Does more diffuse mean pot-related?
That’s how I read it.
Does more diffuse mean pot-related?
Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state lawPet peeve, under the storage at public venue bill what is with this section.
First Indiana has a license not a permit, and 2nd we do not have a reciprocity agreement with any state. It would be better to word it as a "valid handgun permit that Indiana recognizes".
And HB 1048 is IMO worser. It could make it a felony to have an ad/nd in a town/city. Isn't there already a law(s) that would cover this if it was done in an unsafe manner. Reckless endangerment for starters.
Didn’t Bosma warn Lucas and company not to re-introduce Constitutional carry the session?
I don't know. I'd wager there were some words to that effect after it crashed last year. I know, following Jim's FB page, his energies are...more diffuse...this time around.
Something tells me we wont see constitutional carry brought up by our supposed 2a friendly legislators anytime soon. I hope im wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any true constitutionalists, especially with a spine, in any form of government anymore.
IGA (Indiana General Assembly) AKA – “State Government” has convened for the “LONGER” 2019 session. As I shared the other day there area already a number of proposals that fall under the area of “Gun Control” – most trying to “ADD” more to it, so far, and only 2 that are seeking to “REDUCE” the infringements we already face to our Article 1, Section 32 (IN) and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment (US) protected rights.
My time is very limited and there is A LOT TO DO – EVERY DAY (yeah choose freedom daily!)
So, here is a list and some links – with some VERY SHORT summaries of the legislative proposals:
IGA SENATE (where most are so far):
PRO 2A: SB 88 and SB 135 (link to each) – Houses of Worship and Firearms. J. Sandlin
Senate Bill 88 - Houses of worship and firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Senate Bill 135 - Houses of worship and firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
These are revised / hopefully “Best of” one of the most promising proposals from last year’s session. The general idea is to remove the carry/possession prohibition from Houses of Worship which are joint with “school” property – because “schools” are a defined term and a defined “GFZ”. Support these – we just need to determine which one is getting pushed and what (if any) edits need to be made per last years discussion.
PRO 2A – SB 134 – Storage of firearms at public venues – J. Sandlin
Senate Bill 134 - Storage of firearms at public venues - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Provides that certain public venues (where possession / carry is prohibited) MUST provide secure storage for those legally allowed (LTCH holders) to carry to and from said location(s).
Not as Ideal as eliminating the GFZ’s but a step forward as it removes limitations of carrying to and from (which is my greatest pet peeve many times, where I see the greatest risk) given events, locations, and activities. … Need Detailed Review –but generally support this.
MIXED REVIEW: SB119 - Prohibited firearm transfers to minors – J. Tomes.
Senate Bill 119 - Prohibited firearm transfers to minors - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
While I get where Senator Tomes is trying to do (tie state law to similar federal law); and general beef up punishments for letting minor’s commit crimes with MACHINE GUNS – there are definitions that I’m not sure are not “too broad” in his revision. (Need to address this more shortly, and to Sen. Tomes). I agree this area needs to be cleaned up and fixed, to punish those who commit crimes and protect those who are educating children to shoot. (I see a potential big “reg flag”) – Could support / but needs Revisions IMO
OPPOSE: SB 125 - Open carry of rifles – G. Taylor
OPPOSE: SB 126 - Prohibited equipment on firearms – G. Taylor
Senate Bill 125 - Open carry of rifles - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2019/bills/senate/126
Both of these by Sen Taylor skirt issues and naming – BOTH are aimed at FURTHER restricting the “infringed rights” of the law abiding. First one not only makes it a crime to carry such rifles, but appears to even add (old AWB) restriction to what can be possessed. The second is a potential attack on parts kits, as with the recent “Bump Stock Plus” prohibitions of the ATF. These are OPPOSED without question. They are seeking to create problems where there are none; and then criminalize the acts of the law abiding.
OPPOSE: SB 263 – Minimum Age to purchase “assault weapon” (quotes mine): Mrvan
Senate Bill 263 - Minimum age to purchase assault weapons - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
raises age for certain weapons to 21 to purchase, trade, transfer … This again is a further restriction creating a problem where one does not exist. Creates a new term called “regulated weapon” … OPPOSE.
ALL of these are before the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senate Committee on Judiciary - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
NOTE:
The Chairman – Senator Randall Head: Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
is the SOLE person (less pressure from chamber leadership) who decides what legislation gets a hearing and what does not.
There are several others we have heard of but do not have information for at this time (SB 306, SB307) that were in the news media last week. I will add these when information is available. I expect a few more than this as well between now and submission deadline.
FOR THE STATE HOUSE: There are currently 3 items that are listed – OPPOSE ALL (Why? Read on)
HB 1040 - Firearm storage requirements – J Bartlett
House Bill 1040 - Firearm storage requirements - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
This legislation would prohibit a law abiding person from possession based on the limitations / status other people at the residence being prohibited or under-aged (and “risky”) … This is where “Personal Responsibility” kicks in. So a legal person married to a person with a prohibitive conviction would be unable to provide legal protection to their home or to legally carry –even if the partner is no threat and has no access.
HB1048 - Firearm storage. – C. Jackson
House Bill 1048 - Firearm storage - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Storage so that kids cannot access (very broad, terms undefined) NO. Makes not being secured a felony (too many questions);
The 2 above were sent to the HOUSE PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE:
House Committee on Public Policy - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Rep Ben Smaltz is again the chair here (a friend to our rights in this area):
Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
HB1049 - Surrender of firearms for domestic violence crimes – C. Jackson
House Bill 1049 - Surrender of firearms for domestic violence crimes - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
This is on the surface redundant, as a conviction would make a person a prohibited possessor. I need to dig through this more but I am fairly certain this is a NO.
This one has been sent to the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON Courts and Criminal Code:
House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
REP Wendy McNamara is the Chairwoman:
Legislator details - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
Our Strongest Ally – Rep Lucas – has several (at least 3) items in the 2A / Art.1.Sec 32 area that he has drafted – INCLUDING: CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY. – but these – like others – are not listed yet. I hope to see them soon.
Remember – get more people to call and/or write – pushing for the good and against those that take our rights – to the committee chairs is vital – 1 calls from each of 10 people is better than 10 calls from 1 person. Send us reviews or draft letters we can share (or start from) – either in comments or in messages.
We are here to help you – to stand up for your rights and those of our posterity. As always – Please Like, Comment and Share – and Share beyond Facebook – other media, etc. We need to get all the people that we can, who support our individual constitutionally protected freedoms, engaged and involved, to support them.
In Liberty,
BB3
LUCAS shared about a week ago all 10 (the limit per house person can "AUTHOR", IIRC) bills - just the cover with very "scriptive" title for each and no numbers yet assigned.
one of these WAS: CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.
one was his tax credit for safety storage / training ...
One was the end of GFZ ....
I do not recall all of the others (several were hemp / cannabis related)
Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law
Rep Carolyn Jackson who authored HB 1048 and 1049 is out of District 1. A Dem who ran unopposed and got an F from NRA-ILA. I read 1049 and it looks cut and dry (this is what the law already is) but considering who wrote it my suspicions are up. Time to read another...
Good eye AmmoMan! I was scrolling when I should've been not scrolling on that one. Creates a law requiring Police confiscation and disposal if the conviction stands since the only two options are disposable and return to rightful owner.It looks like it requires surrender of the firearms to LE with no option for other legal disposal (i.e. - selling within a certain specified time period). I'm not sure what Indiana's current law is, but this doesn't look good. This bill is a "NO" for me.
Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law
Are you seriously going to argue semantics ? If you would open a thesaurus and look, you would see that "license" and "Permit" are synonyms ... meaning they are interchangeable or you could open a dictionary and read the individual definitions and also see this. secondly ... yes Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states. If you would research this a little you would know this. Smart people who travel out of state always double check this information before traveling to make sure they are in compliance with the laws where ever they are going. As far as the discharge of a fire arm with in a town or city limits, there are laws that make that illegal mostly, but those are generaly local laws - I.E. city / town ordinances or county laws... this aims to make it a state law
I think one had to do with penalizing willfull/malicious false accusers with the penalty the accused would have gotten if convicted.
There are about 8 or 9 new bills listed, if I am recalling correctly.
I have been in meetings all day, and I will update shortly (meaning after I get home).
A few are storage bills nearly same as ones already listed ... 3 are pro rights bills from Lucas.