2019 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

Agendas have been added for 23 Jan Senate Judiciary Committee. None of the bills appear to be on our Radar. Nothing so far on any of the House Committees (Education, Judiciary, Public Policy) we're eyeballing. The opposite of being a GI: wait and hurry up.

Senate Committee on Judiciary - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

 

[MCgrease08]

Probably not my best work, but I managed to oppose four bills on unconstitutional storage requirements and support the Lucas/Smaltz Tax Credit for firearms safety expenses.

(Senator/Representative name here),
I’m writing to encourage your opposition to SB 309, HB 1040, HB 1048, and HB 1149: Storage of Firearms.
Under Indiana Code 35-47-10, dangerous control of a weapon and dangerous control of a child are both felonies. The bills in question go much further to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
Vague language such as “The person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm” is particularly concerning. If anyone under the age of 18 (by definition a child) is in the home the bills require firearms to be securely stored or made inoperable.
This type of requirement was the law in the District of Columbia prior to the landmark DC v Heller case in 2008. In the majority opinion it was found that such restrictions “would fail Constitutional muster”.
To encourage safe storage and handling of firearms without violating Supreme Court rulings, I’d recommend supporting HB 1109: Income tax credit for firearms safety expenses, authored by James Lucas and co-authored by Ben Smaltz.
HB 1109 provides a tax credit of $200 or $400 (depending on filing status) for purchase of storage devices and receiving training from NRA-certified instructors. This encourages safe handling and storage of firearms opposed to an unconstitutional mandate.
Your opposition to SB 309, HB 1040, HB 1048, HB 1149, and support of HB 1109 is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

Email sent to my Rep (Todd Houston) this morning.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Email sent to my Rep (Todd Houston) this morning.

Cool! Email, print and mail, call, repeat.

 

[2A_Tom]

Useless e-mail sent to my useless Rep.Vernon Smith.

just

I have never had a response like this from a politician before.

Smith, Vernon <vesmith@iun.edu>	1:39 PM (41 minutes ago)		​
to me

​Please know that I will oppose the bills that you brought to my attention. May I suggest that you reach out to the leadership of both houses and the Govenor and share your concerns.

Be blessed. It is a honor to serve you.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Useless e-mail sent to my useless Rep.Vernon Smith.

just

I have never had a response like this from a politician before.

Smith, Vernon <vesmith@iun.edu>	1:39 PM (41 minutes ago)		​
to me

​Please know that I will oppose the bills that you brought to my attention. May I suggest that you reach out to the leadership of both houses and the Govenor and share your concerns.

Be blessed. It is a honor to serve you.

This would be Vernon Smith (D, District 14; F, NRA-ILA)? Did hell freeze over, or did you send him a pro-2A bill?

 

[2A_Tom]

I sent him a slightly edited copy of your storage bill e-mail.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I sent him a slightly edited copy of your storage bill e-mail.

When he votes for those bills hit reply on the e-mail, 50 times a day.

 

[KellyinAvon]

(Senator/Representative name here),
I’m writing to encourage your support of SB 88: Houses of Worship and Firearms, authored by Senators Jack Sandlin, Michael Tomes and James Tomes.
Under current law, houses of worship are considered school property if used as a school, or even if a separate building on adjoining property is used a school.
It is quite troubling that law-abiding citizens must choose between self-defense and where to practice their religion. In a day in age where both the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issue warnings to religious institutions concerning terrorist attacks, property lines determine whether being prepared for an armed defense is also a felony.
SB 88 provides those entering a religious service the same rights as those in the church across the street with no school on the property. This bill also goes as far as stating would retain the right to prohibit firearms if desired, as is the right of any property owner.
According to the Indiana Department of Education website, there are 362 non-public schools in the State of Indiana for the 2018-2019 school year. 89% of the schools have a religious affiliation. While it’s unknown exactly how many of these schools have houses of worship affected by current law, but one is too many.
Again, your support of SB 88 is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,

Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wow, sent an e-mail at 0640, got a call at 0840!

Cody (who works for both Senators Tomes and Sandlin) called me concerning this subject:

SB 119 is to correct the verbiage. There was a code update in 1993 that identified a machine gun as an "assault weapon". It was partially repealed in 1995.

The made up term "assault weapon" was still in the code. This gets machine gun in the code.

Also, the guidance concerning long guns (not NFA) has the "must be 18" requirement. This aligns the 21 age requirement with federal guidance.

In other words, it gets the horrible made up non-defined term "assault weapon" out of one more place. Senator Tome is still pro-2A.

SB 119 is scheduled for a hearing on 30 January, 0900, Room 130. It is now authored by Senators Tomes, Sandlin and Doriot. Co-authored by Senator Garten and Freeman.

We know Senators Tomes and Sandlin are strong 2A supporters. Senators Doriot, Garten, and Freeman are fairly new to the game, but were identified as pro-gun candidates by NRA-ILA. Not sure how the antis will oppose this, codifying "machine gun" and eliminating "assault weapon" is a step in the right direction.

Senate Committee on Judiciary - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

 

[KellyinAvon]

Here's a draft for HB 1109 and a link to the Ways and Means committee.
House Committee on Ways and Means - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

(Senator/Representative name here),
I’m writing to encourage your support of HB 1109: Income tax credit for firearms safety expenses, authored by James Lucas, co-authored by Ben Smaltz and Christy Stutzman.



HB 1109 provides a tax credit of $200 or $400 (depending on filing status) for purchase of storage devices and receiving training from NRA-certified instructors.
Lawful gun owners are the biggest proponents of safe firearms handling and storage. HB 1109 provides a valuable incentive for law-abiding gun owners to seek training and have a means to store firearms in a manner that allows access and also prevents firearms from falling into the wrong hands.


Currently under Indiana Code 35-47-10, dangerous control of a weapon and dangerous control of a child are both felonies. This legislative session has seen a number of bills introduced in both the House and Senate with titles such as “Safe Storage of Firearms”.


SB 309, HB 1040, HB 1048, and HB 1149 go much further than current Indiana Code and makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Vague language such as “The person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm” is particularly concerning. If anyone under the age of 18 (by definition a child) is in the home the bills require firearms to be securely stored or made inoperable.



This type of requirement was the law in the District of Columbia prior to the landmark DC v Heller case in 2008. In the majority opinion it was found that such restrictions “would fail Constitutional muster”.


According to Indiana State Police data: since January 2013: the number of Hoosiers with a valid License To Carry a Handgun has increased by 88%. The “Doughnut Counties” surrounding Indianapolis have seen an increase of 103% in that time. Indiana now has the highest percentage of adults with handgun licenses. Background checks for firearms purchase and transfer (NICS) sets records every year. There is one unescapable conclusion: law-abiding Hoosiers own and carry more firearms than ever before.


Encourage safe handling and storage of firearms by supporting HB 1109.


Thank you,

Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[KellyinAvon]

Looks like they dropped about 60 more bills on the house side. Nothing new on the committee schedules.

 

[brotherbill3]

Kelly gets the gold star for being "ON IT" this session - follow his lead. I'm still struggling w/ time availability and life issues.
When I get to rep you Kelly - you'll get it and some evening - after work - a stop for a beer perhaps or something (whatever).

 

[brotherbill3]

Looks like they dropped about 60 more bills on the house side. Nothing new on the committee schedules.

Actually I think closer to 100 - but the last 25 or so are all "vehicle bills" (basically - blank for the use of the speaker / others to fix stuff at the end) ...

This looks "positive" by Ben Smaltz:
HB 1643 ...
House Bill 1643 - Firearms matters - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

Firearms matters. Designates the following as voter registration offices: (1) Each office affiliated with the Indiana state police. (2) Each office affiliated with the sheriff of a county. (3) Each office affiliated with a municipal law enforcement agency. Specifies that each issuance of a hunting, fishing, or trapping license shall be accompanied by a mail in voter registration form. Permits a person who may legally possess a firearm to possess a firearm on school property, unless prohibited by the owner of a property where a house of worship is situated, if the person possesses the firearm: (1) as an employee or volunteer of a house of worship located on the school property; or (2) while attending a worship service or religious ceremony conducted at a house of worship. Increases the duration of a four year handgun license to five years. Provides that an individual may simultaneously hold both a five year license and a lifetime license. Requires a law enforcement officer to whom an application for a handgun license is made to consult available local, state, and federal criminal history data banks, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), when determining whether possession of a firearm by an applicant would be a violation of state or federal law. Removes the fees for lifetime licenses beginning July 1, 2020. Excludes certain nonexclusive uses of school property from the statutory definition of "school property".

There is also 1651:
House Bill 1651 - Seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

snot snow spotive on this one - need to read more:

I get the feeling this is a "we must do something" attempt - but I am not sure - the digest is longer than some bills:

Seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals. Requires the Indiana criminal justice institute to track and record the following: (1) The name of the law enforcement agency responsible for each confiscation of a firearm from a person adjudicated or believed to be dangerous. (2) The number of: (A) warrant based; and (B) warrantless; firearm confiscations from dangerous persons by a law enforcement agency. (3) The county, court of origin, and judge responsible for each written court order finding a person to be dangerous. (4) The total number of: (A) handguns; (B) long guns; and (C) NFA regulated firearms; confiscated from persons adjudicated or believed to be dangerous each year. (5) Each: (A) appeal of; or (B) reversal of; a written court order that finds a person to be dangerous. Provides that a dangerous person is not a proper person for the purpose of: (1) applying for; or (2) receiving; a license to carry a handgun. Provides that a dangerous person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) rents; (2) purchases; (3) receives transfer of; (4) owns; or (5) possesses; a firearm commits dangerous possession of a firearm, a Level 6 felony. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) rents; (2) transfers; (3) sells; or (4) offers for sale; a firearm to a person that a court has found to be dangerous or prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm commits dangerous transfer of a firearm, a Level 5 felony. Requires a law enforcement officer (officer) who seizes a firearm from a person believed to be dangerous without a warrant to provide an affidavit to a court with jurisdiction over the person at issue: (1) not later than 48 hours after the seizure or attempted seizure of the firearm; and (2) for each seizure or attempted seizure of a firearm from the person. Requires a court to review the affidavit of an officer as soon as possible. Requires a court to order the retention of a seized firearm by a law enforcement agency if the court: (1) finds; or (2) has previously found; the person to be dangerous. Requires a court to determine if a person is dangerous by conducting a hearing after: (1) the receipt of an officer's affidavit; or (2) authorizing a search warrant mandating the seizure of a firearm from a person believed to be dangerous. Requires a court to issue a written court order prohibiting a person from: (1) renting; (2) buying; (3) receiving transfer of; (4) owning; or (5) possessing a firearm; after finding a person to be dangerous. Requires a court to provide certain information to the office of judicial administration after issuing a finding concerning a person's dangerousness. Requires a court to issue a written order finding that a person is: (1) not dangerous; or (2) no longer dangerous; in certain instances. Provides that a dangerous person may petition a court for a court order vacating the person's designation as a dangerous individual 180 days after being found dangerous by a circuit or superior court. Specifies the process that a dangerous individual must follow when petitioning a court for the dissolution of a dangerous person designation. Provides that the authorized disposal or authorized sale of a firearm retained by a law enforcement agency does not: (1) alter or terminate a person's designation as a dangerous individual; or (2) constitute prima facie evidence that a person is not dangerous. Allows the rightful owner of a firearm to petition a court for an order mandating the: (1) disposal; or (2) sale; of a seized or retained firearm. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments

 

[KellyinAvon]

Kelly gets the gold star for being "ON IT" this session - follow his lead. I'm still struggling w/ time availability and life issues.
When I get to rep you Kelly - you'll get it and some evening - after work - a stop for a beer perhaps or something (whatever).

Glad I can help out Bill. My standards on beer, "must not come in a 30 pack"

OK, time to do some readin. I saw 1643 was from Ben Smaltz so I knew it would be to our liking.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Bill (BB3, not the bill in question) posted the synopsis to HB 1643 in #133. After going through it I'd say it combines SB 88 (Houses of Worship and Firearms) with redefining school property. It definitely brings back (from last session) the 5 year/Brady Exempt LTCH and eliminates cost of the lifetime LTCH. I think the synopsis doesn't cover the impact on the following:

Below in bold is what the bill adds to the current Indiana code (not in bold). This is an important step and goes farther than SB 88. It eliminates the 24/7 "school property" from the church, the vacant lot, and when it's not being used as a school.

SECTION 7. IC 35-31.5-2-285, AS ADDED BY P.L.114-2012, 15 SECTION 67, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE 16 JULY 1, 2019]: Sec. 285. (a) Except as provided in subsection
(b), "school property" means the following:
(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by: (A) a school corporation; (B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27; (C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or (D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following: (i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq. (ii) A special education preschool program. 31 (iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.
(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision (1).
(b) The term does not include any portion of a school property that is or is reasonably believed to be: (1) used nonexclusively by an organization or program described in subsection (a)(1) in accordance with a rental contract, time share contract, property covenant, easement, or other similar agreement; or
(2) owned or rented and used by a person other than an organization or program described in subsection (a)(1) when the property is not under the exclusive use and control of an organization or program described in subsection (a)(1).

 

[KellyinAvon]

I took a look at HB 1651 Seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals. I need to read through it again, probably tomorrow. On first read this appears to provide more protection than the current "Laird Law", attempting to make something too vague more specific. It defines "dangerous person", requires an affidavit (opposed to a written statement) from LEO to the court. Adds a statement under 35-47-14: Nothing in this chapter may be construed to authorize a warrantless search or seizure by a law enforcement officer if a warrant would otherwise be required.

I need to read it again before I go thumbs up, but it could be a positive step. Can I get an INGO lawyer to give it a read?

 

[brotherbill3]

I took a look at HB 1651 Seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals. I need to read through it again, probably tomorrow. On first read this appears to provide more protection than the current "Laird Law", attempting to make something too vague more specific. It defines "dangerous person", requires an affidavit (opposed to a written statement) from LEO to the court. Adds a statement under 35-47-14: Nothing in this chapter may be construed to authorize a warrantless search or seizure by a law enforcement officer if a warrant would otherwise be required.

I need to read it again before I go thumbs up, but it could be a positive step. Can I get an INGO lawyer to give it a read?

2nd on the lawyer - because as far as "red-flag" laws goes - I'd like to know how much the Jake Laird Law is abused vs how much it COULD be abuse if written like most other states - and if this makes it actually better or not - and that gets keep into practices ...

ALSO feed back from INGO LEO's ... on use and abuses of this statute.

 

[KellyinAvon]

2nd on the lawyer - because as far as "red-flag" laws goes - I'd like to know how much the Jake Laird Law is abused vs how much it COULD be abuse if written like most other states - and if this makes it actually better or not - and that gets keep into practices ...

ALSO feed back from INGO LEO's ... on use and abuses of this statute.

It added some requirements, including no more than 48 hours to get in front of a judge. There's also a 2 week requirement, need to read again tonight. Too much legal stuff.

I'm sending an e-mail to my NRA-ILA POC. Not a lawyer, not a fan of red flag laws. Due Process being the issue as it is with us.

 

[2A_Tom]

There are some posts from our LEO here, in case you have not been following.

[h=1]Red flag orders - the left has found a magic bullet against guns[/h]
Molon Labe: BANG!

 

[KellyinAvon]

My NRA-ILA POC is at SHOT but he forwarded to an NRA -ILA JD familiar with IC.