Note from Sen. Jim Tomes

[Bill of Rights]

I've just received a note from Sen. Tomes which, among other things, detailed a little of the process involved in passing SB 229 this year. That's not what caught my attention, however.

Apparently, Senators Johnny Nugent, Allen Paul, and Sue Lansing will all be retiring this year, and Sen. John Waterman has an opponent in his primary. Those of you in these Senators' areas, watch your ballots closely. Your Senator might have been pro-gun up to this point, but there's no guarantee the next one will be. This is how we lose on bills like 229, when we don't have guys like Sen. Nugent to put good bills up and have the clout to support them. Re: Sen. Waterman, if you're in his district, send him a donation for his campaign fund. If you can't give cash, give him some of your time. Sen. Tomes is, himself, up for reelection this year as well, and could probably use some help.

I hasten to add that I'm speaking here not as a mod, not as a representative of INGO, but as a citizen, a voter, an interested party. INGO is apolitical. I am not.

I do not know how many members of the House of Representatives are leaving the House. I know I heard Rep. Messmer say he was running for the Senate. I think a couple of others are also, and some are retiring. Let's work to keep the Legislature a pro-2A place!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Birds Away]

Thank you for the info. As I haven't been back in Indiana too long I have a hard time keeping up with who's who.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thank you for the info. As I haven't been back in Indiana too long I have a hard time keeping up with who's who.

Suffice it to say that every legislator named in the OP is strongly pro-2A.

 

[Birds Away]

Sounds like most are retiring though. I will need to read up and figure out the new players.

 

[brotherbill3]

Thanks B.o.R. ... And the way the districts sit and are set up - THE election may be - THE primary. ... I think Sen. Hume (who is D, but I thought from your comments, more or less Pro 2A) is also retiring; I'm sure we can get a complete list somewhere.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I had not heard that about Sen. Hume, but yes, he is strongly pro-gun rights.

 

[brotherbill3]

I was listening the goings on one of the last nights - they just finished the 'SR' for Sen Nugent and went on to Sen Humes next ... I think Wendsay night.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Waterman needs our help. Chamber of Commerce has it in for him.

 

[Tanfodude]

Will keep these in mind.

 

[mrortega]

I've talked personally to Sen. Tomes (my senator) several times about "Just some simple wording to make licensed carriers legal in schools." He said you wouldn't believe how hard it has been to just get the things through that we have now. The leap to making it legal to carry in a school is way, way out of reach right now.

 

[brotherbill3]

I've talked personally to Sen. Tomes (my senator) several times about "Just some simple wording to make licensed carriers legal in schools." He said you wouldn't believe how hard it has been to just get the things through that we have now. The leap to making it legal to carry in a school is way, way out of reach right now.

This is why getting information to everyone when legislation is NOT up for debate is important. And why sharing knowledge and facts outside of the 'safety' of pro-gun / pro-2A groups - is needed. (I.E. - see my sig line) ...

Also, as I understand it, it would help to have the code(s) related to firearms 'cleaned up' ... my understanding (from a legislator's perspective) is they are convoluted and 'cobbled' together like patchwork ... This hindered getting part of what was hoped for in HB 1048 / amended SB 229 pulled together.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I've talked personally to Sen. Tomes (my senator) several times about "Just some simple wording to make licensed carriers legal in schools." He said you wouldn't believe how hard it has been to just get the things through that we have now. The leap to making it legal to carry in a school is way, way out of reach right now.

Time to change our focus and elect pro 2A school board members maybe? The school boards can authorize anyone they want to carry in their schools

 

[jedi]

Is there a website to provide a donation to Sen. Tomes and Sen. Waterman?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is there a website to provide a donation to Sen. Tomes and Sen. Waterman?

I don't have a direct answer to your question but this may help:

You are invited to a

2nd Amendment Rally

In support of

Sen. John Waterman

Please invite your family, friends and neighbors! We NEED to support John because he HAS supported us and our 2nd Amendment Rights. He is under attack by Indianapolis Special Interests who do not share our views on this important issue!!!!

John is endorsed by:

NRA with an A+ rating
Gun Owners of America
2nd Amendment Patriots
Hoosier Gun Owners PAC
Wednesday, April 9 at the Greene County Fairgrounds

4503 W. St. Rd. 54, Bloomfield IN 47424

Media Availability: 3 p.m. EDT Reception immediately following with refreshments

Talk to John and find out how you can help him win on May 6!

Featuring:

2Amendment Patriots Founder and Dist. 49 State Sen. Jim Tomes Bill Dowden of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association And representatives from other key 2nd Amendment groups

RSVP to Mike Cross at 812-512-1127 or SenatorWaterman@gmail.com

Paid for and authorized by The Committee to Elect John Waterman State Senate

This is from Sen. Tomes' email newsletter you can subscribe to at:
2nd Amendment Patriots - 2nd Amendment Patriots
2ndamendmentpatriots@gmail.com

 

[Hamonrye10]

Chamber opposes waterman because he voted against right to work and is antagonistic to business. Nothing to do with guns.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Chamber opposes waterman because he voted against right to work and is antagonistic to business. Nothing to do with guns.

John is unenthusiastic about right to work by virtue of lack of any evidence of creating jobs, and voted against the law as written for clearly violating the state constitution. Antagonistic to business? When you watch someone put in long hours trying to encourage new business development, it makes a person stand back and laugh.

Oh, and please tell me what is wrong with an elected official representing all of his constituents to the best of his ability unlike Barry "stand at the back of the bus" Obama?

Antagonistic? I would say it is more a matter of recognizing the dangers of letting one side run roughshod over the other where a political tension exists (in addition to that pesky constitution issue).

You might also consider the reason for voting against the Right to Work because it was not constitutional as written and voted on account of forcing unions to represent non-members at no charge which could include paying for legal fees. Apparently the court agrees with Waterman's opinion of the law.

State judge rules Indiana's right-to-work law unconstitutional : Hammond Community News

Of course, a new member who doesn't post a damned thing other than trashing Waterman and plugging for Bassler probably doesn't care in the least about the implications of forcing others to work without compensation. Explain please, comrade.

Even if you don't get it, Waterman understands that he took and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it prohibits forcing people to work, therefore he voted against it, even if the Chamber of Congress and select members thereof really wanted him to ignore that inconvenient fact.

So, Mr. Hamonrye, what other parts of the Constitution, state or federal, do you advocate violating and trash elected officials for following?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You might also consider the reason for voting against the Right to Work because it was not constitutional as written and voted on account of forcing unions to represent non-members at no charge which could include paying for legal fees. Apparently the court agrees with Waterman's opinion of the law.

State judge rules Indiana's right-to-work law unconstitutional : Hammond Community News

Even if you don't get it, Waterman understands that he took and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it prohibits forcing people to work, therefore he voted against it, even if the Chamber of Congress and select members thereof really wanted him to ignore that inconvenient fact.

You do realize that fed law does not require them to represent employees who are not in the union right? The union chooses to do so. They can quite easily choose to legally not represent them. But to do so they would have to give up their exclusive bargaining position and let non members bargain directly with the employer. Why won't the Unions do so?

'Unions Are Not Compelled to Represent Everyone in the Workplace' - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

 

[IndyDave1776]

You do realize that fed law does not require them to represent employees who are not in the union right? The union chooses to do so. They can quite easily choose to legally not represent them. But to do so they would have to give up their exclusive bargaining position and let non members bargain directly with the employer. Why won't the Unions do so?

'Unions Are Not Compelled to Represent Everyone in the Workplace' - National Institute for Labor Relations Research

The state law required it which was the point at issue with the unfavorable court ruling.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The state law required it which was the point at issue with the unfavorable court ruling.

Can you point out where in the law that is?
Indiana Code 22-6-6

 

[IndyDave1776]

Can you point out where in the law that is?
Indiana Code 22-6-6

John found a problem here and so did the judge. Happy hunting.