SB 229 signed!

[Dustzilla]

Please check your local news source to see if they published the effective date. The Associated Press dropped the ball on this. It could result in thousands of Hoosiers becoming felons. I emailed ALL of the news outlets in INDY that did not include the effective date and they are updating their coverage. Below is a link to the legislation. The effective date is on page 2. Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

 

[John Galt]

Effective date is July 1, 2014. Present law applies until then, so be very careful!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thanks to everyone for their hard (and sometimes frustrating) work on this!

 

[Vigilant]

This is Great news, and only wish it went into affect immediately! Hopefully no one gets jacked up before then!

 

[Dwight]

I love that the facts on Page 2 indicate a whopping 4 people have been committed to the DoC between 2009 - 2012. I am glad to get this passed as it helps swing the momentum in the right direction, but it also shows that it was not a huge problem to begin with.

Those crazy Moms are always trying to blow things out of proportion...

 

[PeaShooter]

I love that the facts on Page 2 indicate a whopping 4 people have been committed to the DoC between 2009 - 2012. I am glad to get this passed as it helps swing the momentum in the right direction, but it also shows that it was not a huge problem to begin with.

Those crazy Moms are always trying to blow things out of proportion...

And out of those 4, how many were not otherwise law abiding citizens and parents, but someone who really wanted to hurt people on school property.

 

[Slapstick]

Good for them. As for the "Moms", F'em if they can't take a joke.

That may be their problem, being married to them has caused their husband's "personal guns" to malfunction so they are now after all guns.

 

[John Galt]

I love that the facts on Page 2 indicate a whopping 4 people have been committed to the DoC between 2009 - 2012. I am glad to get this passed as it helps swing the momentum in the right direction, but it also shows that it was not a huge problem to begin with.

Those crazy Moms are always trying to blow things out of proportion...

It was a very huge problem, as it exposed lawful, innocent people to a life-ruining felony charge. Those that respect the law, as it was written, did not carry their firearms with them if they were leaving their vehicle while on school property, therefore leaving them defenseless for the rest of their journey. Just because it wasn't used doesn't mean it didn't have it's negative consequences.

 

[brotherbill3]

It was a very huge problem, as it exposed lawful, innocent people to a life-ruining felony charge. Those that respect the law, as it was written, did not carry their firearms with them if they were leaving their vehicle while on school property, therefore leaving them defenseless for the rest of their journey. Just because it wasn't used doesn't mean it didn't have it's negative consequences.

QFT

 

[littletommy]

Pence Spoke at a luncheon today in Valpo. I asked him about why it had not been signed yet (I had not been on INGO today) and he immediately says " I signed it yesterday... (Ie. he knew which Law I was talking about immediately...)
He then follows with "I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, as well as a law abiding citizen to carry to protect themselves". I then said "I have carried for years and I'm so glad to live in Indiana" and you know what he said? "Thank you for carrying, we need more responsible law abiding people to carry, its the best answer to reducing crime more in our State"

Wow... I WAS impressed...

(baby steps... baby steps....)

His ideas on business development for Indiana are right on... Lowest business taxes as well as unemployment in the Midwest, and two new Big manufacturers breaking ground on 100M and 300 Mill mfg facilities in the last two weeks.... one in Lafayette (GE) and one in Valparaiso (Pratt)

2 Billion dollar Reserve, in addition to a Budget that still spends less than they take in... wow a politician that actually DOES try to live within their means and not spend our money like water... what a novel concept!!!...

That's awesome!

 

[Enkrypter]

That's awesome!

+1 Pence

+1,000,000 common sense!

 

[GIJEW]

Yes... That's the text of the law.

In addition I heard that in Georgia their 'Guns Everywhere' bill passed their legislature which even allows guns in their airports and schools. I imagine the 'Moms' are VERY pissed...

I don't get the part about airports. They've got the TSA manning the entrance to the SECURE part of the airport. You mean to say that the feds have arrogated the authority to ban the 2A in the whole airport--really?

 

[indyblue]

I suppose that's all we can ask for. A much as I'd like to see us allowed to carry anywhere, I can't expect government to forcibly allow it and also be upset when government forcibly denies it. The choice should be up to the business owners.

Lets see. A business can't refuse to bake a cake for clientele whose lifestyles are against their religion or refuse to photograph an event they don't want to be involved in but they can refuse to serve "proper citizens" who choose to exercise their God given civil right to carry a weapon?

They want it both ways.

 

[poppy]

My thoughts exactly, indy.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Lets see. A business can't refuse to bake a cake for clientele whose lifestyles are against their religion or refuse to photograph an event they don't want to be involved in but they can refuse to serve "proper citizens" who choose to exercise their God given civil right to carry a weapon?

They want it both ways.

Last time I checked, this is America and people should be able to choose whatever they would like. That includes businesses.

 

[indyblue]

Yes, I think so too. However, at least two courts have said otherwise; i.e. the bakery case and the NM photography case. I'm sure there are other similar rulings.

The New Mexico Supreme Court Applies Anti-Discrimination Law to Wedding Photographer Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

"After the Commission’s ruling, the plaintiff appealed in the district court for a trial de novo reversing the award of attorneys’ fees and asking, among other things, for a declaration that it had not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and that its First Amendment rights (to free expression and the free exercise of religion) had been violated. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the photographer appealed again and lost in the court of appeals. Finally, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Willock and against the photographer."

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

"A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines."

 

[SteveM4A1]

Yes I am aware of those cases. They are unconstitutional.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Here is my question: If you are ordering a FOOD, ie. Wedding Cake, do you REALLY WANT the guy who doesnt want to do it and is being forced-coerced into baking it?? Sounds kind of like ticking off your local restaurant waitress before you have even ordered... (Hey I saw that movie Waiting, or whatever it was...)

 

[Bill of Rights]

I read about someone who was forced to bake a cake for a wedding they didn't want to do. The cake was made in the shape of a pile of excrement. Similarly, I would think a photographer would be in a position to control the camera and the amount of movement when the shutter snaps. (a tough decision to do that, as your own name is on the photos you take) I favor this approach, given that the more direct one has been forbidden by the courts. It's passive-aggressive, but the only option that remains. Of course, if you're doing shoddy work, you don't charge them for it. They're out no money, and thus, have no actual loss to come back at you to repay. In re: the cake, I'm thinking the reply to their complaint is simple:

"If I don't like McDonald's food, I don't go to McDonald's.
If I don't like a particular website, I don't log on there.
If you don't like my work, don't ask me to work for you."

You're out the cost of the eggs, cake mix, etc., or the film and developing chemicals, but while the courts can apparently compel you to work for anyone who pays you, I don't believe they have the ability to compel the quality of that work. "Sorry, I had an off day. I didn't charge them, as it wasn't up to my usual standard."

Blessings,
Bill

Here is my question: If you are ordering a FOOD, ie. Wedding Cake, do you REALLY WANT the guy who doesnt want to do it and is being forced-coerced into baking it?? Sounds kind of like ticking off your local restaurant waitress before you have even ordered... (Hey I saw that movie Waiting, or whatever it was...)

 

[dieselrealtor]

When this goes into effect will it end the "roaming" school zones?