Bill would repeal law requiring license to carry

[Bill of Rights]

I just want to know why we elected a bunch of "guns rights" "liberty-minded" conservative republicans super majority who aren't concerned about our rights.

Because the alternative was a bunch of gun-hating, control-minded, liberal Democrats who are even less concerned about our rights?

Note the lack of quotation marks... it's intentional.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I just want to know why we elected a bunch of "guns rights" "liberty-minded" conservative republicans super majority who aren't concerned about our rights.

An excellent question for Speaker Bosma.

 

[dansgotguns]

The law against carrying handguns without a license was to prevent Blacks and Catholics from carrying handguns, not to prevent harm to others.

Is there a link to proof of this I've heard this a few times and always have been interested in doing some reading on it

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is there a link to proof of this I've heard this a few times and always have been interested in doing some reading on it

There's a bunch--books, law review articles, inter alia. How much do you want?

Here's a taste: The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

I should probably start a new thread for this.

 

[dansgotguns]

There's a bunch--books, law review articles, inter alia. How much do you want?

Here's a taste: The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

I should probably start a new thread for this.

Thand for the read! Have anything specifically on Indiana?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

On Indiana specifically? Not off the top of my head. The general surveys that Kopel, Cramer, Babat, Johnson, Tahmabessi, inter alia goes into Indiana specifically but it is limited as all survey books/articles are.

Let me start a new thread.

 

[Redhorse]

Because the alternative was a bunch of gun-hating, control-minded, liberal Democrats who are even less concerned about our rights?

Note the lack of quotation marks... it's intentional.

If they're simply "protecting" our rights without trying to expand them then it basically tells me they'll say whatever it takes to secure their power without proving their worth. Not bringing these bills up doesn't prove they're pro-second amendment, it simply shows they'll continue the current status quo instead of moving it forward.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It means we have to get involved as nothing will be given. Write and call. Get your friends involved in this fight.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If they're simply "protecting" our rights without trying to expand them then it basically tells me they'll say whatever it takes to secure their power without proving their worth. Not bringing these bills up doesn't prove they're pro-second amendment, it simply shows they'll continue the current status quo instead of moving it forward.

Look at the changes that have happened since about 2006, when the Lifetime LTCH passed and we became the first (and still only!) state to offer that option. We've steadily eliminated one rule after another, some years several at a time, including gaining preemption below the state level, employers being told they cannot even ask if you own guns, removal of businesses being able to tell you you can't keep your gun in your car (I'm still dubious as to whether that's governmental overreach, but it's a technical win for our side) and most recently, the ability to lawfully leave your gun in your locked vehicle on k-12 school property (which I thought would never happen!) Those are just the first four changes that come to mind since the huge change to the LTCH, and the one I just thought of, that one need not actually have to be in possession of the LTCH while carrying. Those don't even include judicial wins, such as the Richardson and Washington cases.

We've advanced gun rights quite a bit over the last few years. I don't disagree that we should keep the momentum going and go for big changes such as Mr. Lucas introduced; personally, I don't think his bills go far enough, although I understand that he can't just totally eliminate restrictions completely. From a legislative perspective, I wonder if Bosma didn't decide to lay off gun bills for a year for some reason, meaning this isn't Mr. Dermody's decision, he's just being a good middle manager and taking the heat for it (the alternative being losing that position as committee chairman next year, and the bills he passed this year stalling at the Second and Third reading, meaning he did it for nothing) Brian Bosma holds a LOT of power. His predecessor, Pat Bauer, handled that power far worse; I watched several times where he would take a voice vote and call a bill or an amendment or whatever "failed" or "passed", completely opposite the House voice vote, and I saw him assign bills to committees that never met.

It may also be that the members were getting uncomfortable rumblings from their home districts, too, that we'd pushed too many new laws through in too short a time, in some opinions. To me, this means that 150 legislators need to hear from 37,000+ of us a couple of times every month this year, telling them what we want and what we expect. We are a large number, perhaps 9-10% of the total voters in this state, allowing for duplicate registrations and spammers, and people that don't, or don't any longer, live in Indiana. We also are not all of the gun owners that have a stake in our laws. We can turn that population into a political force, if we organize it. If not, we'll sit back when the session is over, type a bunch more posts bi***ing about the session, then go back to discussing places where people carry, what they carry, etc., and come next session, our legislators will do the same thing for our exercise of our rights that they did this year:

Nothing.

And the blame won't be theirs. They'll be doing what their constituents told them to do:

Nothing.

I've got a hell of a lot on my plate this year... not all of which I'm willing to put online at this time... and I'll be making sure my legislators know what I want and expect. Brian Bosma and Tom Dermody and (Sen.) David Long, too. They're likely to get bloody sick of seeing my name, if they aren't already. But I'm doing what I can to keep crap like this from happening again.

I just hope I'm not a voice in the wilderness in doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[output]

Look at the changes that have happened since about 2006, when the Lifetime LTCH passed and we became the first (and still only!) state to offer that option. We've steadily eliminated one rule after another, some years several at a time, including gaining preemption below the state level, employers being told they cannot even ask if you own guns, removal of businesses being able to tell you you can't keep your gun in your car (I'm still dubious as to whether that's governmental overreach, but it's a technical win for our side) and most recently, the ability to lawfully leave your gun in your locked vehicle on k-12 school property (which I thought would never happen!) Those are just the first four changes that come to mind since the huge change to the LTCH, and the one I just thought of, that one need not actually have to be in possession of the LTCH while carrying. Those don't even include judicial wins, such as the Richardson and Washington cases.

We've advanced gun rights quite a bit over the last few years. I don't disagree that we should keep the momentum going and go for big changes such as Mr. Lucas introduced; personally, I don't think his bills go far enough, although I understand that he can't just totally eliminate restrictions completely. From a legislative perspective, I wonder if Bosma didn't decide to lay off gun bills for a year for some reason, meaning this isn't Mr. Dermody's decision, he's just being a good middle manager and taking the heat for it (the alternative being losing that position as committee chairman next year, and the bills he passed this year stalling at the Second and Third reading, meaning he did it for nothing) Brian Bosma holds a LOT of power. His predecessor, Pat Bauer, handled that power far worse; I watched several times where he would take a voice vote and call a bill or an amendment or whatever "failed" or "passed", completely opposite the House voice vote, and I saw him assign bills to committees that never met.

It may also be that the members were getting uncomfortable rumblings from their home districts, too, that we'd pushed too many new laws through in too short a time, in some opinions. To me, this means that 150 legislators need to hear from 37,000+ of us a couple of times every month this year, telling them what we want and what we expect. We are a large number, perhaps 9-10% of the total voters in this state, allowing for duplicate registrations and spammers, and people that don't, or don't any longer, live in Indiana. We also are not all of the gun owners that have a stake in our laws. We can turn that population into a political force, if we organize it. If not, we'll sit back when the session is over, type a bunch more posts bi***ing about the session, then go back to discussing places where people carry, what they carry, etc., and come next session, our legislators will do the same thing for our exercise of our rights that they did this year:

Nothing.

And the blame won't be theirs. They'll be doing what their constituents told them to do:

Nothing.

I've got a hell of a lot on my plate this year... not all of which I'm willing to put online at this time... and I'll be making sure my legislators know what I want and expect. Brian Bosma and Tom Dermody and (Sen.) David Long, too. They're likely to get bloody sick of seeing my name, if they aren't already. But I'm doing what I can to keep crap like this from happening again.

I just hope I'm not a voice in the wilderness in doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill...thank you. I needed that post. I moved here from IL. A State that is much worse off in terms of liberty. Every year I dug in and so did thousands of others and it makes a difference. I will continue to do so...and if we are the only voices crying from the wilderness than so be it. The for fathers would be proud.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bump.

Have you written and/or called your legislator lately? Again?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From our friends at IMAGC. If you haven't written or called Bosma/Demody/Your Rep, please do.

POST LINK to IMAGC latest w/ sample letter: https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/758798937545337

POST:

Feb 4 Draft Letter – IGA House Public Policy Comm. #NRA #GOA #SCC #CampusCarry #ConstitutionalCarry #2A


I sent (more or less) the sample letter below to Speaker Bosma and Representative Dermody, Chair of the House Public Policy Committee. Rep. Dermody is the key, but the most prevalent influence over his decision on what to hear within the House, would be the speaker.
Speaker Bosma: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9677 -- h88@iga.in.gov --
Rep Dermody: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9850 -- h20@iga.in.gov --

Time is nearly out; there are only 2 more weeks to get a hearing, and next week’s agenda has already been posted (and it is noted in the letter). We encourage you to voice your support for these bills; and to do so strongly, we also ask that you remain polite and on fact with the legislators and their staff members.

On a footnote from last evenings post: SB 433 “Shotguns” – did pass the senate with a vote of 44 to 6. It now moves to the House; and likely to the Public Policy Committee. Thus are need to continue to voice our cause there.

Thank you all for the support, and continued calls to legislators. Please continue to Like, Comment and Share our posts. You’re grass roots action is our greatest strength.

--- BB3


Sample Letter:


Mr. Dermody and Speaker Bosma,

I am writing again in support of and to urge your support of HB 1143, HB 1144, and the other 5 bills which protect and strengthen Hoosier's rights with regards to arms, and which are stuck waiting a hearing in the house Public Policy Committee.

I have read Mr. Dermody’s comments on his reasoning for not granting any of these matters a hearing in an article published by “Campus Reform” (link following signature); I have also heard similar statements via other on-line sources. In the article, Mr. Dermody is quoted stating that he was focusing on legislation from the summer interim study session and those with a “significant fiscal impact”. “Gaming” is the noted objective of the summer study session, yet only 1 of the 9 bills that have been or are on the schedule agenda through February 11, 2015 are related to this subject. The other 8 bills are all related to the sale of alcohol. A similar check on “fiscal impact”, by reviewing the fiscal impact statements filed with each bill on-line, shows that most of these are very limited to their anticipated fiscal impact.

Per my reading of these statements, the “net” impact fiscally, the balance between revenue and expenditures, for the state for most of the bills is that they will not generally provide a significant increase in revenue to a greater degree than the increase in expenditures to properly administer the changes. In several cases, the net gain in revenue is due to fines and violations. One would hope that “ideally” – there are no fines or violations, while knowing that some fines are going to occur. It seems that basing the state budgetary numbers on the estimate of fines and violations is inconsistent with the idea that most citizens are law abiding and it is also a bit like gaming, since this is not guaranteed income; unless the plan is to make everyone a criminal.

The political double-speak is the only “Gaming” I see occurring here, by not hearing HB 1143, in particular, or HB 1144 or the any of the other arms related measures. Your decision forces people to continue to gamble between their safety, their education and their career. What risk do they choose: the risk to go unarmed or the risk to end their career or education? We have seen repeatedly, that criminals will violate these policies; and even laws which limit ONLY the ability of the law abiding citizen to provide for their own safety. Safety, which is not the responsibility or liability of the state or the state agency to provide; as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States and other State’s in their jurisdictions.

HB 1143 should be nearly revenue neutral, provided policies are promptly changed, and enforced according to the state law. HB 1144 could cause some revenue loss to the state budget; yet I would ask: What other right protected by the Constitutions of both Indiana and the United States, must be purchased from the state to be exercised.

By not hearing these or any other legislation relating to arms, you almost appear afraid to lead and prepare for hard issues. To say that this legislation has not been vetted is also a poor excuse; it is nearly identical to legislation introduced several times over the last several years, both by Mr. Lucas, and by others before he began to serve.

There are 38 bills before this committee, 14 of which are alcohol bills; 11 of which are gaming; and 7 are related to arms. Yet of the 9 bills scheduled or heard thus far, 8 are related to minor revisions to the sales of alcohol. Please end the political gamesmanship and double talk. I urge you again to grant one of these measures, in particular HB 1143 and/or HB 1144, a hearing in the House Public Policy Committee before this session ends.

Thank you for your time and service to our great state.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR TOWN, INDIANA
Concerned Citizen;
Supporter of Indiana Moms Against Gun Control

Link to Campus Reform Article: Lawmaker wants to fight campus sexual assault with concealed carry