Suppressor Hunting dead again in Indiana

[Rick983]

Just when you think those stupid @*% in Indianapolis are about to get something right, they drop the ball.

Last week, the NRA-backed legislation legalizing the use of suppressors for hunting was amended into another bill, due to a missed deadline by the House Public Policy Committee. Senate Bill 243, previously reported here, was unable to survive last week’s committee report deadline and is now considered a dead bill.
The “hunting with suppressors” language was then resurrected, thanks to the efforts of state Representative Sean Eberhart (R-57) and state Senators Ryan Mishler (R-9) and Travis Holdman (R-19). These legislators worked together to add the language from SB 243 to Representative Eberhart’s Natural Resources Omnibus bill, House Bill 1279. Yesterday, the Senate voted 49 to 0 to pass HB 1279 with the “hunting with suppressors” language included. It was then sent back to the state House for a concurrence vote in conference committee.
However, due to new rules adopted by the House of Representatives for this legislative session, if a bill does not get a hearing in a House committee, it cannot be accepted into another House bill. Unfortunately, this means that the pro-hunting language from SB 243 will be removed from HB 1279 in conference committee, and will not be allowed to move forward this session.
The National Rifle Association appreciates the efforts by state Representative Sean Eberhart and state Senators Ryan Mishler and Travis Holdman to keep the suppressor language alive.

 

[curraheeguns]

"if a bill does not get a hearing in a House committee, it cannot be accepted into another House bill."

Everything above is correct expect this line from what I understand. My understanding is that it could have passed but the public policy committee chairman, Representative Bill Davis of Jay, Delaware and Randolph Counties allowed it to die by objecting to the language being inserted into HB1279 because it was not passed by his committee.

Thanks Bill for acting like anything BUT a Republican that believes in the second amendment.

Indiana House of Representatives Republican Caucus: State Representative Bill Davis - Home

 

[Dirc]

Warning: unpopular opinion may follow.

I'll freely admit that I'm not a steady follower of political dealings, but if there is a set of rules and procedures to follow when passing bills, they should be followed whether you agree with the bill or not. If this bill was violating the procedures set forth by the Indiana House, then he was right to speak up.

If this were wording inserted into a bill to add a 2 cent tax to every round of ammunition, we would all be singing his praises. When he follows the rules and knocks out a clause we wanted, it's another story.

Maybe there's more to this story than I'm seeing, and I'd love the ability to use my suppressor in more circumstances, but I have to agree with a man who stands up for the rules, as long as he does so consistently. Whether I'm happy with the outcome or not.

 

[Boomstick]

I agree with Dirc. As with probbly all of us, I am disappointed, but rules are rules, and I'm sure somewhere downt he line following all procedure will help us more than hurt us. Here's hoping for it to be re-introduced next session

 

[yotewacker]

Sean Eberhart is a friend of mine. He always sticks up for the 2nd. I'm sure he will try again next year. Sean is also a big sponsor at NRA banquets.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

What disappoints me is the fact that this bill died due to Rep. Davis being lazy. Several members of the Indiana silencer world worked together to get through the Senate, then SSNFA and Huntertown hosted a shooting demo for the House which was a very positive experience for those involved.

Once it was up for committee they basically decided that they didn't want to work anymore and that it would be too much of a burden to spend 10-20 minutes to hear the bill. It isn't the end of the world, but it is very disappointing just the same.

 

[curraheeguns]

but if there is a set of rules and procedures to follow when passing bills, they should be followed whether you agree with the bill or not. If this bill was violating the procedures set forth by the Indiana House, then he was right to speak up.

You are understanding incorrectly.

The language of SB243, since not given a fair hearing in the public policy committee due to Rep. Davis canceling all further meetings limiting public input and killing all left over bills, was BY HOUSE RULES allowed to be added to another bill as an amendment.

A new HOUSE RULE this year says that the committee chair of a committee has the right to object to language being added as an amendment to another bill if that bill did not get a hearing in his committee.

Rep. Davis is not a victim of a sly under the table deal in which a law was going to be repealed. Rep. Davis purposely killed SB243 when he refused to hear it in the form of a committee meeting and then subsequently killed it a second time when he objected to it being added as an amendment to a natural resources bill.

In fact, who really killed this bill? Let's ask ourselves why a bill about hunting was ever assigned to the public policy committee instead of the natural resources committee in the first place.

It is my stance that the cards were stacked against this bill on the house side from the start.

So much for certain Indiana Republicans being for gun rights and allowing law abiding Hoosiers the right to exercise certain rights that even the Federal Government grants.

 

[Dirc]

I see. In this circumstance, I can certainly see the problem. Sounds like he was under no obligation to object to the inclusion, and in fact went out of his way to block it. Shame on you, Rep. Davis.

 

[curraheeguns]

btw....I didn't mean to underline and capitalize to be an azz, I was just stressing that this was all above board and the correct way to do things and that he killed it on purpose.

Which it looks like you got. :-)

 

[boonedock]

Now this is my opinion here...But why? Why do you need to hunt with a silencer?

 

[DarkRose]

Now this is my opinion here...But why? Why do you need to hunt with a silencer?

Reduces hearing damage, prevents noise pollution, more comfortable to younger or newer shooters, less disturbing to the furry critter population when hunting game with bag limits of multiple critters. To my understanding, in Europe, suppressors are encouraged and unregulated as a form of controlling noise pollution.

You don't NEED to hunt with a silencer, just like no one NEEDS to hunt at all, or NEEDS a car, or a computer, or a cell phone. But if you're a law-abiding citizen who owns one legally, why should you NOT be able to use it in a lawful manner?

Unless you're hunting terrorists, then you still don't NEED a silencer, a small-scale nuclear device will do just fine.

 

[boonedock]

Noise pollution uh? Well had to ask...guess that's my answer...good luck with that..

 

[Tripp11]

Noise pollution uh? Well had to ask...guess that's my answer...good luck with that..

What about commenting on his other, logical explanations for the bill? Or should your post be in purple?

 

[civicisaye]

Boondock, you have claimed to be an avid hunter, do share with us why you disagree with the use of suppressors. I personally think noise pollution is a valid reason, as is hearing protection.

 

[boonedock]

Boondock, you have claimed to be an avid hunter, do share with us why you disagree with the use of suppressors. I personally think noise pollution is a valid reason, as is hearing protection.

Didn't say I disagreed...Just asked why.. Don't see "noise pollution" as a problem..what you shoot maybe once or twice at a deer? Shoot a .22 at squirrels? once or twice a night at yotes....once at a Turkey...Don't see the harm...
I do however see a problem with poachers sniping deer out of truck windows in these parts....

So what are you gonna silence? Your .22 that is so deafining? Or your deer gun you shoot so much during season?
the reality is it will never happen with the goverment we have..
MY OPINION

 

[boonedock]

Boondock, you have claimed to be an avid hunter, do share with us why you disagree with the use of suppressors. I personally think noise pollution is a valid reason, as is hearing protection.

Bud I didn't Claim to be a avid hunter....I AM A HUNTER...I take 6 months off a year just to hunt...so ya...the claims are real.

 

[civicisaye]

Not attacking you, just wanted to see why you felt it wasnt neccessary. Thanks for the response, inquiring minds were curious.

 

[boonedock]

Not attacking you, just wanted to see why you felt it wasnt neccessary. Thanks for the response, inquiring minds were curious.

No worries man! Just asked a question...I did not say I was against it either..Just didn't see the point of it

 

[DarkRose]

My first deer was a double, about 30 seconds apart, two shots of 12ga slugs is enough to cause damage. I don't see it being used much for the big-bore deer and turkey guys (shotguns are difficult to suppress I've been told), its cost prohibitive, but for the small game and varmint hunters it'll be great.

 

[boonedock]

What about commenting on his other, logical explanations for the bill? Or should your post be in purple?

Looks like 4 of the 5 points he made were about "Noise" anyway you shuffle it..And WTH does purple got to do with it?