Parking Lot Bill Senate Bill 25

[indianajoe]

Senator Beverly Gard (R-28 Fishers/Noblesville) supports Senate Bill 25

My note to Senator Beverly Gard's office...

Senator Gard,

I respectfully urge you to support Senate Bill 25 when it comes before you on the Senate floor.

With regard to the issue of an individual's right to legally possess a firearm within that individual's locked vehicle (that vehicle being the individual's own private property), this is in keeping with the intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

If an employer is allowed to maintain such policies, a compliant individual is forced to be without defense during commutes through sometimes dangerous areas. Such a policy give an employer undue control over an individual's freedom to safely secure a legally possessed firearm within the confines of that individual's own private property.

Best,

... and her office's reply (received in under 24 hours from my note via her web site):

Mr. indianajoe,

Thank you for emailing me in support of Senate Bill 25. I appreciate the time you took to contact me on this legislation. As it stands, Senate Bill 25 will be up for a vote on Monday without amendments. This is a bill that I do support and will vote in favor of when it comes before me on the Senate Floor. Thank you again for emailing me, please feel free to contact me again with any other issue or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Beverly Gard
Indiana State Senate

 

[Roadie]

My note to Senator Beverly Gard's office...



... and her office's reply (received in under 24 hours from my note via her web site):

 

[360]

I have a feeling this one is gonna be in the books soon.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I had a good face to face with my State Senator at work today and we talked about LLTCH, CCW and other gun related topics. He said he is going to vote in favor of Bill 25!

 

[antsi]

I have a feeling this one is gonna be in the books soon.

Someone check me if I'm wrong, but I believe last year the same bill was passed in the Senate. Then it went to the House, where Pat B$@&r assigned it to the committee of a known Bloomington-area anti-gun commie. The bill then died in the Bloomington-Gary Bedwetters and Blissninnies Committee, and never made it to a vote in the House.

As far as I know, the same unmentionable orifice is still Commissar of the House, and he will probably throw the bill back to the Weenie Committee where it will die on the vine.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Someone check me if I'm wrong, but I believe last year the same bill was passed in the Senate. Then it went to the House, where Pat B$@&r assigned it to the committee of a known Bloomington-area anti-gun commie. The bill then died in the Bloomington-Gary Bedwetters and Blissninnies Committee, and never made it to a vote in the House.

As far as I know, the same unmentionable orifice is still Commissar of the House, and he will probably throw the bill back to the Weenie Committee where it will die on the vine.

He did indeed do that last year, antsi, however, HB 1065 and HB 1068 are both on the House calendar Monday for Second Reading, having passed out of committee on 10-1 and unanimous majorities. HB 1065 contains among other things, language that duplicates the intent of SB 25. It just may pass this year... but I'll believe it when I see it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Someone check me if I'm wrong, but I believe last year the same bill was passed in the Senate. Then it went to the House, where Pat B$@&r assigned it to the committee of a known Bloomington-area anti-gun commie. The bill then died in the Bloomington-Gary Bedwetters and Blissninnies Committee, and never made it to a vote in the House.

As far as I know, the same unmentionable orifice is still Commissar of the House, and he will probably throw the bill back to the Weenie Committee where it will die on the vine.

Silence, you peasant! How dare you speak of party leaders that way!

 

[jdhaines]

I just noticed HB 1058 which would require disclosure to LEOs. I'm not really for this or against it, although I realize many are. Just a heads up in case anyone else had missed this. Didn't see a thread about it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I just noticed HB 1058 which would require disclosure to LEOs. I'm not really for this or against it, although I realize many are. Just a heads up in case anyone else had missed this. Didn't see a thread about it.

It's dead and will receive no hearing.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...atriots_1058_laid_to_rest.html?highlight=1058

 

[IndyBeerman]

I do not know why anyone would believe that this bill would make the responsible less responsible, or the lack of this law makes the irresponsible/criminal more responsible/law-abiding. You'd have to believe in elves and magic unicorns to think it makes the least bit of difference to the criminals' actions. The law-abiding, however, are empowered by this law.

This right here is single handily the most accurate thing that could/can be said.

People need to stop and realize if a person is going to step off into the deep end, whether it's legal or not to have your firearm in your vehicle, if they are mentally unstable enough to go get a firearm and start shooting up a place they will do it.

A argument has been made that they are afraid that they'll have to have security/police handy to fire a person, what's to stop that fired person from going home and coming back and exacting revenge???

If that person is that unstable enough to do this, think of how many lives could at risk if a person would come back, think of how many that could be saved if just 1 person that is a legally licensed LTCH could save if he was allowed to have his firearm in his vehicle.

SB25 enables mentally sound law abiding citizens to protect themselves to and from work and to some extent protect them from a mentally unsound person who might cause bodily harm/death at the workplace.

If people fail to see this as a sound argument then they do not believe in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Scutter01]

I just noticed HB 1058 which would require disclosure to LEOs. I'm not really for this or against it, although I realize many are. Just a heads up in case anyone else had missed this. Didn't see a thread about it.

As BoR said, it's a dead bill, but you should ABSOLUTELY be against it. It specifies penalties for failing to inform, but specifically only applies to LTHC holders. It does not mention people without LTCH's (in other words, people most likely carrying illegally). Furthermore, it doesn't explain what "immediate" means in "immediately disclose".

This bill has exactly zero purpose besides providing a way to stack extra charges upon an otherwise law-abiding person. It would do NOTHING to increase officer safety or reduce crime. It's a deliberate and calculated attack upon law-abiding gun owners.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
SB25 enables mentally sound law abiding citizens to protect themselves to and from work and to some extent protect them from a mentally unsound person who might cause bodily harm/death at the workplace.

If people fail to see this as a sound argument then they do not believe in the 2nd amendment.

Actually, it will do nothing to enable workers to protect themselves against active shooters in the workplace. With your gun in your car, you will never be able to use it to protect yourself. However, there is no bill out there that proposes to trample the private property rights of employers by requiring them to allow workers the tools to defend themselves in the workplace. If companies wish to engage in such willfully negligent activities as disarming their employees in the workplace, they may still do so even under this bill.

What this bill DOES do, however, is protect the private property rights of employees to some small extent. The only problem is, it doesn't go far enough. Instead of being aimed only at guns, the bill should completely protect the private property rights of employees by outright prohibiting employer searches of their worker's private property.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As BoR said, it's a dead bill, but you should ABSOLUTELY be against it. It specifies penalties for failing to inform, but specifically only applies to LTHC holders. It does not mention people without LTCH's (in other words, people most likely carrying illegally). Furthermore, it doesn't explain what "immediate" means in "immediately disclose".

This bill has exactly zero purpose besides providing a way to stack extra charges upon an otherwise law-abiding person. It would do NOTHING to increase officer safety or reduce crime. It's a deliberate and calculated attack upon law-abiding gun owners.

True, Scutter. Imagine this:

Driver, with hands at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, interior light on, seat belt fastened: "Good evening, officer. How can I help you?"

Cop, who is possibly new, possibly just anti-gun rights, or possibly out to slam you personally: "Do you have a firearm in the car?"

Driver: "Why yes, I do. It's locked in the glovebox. Would you like to see my License to Carry?"

Cop: "Doesn't matter. Step out of the car, please. I'm arresting you for failing to immediately disclose the presence of your firearm."


Note that the above is hypothetical and a worst case scenario. Most cops would not do that...but they would be within their powers to do so, if that bill became law.

If you don't want that to be lawful, fight it...Fight it today and in any future incarnation.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

Cop: "Doesn't matter. Step out of the car, please. I'm arresting you for failing to immediately disclose the presence of your firearm."

Don't forget: If you DON'T have a license, you would be under no obligation to disclose that you have a firearm. At BEST, the bill was very poorly worded. Personally, I think the bill's author was looking at what some other states do and said "Hey, that sounds like a great idea! We should do that here!" without having any concept of what it's supposed to accomplish.

 

[Roadie]

True, Scutter. Imagine this:

Driver, with hands at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, interior light on, seat belt fastened: "Good evening, officer. How can I help you?"

Cop, who is possibly new, possibly just anti-gun rights, or possibly out to slam you personally: "Do you have a firearm in the car?"

Driver: "Why yes, I do. It's locked in the glovebox. Would you like to see my License to Carry?"

Cop: "Doesn't matter. Step out of the car, please. I'm arresting you for failing to immediately disclose the presence of your firearm."


Note that the above is hypothetical and a worst case scenario. Most cops would not do that...but they would be within their powers to do so, if that bill became law.

If you don't want that to be lawful, fight it...Fight it today and in any future incarnation.

Blessings,
Bill

I KNOW I read an article about this very thing happening somewhere, but I can't find it to save my life...

 

[Bubba]

Anyone see the result of the House vote? I tuned in to the live stream over lunch but missed 1065 and 1068. The bills' pages aren't updated yet, either.

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

Anyone see the result of the House vote? I tuned in to the live stream over lunch but missed 1065 and 1068. The bills' pages aren't updated yet, either.

I was watching it too. They should be back on around 3:00 today

 

[jdhaines]

You guys make good points on the disclosure law. I guess I wasn't against an officer knowing I'm armed or not, but put in that context it doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Tom Wyss spoke against the bill.
Sen. Brent Steele spoke for it.
Ron Alting thanked Sen. Nugent for including schools and colleges as places that could continue to have these rules. He will support it.
Sen. Brandt Hershman spoke for it... He and Sen. Steele both brought up that the crazies won't pay attention to restrictions. He also brought up Sandra Froman and Suzanna Hupp. Voting for the bill.
Karen Tallian believes the bill is unfair. Voting against.
Sen. Brent Waltz will be voting for the bill.
Sen. Nugent got in some VERY good comments in closing.
The final vote: 41-9. PASSED

Breaux, Broden, Lanane, Randolph, Rogers, Simpson, Tallian, Taylor, and Wyss were the "no" votes. (I may have gotten a couple of those wrong... it went by very quickly.)

On to the House.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ramen]

Tom Wyss spoke against the bill.
Sen. Brent Steele spoke for it.
Ron Alting thanked Sen. Nugent for including schools and colleges as places that could continue to have these rules. He will support it.
Sen. Brandt Hershman spoke for it... He and Sen. Steele both brought up that the crazies won't pay attention to restrictions. He also brought up Sandra Froman and Suzanna Hupp. Voting for the bill.
Karen Tallian believes the bill is unfair. Voting against.
Sen. Brent Waltz will be voting for the bill.
Sen. Nugent got in some VERY good comments in closing.
The final vote: 41-9. PASSED

Breaux, Broden, Lanane, Randolph, Rogers, Simpson, Tallian, Taylor, and Wyss were the "no" votes. (I may have gotten a couple of those wrong... it went by very quickly.)

That is correct. Interesting enough, Senators Taylor and Randolph voted for it last year and against it this.

Errington voted no last time and yes this time.

The rest voted the same.