New gun bills to be aware of in the legislature

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry to bust your bubble but that would still be wrong EVEN if this law were to pass. You see right now there are 3 ways Indiana can have "gun free zones".

1) The Indiana Congress passes a law (ie. no guns @ schools)
2) The local governing bodies (ie. city hall) can pass an ordinance prohibiting guns on property they owe (ie. a city park)
3) The Indiana Supreme Court has the power to restrict weapons on court property and has given that power to the courts in all of Indiana. (ie. The head judge in Allen County has the power to make the court house rules as s/he sees fit right now. In the case of allen county s/he says no weapons.

So with the law BoR is showing #2 above would go away. #3 however remains. It is NOT illegal (per Indiana law) to take a firearm into an indiana court house. It is illegal because the particular Indiana court house you are walking into has set the rules of that court to be no firearms and thus you would be in contempt of court.

Cite, please, Jedi? As I read it, it is presently allowable for a court to emplace a rule like that specifically because of IC 35-47-11-2(1)

IC 35-47-11-2
Regulation of firearms by units other than townships
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding IC 36-1-3, a unit may not regulate in any manner the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5) or ammunition except as follows:
(1) This chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit, except highways (as defined in IC 8-23-1-23) or public highways (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-14).
(2) Notwithstanding the limitation in this section, a unit may use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.

The court is owned or administered by a "unit", as is the building in which it's housed. As I read it, it is possible that this bill, if enacted, might even open up the State Capitol building to licensed handgun-carriers, similar to the method by which Texas has its state capitol security administered: If you have a CHL, you need not go through the metal detector. All others must do so.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I want to see where I'm wrong first.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

UPDATE:

SB 291 introduced by Sen. Tomes is a "Firearms Freedom Act" as passed by a few states already, claiming immunity from Congressional oversight for firearms manufactured in Indiana from raw materials obtained in Indiana and only sold or possessed within Indiana. Note that ATF has already claimed that these are dead letter laws, but it's not been decided by any regulatory authority, such as a judge, IIRC.

SB 292 also introduced by Sen. Tomes would provide for true firearms law pre-emption. Of note, Sen. Tomes is Jim Tomes, of 2nd Amendment Patriots, for those who don't know.

Blessings,
Bill

UPDATE:

SB 319, introduced by Sen. Banks addresses:

Synopsis: Firearms on school property. Makes unlawful possession of a firearm: (1) in or on school property; (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or (3) on a school bus; a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony. Provides that the law concerning unlawful possession of a firearm in or on school property or in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function does not apply to a person who may legally possess a firearm, possesses a valid license to carry a handgun, is not a student enrolled in the school, and stores a firearm: (1) in a motor vehicle that is parked in or on school property or parked in or on property that is being used by the school for a school function; and (2) that is locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the locked motor vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the locked motor vehicle.

Again, it doesn't go far enough, but I don't see any steps backward within it. I support this bill's passage.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Gunpowder]

UPDATE:

HB 1036 introduced by Rep. Reske would remove the requirement for vets and retired LEO to take hunter ed course.

Not sure this is all great. First I would think most would already be exempt due to age. Also I took it in school in the 1980's but Now I have a fresh card in case I want to hunt out west.

The other thing is I just attended this with my daughter and son to help them. There are some things that they cover (laws, equipment safety (tree stands), etc) that is not related to firearms that is worthy of attendance. This info is not the type of knowledge gained in by LEO or in most cases Vets. The class isn't just about shooting and gun handling.

 

[jedi]

Cite, please, Jedi? As I read it, it is presently allowable for a court to emplace a rule like that specifically because of IC 35-47-11-2(1)

Sry there is no IC to site regarding the courts being able to make their own "house rules". At least there is no IC that I know of. My knowledge of this comes from the Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law course (Tactical Firearms Training, LLC - upcoming classes) I took a few years back. The ATTY who gives this course explained at the beginning that there are 3 ways our gun rights are restricted in Indiana: Fed laws, State Laws and Courts. Fed and State laws have Codes (IC for Indiana). The courts have "house rules" for their own courts. He said that Indiana Congress has no control over how the Indiana supreme court runs it's house just like how indiana supreme court has no control how congress runs its' house. So each gave the other the power to run their house how they see fit. Towns/Citys/Counties get their power from Indiana Congress (ie. congress grants them authority to taxe, etc..) and the same is true for county courthouses. The indiana supreme court gives those courts under them the same authoruity to run their house how they see fit.

The court is owned or administered by a "unit", as is the building in which it's housed. As I read it, it is possible that this bill, if enacted, might even open up the State Capitol building to licensed handgun-carriers, similar to the method by which Texas has its state capitol security administered: If you have a CHL, you need not go through the metal detector. All others must do so.

See above. Although I do see where you are going. Since in most counties the county court house is on the same property as the county offices. So who (which power) is the one restricting your rights? I would say if you are going into the courtroom (then it's the courthouse) but if you are going to the aduit office then it's the county. The proposed law woudl then affect only the "county offices" portion of the building.

 

[jedi]

UPDATE:

SB 319, introduced by Sen. Banks addresses:

Synopsis: Firearms on school property. Makes unlawful possession of a firearm: (1) in or on school property; (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or (3) on a school bus; a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony. Provides that the law concerning unlawful possession of a firearm in or on school property or in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function does not apply to a person who may legally possess a firearm, possesses a valid license to carry a handgun, is not a student enrolled in the school, and stores a firearm: (1) in a motor vehicle that is parked in or on school property or parked in or on property that is being used by the school for a school function; and (2) that is locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the locked motor vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the locked motor vehicle.

Again, it doesn't go far enough, but I don't see any steps backward within it. I support this bill's passage.

Blessings,
Bill

So for the common joe does this mean????
That I can park my car on the school property and leave my gun locked in the car to enter the school and be OK provided I have my LTCH?

whats the point of that?

 

[mk2ja]

I have an intimate knowledge of a particular person who recently was on his way to volleyball with a coworker and found out only minutes before arriving that the destination was a school. This was a bad time to discover this as this individual was carrying (legally, of course) a handgun. The individual left the handgun locked in the car while he went inside to play volleyball. Under this proposed legislation, such behavior would not be illegal; under current law, this individual was in violation of the guns-at-schools prohibition.

 

[jedi]

I have an intimate knowledge of a particular person who recently was on his way to volleyball with a coworker and found out only minutes before arriving that the destination was a school. This was a bad time to discover this as this individual was carrying (legally, of course) a handgun. The individual left the handgun locked in the car while he went inside to play volleyball. Under this proposed legislation, such behavior would not be illegal; under current law, this individual was in violation of the guns-at-schools prohibition.

Yes provided that the individual in your post parked his car on the school property. He could just as well park off the school property & walk onto the school property and be ok.

Again this law and our current law do nothing to help us. We are still defenseless when we cross that imaginary line and get on school property even when school is not in session or when we don't even belong to that school (ie. going to a church on same property)

 

[Bill B]

Yes provided that the individual in your post parked his car on the school property. He could just as well park off the school property & walk onto the school property and be ok.

Again this law and our current law do nothing to help us. We are still defenseless when we cross that imaginary line and get on school property even when school is not in session or when we don't even belong to that school (ie. going to a church on same property)

Often times it is not practical or possible to park off school property. Think of Clark High School in Hammond. All the streets are resident parking only, and it is vigorously enforced. Or think of Lake Central High School, how practical would it be to park off school property and walk to the school?

I agree, this doesn't do a lot to help, but it is a step in the right direction and is worthy of support.

 

[jedi]

True Bill B but I'm tired of these baby steps we take. =(

Besides no need to carry to Clark School in Hammond when you have the PD so close and it's no Gary. & Have you NOT learned to stay out of south lake county where Lake Central is at. "You people" are not welcomed there.

 

[Bill B]

Besides no need to carry to Clark School in Hammond when you have the PD so close and it's no Gary. & Have you NOT learned to stay out of south lake county where Lake Central is at. "You people" are not welcomed there.

But my lawyer is just up the street
If I had a few grand more for the lawyer I'd OC my mossberg up & down 41 @ about 3:00 pm every day

 

[Cloverdaleman]

ATF has given the explanation that because our state law specifies (in accordance with GCA prior to the 1986 amendment) that we may purchase in those specific states it meant we could ONLY purchase in those states.
(emphasis mine)

So, once the bill becomes law, if I happen to go to a gun store in Texas while visiting family and find a long gun I want, I may purchase it then and there and bring it home with me.




I understand your point. ATF is not guided by state law unless they choose to use it to interpret the GCA, where applicable.

Blessings,
Bill

Thank You, your explanation was very helpful. I now support the bill.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So for the common joe does this mean????
That I can park my car on the school property and leave my gun locked in the car to enter the school and be OK provided I have my LTCH?

whats the point of that?

Yes, that's how I interpret it. What's the point of it? Suppose you drive your kid to school. He or she is taking a project in for whatever, and it's a large, bulky thing. Alternatively, if you get there and the teacher in the parking lot tells you that another teacher or the principal has requested that you come in to speak to him/her about something or other, under present law, you would be in a tough spot. Lastly, suppose you are at work and you're one of those lucky folks who can actually carry while on the job. You get a call about 1 in the afternoon from the school and your kid is in the nurse's office with a bad stomachache and wants to come home. You can drive to the school, but you can't exit the car legally the way the law reads now.

Under the proposed law, you can disarm, stuff the pistol under your driver seat, and lock the car when you get out, completely legally, and go in to do what you need to do.

Further, consider the oft-repeated story of the assistant principal in Pearl, MS or the students at the Appalachian School of Law who stopped assaults in progress:

The assistant principal had to run 1/4-1/2 mile to his car, retrieve his firearm, then run back to stop the assailant. The law students stopped the assailant with guns they got out of their cars. Under present Indiana law, those people could not have lawfully parked on school property nor returned there armed. Under the proposed law, parking on school property would have been lawful, but removing the guns from the car would not.... maybe.

Here's why, although I caution that this is merely speculation on my part:

IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Because I am justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force to protect myself or another person from what I believe to be the imminent use of unlawful force or serious bodily injury in the commission of a forcible felony AND I therefore have legal authority to do so, in the event of the actual use of unlawful force, were I to remove my pistol from my car while on school grounds and use it in that manner, I think I would have a defensible case in court. Again, this is conjecture and should not be taken as legal advice to anyone.

So... What good does it do to be able to have your gun closer? Ask anyone who's been disarmed by their legislature when they needed to be able to defend themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thank You, your explanation was very helpful. I now support the bill.

Glad I could help!

 

[jedi]

BoR thanks for your explanation I got the layman's text over at the other thread and still stand by my post of:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._on_school_property_sb0319-5.html#post1578260

This is nothing more than "feel good" in term of 2A but if the team wants to play tossing for 2 yards as oppose to a hail mary pass well I'm in. Not how I would personally do it but alas i won't go against the team and will give 110% to the team since we are still pushing forward abite slower than I like.

Now does someone have a sample letter to send to our little critters in Indy?

 

[semperfi211]

This is an interesting article I just saw.
The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords leaves members of Congress at a loss in more ways than one. - By David Weigel - Slate Magazine

 

[Bill B]

SB154 passes committee, sent to full Senate:
Committee OKs loaded guns on off-road vehicles, snowmobiles

Call your senators TODAY!

 

[jedi]

Am I reading this bill correctly? In that it would move the LTCH database to the clerk of curcuit court and thus make that info a public record and thus allow anyone to request the LTCH database since it is a public record?



SB0593

Records and judicial technology. Moves duties concerning the administration of an electronic system for receiving information related to individuals possessing firearms from the division of state court administration to the attorney general's office. Provides that the clerk of a circuit court (clerk) is the official custodian of all records and writings of the court. Provides that the clerk shall provide copies of any public record in its possession to a party who requests the record. Provides that if the clerk maintains a case management system and receives funds from the automated record keeping fee, the case management system must meet certain standards. Prohibits certain court case information from being shared with the division of state court administration (division). Provides that the division shall not deny a person access to any public records that the division maintains. Removes certain duties of the division. Changes the responsibility of developing and maintaining the protective order registry from the division to attorney general's office. Corrects conflicting language regarding protective orders. Creates the e- citation fund. Provides that certain money in the state user fee fund will be deposited in the e- citation fund. Requires each clerk to establish an automated record keeping fund. Requires the prosecuting attorneys council to prescribe the contents of electronic traffic tickets. Repeals the judicial technology and automation project fund.

SOURCE: Indiana General Assembly

 

[Bill B]

Am I reading this bill correctly? In that it would move the LTCH database to the clerk of curcuit court and thus make that info a public record and thus allow anyone to request the LTCH database since it is a public record?



SB0593

Records and judicial technology. Moves duties concerning the administration of an electronic system for receiving information related to individuals possessing firearms from the division of state court administration to the attorney general's office. Provides that the clerk of a circuit court (clerk) is the official custodian of all records and writings of the court. Provides that the clerk shall provide copies of any public record in its possession to a party who requests the record. Provides that if the clerk maintains a case management system and receives funds from the automated record keeping fee, the case management system must meet certain standards. Prohibits certain court case information from being shared with the division of state court administration (division). Provides that the division shall not deny a person access to any public records that the division maintains. Removes certain duties of the division. Changes the responsibility of developing and maintaining the protective order registry from the division to attorney general's office. Corrects conflicting language regarding protective orders. Creates the e- citation fund. Provides that certain money in the state user fee fund will be deposited in the e- citation fund. Requires each clerk to establish an automated record keeping fund. Requires the prosecuting attorneys council to prescribe the contents of electronic traffic tickets. Repeals the judicial technology and automation project fund.

SOURCE: Indiana General Assembly

As I read it, it would move the list to the attorney general's office, not the clerk's office, thus protecting the information from the public records provision.
But I could be wrong