will they notice? Probably not. But if others take the same stance, they will.

Too, their reference to "the three letter gun group"... comes across as petty and childish. I'm not sure who's dividing us as gun owners, but this is a fast way to minimize our value as a block of votes and of dollars. I predict NAGR will not give that apology, even if/when Mr. Lucas succeeds in getting Constitutional carry passed, because they would then have to admit they were wrong.

NRA is not always right. They've made some moves over the years that were strategic, but that later came back to bite them in public opinion. The simple fact is, though, they've been around a lot longer than anyone else, and they've been in this fight, which is more than can be said for online posturing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wow. I posted multiple comments directing people to INGO and trying to point out NAGR was jumping from conclusions. It looks like they've deleted all of my comments and blocked me from replying to any more. Nothing I said was rude or used foul language.

INGO is the voice of reason whose members respond to dissent not by deleting or conspiracy theories, but with reasoned discussion and logic? This tells me Team INGO (I just made that up, sounds good!) is very much on board for the CC long-haul.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wow. I posted multiple comments directing people to INGO and trying to point out NAGR was jumping from conclusions. It looks like they've deleted all of my comments and blocked me from replying to any more. Nothing I said was rude or used foul language.

Sounds like what the Demanding Mommies or the Brady Bunch do when someone disagrees with them. MdA and the Brady Campaign, along with VPC and others, have deleted posts that disagreed with them for years.

 

[2A_Tom]

It seems to me that HoosierCarry and NAGR are in the "all or nothing" camp, believing that if we demand everything, they will HAVE to give it to us. They are wrong, in that they are forgetting that "all or nothing" can result in "nothing", which is far easier to accomplish than "everything".

Simply, if Rep. Nisly had done the legwork, he'd have had a broad base of support. Considering that his amendment violates House Rule 118, it was a non-starter, and no one would have supported it, least of all Jim Lucas, knowing the work he's put into making this happen for three years running. He'd have had someone to second his challenge to the rule from the chair. Of 98 other Representatives, NONE of them were willing to do so.

(ETA: House Rule 118. Substituting Another Bill. No bill may be amended by annexing to it or incorporating with it any other bill pending before the House.)

By posting this and attacking Rep. Jim Lucas, NAGR has guaranteed that until Mr. Lucas gets a formal apology, NAGR will never see another dime from me. Will they notice? Probably not. But if others take the same stance, they will.

Too, their reference to "the three letter gun group"... comes across as petty and childish. I'm not sure who's dividing us as gun owners, but this is a fast way to minimize our value as a block of votes and of dollars. I predict NAGR will not give that apology, even if/when Mr. Lucas succeeds in getting Constitutional carry passed, because they would then have to admit they were wrong.

NRA is not always right. They've made some moves over the years that were strategic, but that later came back to bite them in public opinion. The simple fact is, though, they've been around a lot longer than anyone else, and they've been in this fight, which is more than can be said for online posturing.

Blessings,
Bill

I am just throwing this against the wall.

The left has been using incrimentalism for over a century bu adding amendments to must pass bills.

Examples, Hughes and Johnson amendments.

Would it have been possible to amend the bill had Constitutional carry not been on the docket? Could this be a possibility next year?

 

[Bill of Rights]

If Constitutional Carry had not been introduced as a bill, my understanding is that it could have been amended in. For that matter, they could amend in that carrying (not just transporting) in your vehicle does not require LTCH now. Or that those visiting from out of state do not need LTCH. Both would be OK under House rules, though the latter would be most unpopular. However, had something already been heard and voted down, it could not be considered even as amended in by the other house of the legislature, though a Senate bill on a similar topic (original language) would be OK.

As always, anyone who can reliably correct the above, please feel free. If I'm mistaken, I want to not be. (I'll also allow for the fact that I may be explaining it badly.)

Blessings,
Bill

I am just throwing this against the wall.

The left has been using incrimentalism for over a century bu adding amendments to must pass bills.

Examples, Hughes and Johnson amendments.

Would it have been possible to amend the bill had Constitutional carry not been on the docket? Could this be a possibility next year?

 

[87iroc]

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

Pic is blocked at work...but I know I saw a FB feed saying we needed to hammer the one fella that voted down making 1071 in to 1059(?). Or maybe it was GOA.

After reading the rest of the posts...I think my take when I saw this on FB yesterday was right. All or nothing....incremental movementisn't enough. I know there are some like that on here...but at least they don't have their posts deleted.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pic is blocked at work...but I know I saw a FB feed saying we needed to hammer the one fella that voted down making 1071 in to 1059(?). Or maybe it was GOA.

After reading the rest of the posts...I think my take when I saw this on FB yesterday was right. All or nothing....incremental movementisn't enough. I know there are some like that on here...but at least they don't have their posts deleted.

This is from Jim Lucas' FB page. Since he says to share it, I think he'd be ok with me copying it here. If it violates the rules, mods, please delete it.

But here's Jim's side of the story from last night.

PLEASE SHARE THIS
A "pro" gun group going by the name Hoosier Carry has a VERY MISLEADING POST on their website and here is my response to this back-stabbing deceit!
As the author of HB1159, this appears to be nothing more than a PR and marketing stunt by some "pro" gun rights groups than an actual legitimate attempt at advancing legislation. Anyone that knows me knows my dedication to advancing our gun rights and the countless hours I've spent working on this issue and I am insulted to be accused of not supporting this issue.
HB1159 met resistance from every police representative group in Indiana and given the hurdle this placed upon passing Con Carry, it was determined that the best course of action to advance it was to assign it to a summer study committee, where the police groups, and those they influence, could be educated on it and better prepare it for when I introduce it again next year. The added bonus of keeping this language alive is that if it gets out of the House, it goes over to the Senate where the original Constitutional Carry language could be inserted back into the bill, therefore possibly giving us Constitutional Carry this year! This is called political strategy.
Even if we don’t get Con Carry passed this year, there is still an excellent chance of a summer study getting done on this issue, greatly advancing the ball.
I relayed this to Rep. Nisly and made him aware of the possible consequences of his actions and how it could potentially derail not just years of hard work, but actually set the Con Carry movement back substantially. Apparently, Rep. Nisly, and those pushing him to do what he did, were more interested in distorting his actions into a “Look at us, we’re fighting for your rights” photo op without doing the proper legwork to pass legislation.
Rep. Nisly spoke with no one before offering his amendment and it caught everyone off guard. This is not how legislation is made, as it takes hours of reaching out and discussing with all involved parties your intentions and working with them. This is how legitimate legislation gets passed.
I was not contacted by him, either as a professional courtesy or for input on this issue. The mere fact that no one was contacted indicates to me more of an interest in a PR stunt than the actual legitimate advancement of legislation and it is sad to see this event being used in a destructive manner instead of a positive manner to advance our gun rights.
Jim Lucas
State Representative

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I commented on a couple of those and said it's not proper to backdoor one HB into another HB. I didn't outright call political shenanigans, but could have.

Meanwhile in NH: NH eliminates license requirement to carry concealed gun, effective immediately

 

[John Galt]

From Jim Lucas's Facebook page:
This is an outright LIE by the National Association for Gun Rights, or NAGR. NAGR did contact me about this issue, but when I personally asked Rep. Nisly if he had spoke to or worked with anyone on this issue and he said he had not, it became clear that Rep. Nisly, and now NAGR, was using this issue as a PR stunt that could potentially unwind years of hard work. This ad makes this assumption clear. Discovering that he had not properly worked this issue, I pulled my support of his actions as I did not want to throw away those many years of hard work.
I have been a member of NAGR for years and they endorsed me this past election cycle and financially supported my campaign. Why then would they fly in a lobbyist from out of state for this issue and not contact me, the author of Constitutional Carry, to inform me of their plans? They were actually contacting me from inside the Statehouse when this event was happening and I was unaware that they were in the state, let alone the Statehouse. I will be cancelling my membership and returning their campaign contribution.
Anyone that has followed me knows of my unwavering commitment to advancing and protecting our gun rights. This stunt by Rep. Curt Nisly was no more than a photo op opportunity to do exactly what NAGR is doing here, using this as a "Look at me, support us" opportunity to drum up negative attention and raise money.
I have worked on this issue for years and will continue to do so, and to be blindsided by a political stunt such as this by a national group that portrays itself as a leader in gun rights is a betrayal to those that are in the trenches advancing our gun rights. This is nothing more than politics by destruction.
The primary obstacle to Constitutional Carry has been the fact that every major police representative group in Indiana has publicly come out against this bill. Sending this bill to a summer study is advancing the bill and provides us with a perfect opportunity to work with these groups and educate the public of what this bill does and does not do. Making good legislation takes time and when particular legislation, as good as it may be, is met with stiff resistance from very influential groups, along with anti-gun groups, it takes extra work and time.
I am grateful for Public Policy Chairman Ben Smaltz and Speaker Brian Bosma for working with me to advance this legislation. What people don't see is the many hours these two men have spent meeting with so many different groups to get us to this point. Micheal Bloomberg is spending big money and has paid lobbyists in Indiana fighting against our gun rights and now we have pro gun groups like NAGR that believe turning against pro gun people is the way to advance our gun rights.
Make no mistake, Indiana will be a Constitutional Carry state and I will not rest until we get there. I ask you, if what I have stated is not true, why would a national group support one legislator, who does not have a reputation for being out in front for fighting for our gun rights, while tearing down EVERY MEMBER of the general assembly with an eleventh hour political stunt?
Jim Lucas
State Representative

 

[87iroc]

This crap is now popping up all over my FB feed. NAGR and others slamming Lucas and another fella. <sigh>. We are our own worst enemy at times.

 

[brotherbill3]

NAGR - posted text to Jim (but he couldn't rebut the info there) - so he finished it out on his feed after sharing w/ a statement.

I'll take Jim over some national group that every time the send something asks for the green.

I'm swamped but someone should be able to grab the screen shots.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ok, who threw the skunk into the sewing circle???