SB 229 just managed to survive an attempt to amend OUT Rep Lucas' languange.
Reps Austin (D - 36) and Rep Lawson (D - 1) - those are Anderson Area, and Hammond Area, respectively - pushed for this amendment.
silly arguments - emotional / fears / procedural (fail!!!) ; Lawson was former LEO (so except!)
Austin former (??) teacher ...
This Amend killed 72-25 ... (that means some D's voted smartly)
... keep writing the Representatives
FINAL VOTE IS MONDAY.
Do you mind typing up what she said so we can all write to clue her in on some logic?
I've contacted my rep and leadership, asking support for HB299. Incase someone is keeping a makeshift tally.
I'm curious as to the proper tact on this. I wouldn't imagine it would be helpful to just keep re-sending ones original message. For those that do write often, what do you recommend as an approach?
Dang it! I'll resend emails. I went off of BOR's letter in his post where it says "299". I'd hope they would be smart enough with te context of my letter to understand my intentions but I'll still resend. Thanks for catching thatSB 229
Dear Rep. Lawson,
I just had opportunity to hear your passionate speech in re: Rep. Lucas' amendment to SB 229. You clearly have some deep feelings about this issue. Where it seems to me that we differ is that you say that you yourself carry and say that you think "we all should...if that's what we choose" to do, your amendment belies your stated opinion, instead saying that "we all" means only LEOs or only legislators. In point of fact, however, I support what you're saying: given that cars in school parking lots are magnets for break-ins and vandalism, and given that people have a right to keep and bear arms (meaning not just to own but to carry them on their persons,) it is clear to me that you are arguing that people should not leave their guns in their cars at schools or anywhere else, but rather keep them on their persons to keep them from being stolen. The thing Dr. John Lott showed that criminals fear most is not a police officer, as police are a reactive force and likely not present when the crime occurs, but rather an armed (intended) victim. Given that fact, while you seemed to be arguing that gun owners should simply be disarmed (although you, as an officer or retired officer would not be) you were instead arguing in favor of an armed citizenry. Couching this in an argument that appeared to be "guns for me, but not for thee" was, in a word, brilliant.
I have to admit, seeing this attitude from a Democratic Representative is a refreshing change, and pleases me greatly. I'm quite sure that your impassioned speech will be very useful in future efforts to pass Constitutional Carry and abolish "gun free zones" in Indiana. This is all a roundabout way of thanking you for supporting the rights of gun owners in our state.
Most sincerely,
(signed)
SB 169 - FYI:
This just passed the HOUSE - 93 yes 0 no.
- with changes from the SENATE
so off to conference committee. need to figure out the updates on revisions and who to contact.
I just googled this and couldn't figure out if it was a Pro 2nd Amendment bill or what the significance was? Sorry I'm not caught up on all the bills.