Good gun bills

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Perhaps you are thinking too broadly, or, better bet, I am not making myself clear. Just because Indiana abolishes the crime of Carrying Without Larry, does not mean the Larry goes away or the state stops issuing Larrys.

This is what I'm hoping will be the case.

 

[CathyInBlue]

But I don't want Larry repealed. Like others, I actually *need* reciprocity. I travel, usually out of state, for work.

What I'm hearing you saying is that you have a problem with the laws of other states to which you travel.

 

[chipbennett]

Perhaps you are thinking too broadly, or, better bet, I am not making myself clear. Just because Indiana abolishes the crime of Carrying Without Larry, does not mean the Larry goes away or the state stops issuing Larrys.

Yes, this is what I want (stated differently in a previous reply): remove the criminalization of carrying a handgun. Leave Larry. Everyone wins.

 

[chipbennett]

What I'm hearing you saying is that you have a problem with the laws of other states to which you travel.

What I'm saying is that the current political landscape across the entire country is nowhere near where I want it to be, but I have to accept/recognize it, while working to improve it.

Removing the ability of Hoosiers to exercise RKBA in 34 other states just to make Indiana constitutional carry is not necessarily a long-term win. The only way to restore RKBA properly, once and for all, is to increase reciprocity to as many states as possible. That pressure will force the won't-issue states to change their laws. (That's why I also support federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry permits.)

50-state reciprocity will happen much sooner than 50-state constitutional carry - and the latter may never happen without the former.

And I don't see any real tangible, practical benefit to Hoosiers with a "blank slate" constitutional carry (other than saving $125 for a lifetime LTCH), that would overcome the massive loss of rights outside of Indiana.

 

[injb]

...

Rep. Lucas also mentioned another bill that he submitted, that should post in the next couple days: as he explained it, it basically provides indemnification from liability for businesses that follow state law and allow patrons to carry in the public areas of their businesses (i.e. it's the Screw You MDA Kroger Bullies bill). The implication is two-fold: it protects businesses from liability should something happen (steals MDAs thuunder), but it also at least *implies* that businesses that post incur some manner of liability for the patrons, when they deny those patrons the ability to exercise their right to defend themselves. (That was my take, anyway.)

I'm guessing it's HB1244, just released:

Permits a person to bring an action for damages against a business entity having a policy of barring possession of a firearm on the entity's property, if: (1) the person suffers a loss due to criminal activity on the entity's property; and (2) the loss could have been avoided or reduced if the business entity did not prohibit possession of a firearm on its property. Provides that a person who does not prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on the person's failure to adopt such a policy

 

[chipbennett]

I'm guessing it's HB1244, just released:

I like it!

Screw you, Demanding Bully Mommies.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Perhaps you are thinking too broadly, or, better bet, I am not making myself clear. Just because Indiana abolishes the crime of Carrying Without Larry, does not mean the Larry goes away or the state stops issuing Larrys.

Kirk, maybe I misread, but I believe that 1144 repeals the means by which a LTCH is issued, removing the capability of them doing so. That is, as written, I believe that 1144 makes the issuance of future LTCHs impossible, as well as removing the crime of carrying without one.

This does not address what happens to the pink papers (or plastic cards) currently in peoples' wallets, gun safes, etc. Presumably, they would be unaffected, but also without use within IN borders.

Did I misread it?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I'm guessing it's HB1244, just released:

Yep. Mom's needing action will flip out.

 

[brotherbill3]

Aye, handgun. Sometimes I type too fast, or before having enough coffee.



But I don't want Larry repealed. Like others, I actually *need* reciprocity. I travel, usually out of state, for work.

Can't REP you for the moment; - so I'll quote. I am agreeing. I e-mailed Mr. Lucas the other day, w/ some of the questions after only having time for a cursory review.

I had 3 questions:
#3 was yours about reciprocity. - I only travel a bit. Hopefully this can be amended back in that the LTCH remains as an option.

the others were in regards to
#2) School zones, I thought there was an issue w/ the federal GFZ at schools that having the LTCH was also a "Get outta jail free" defense against. - I am not nearly as well versed on this. ... but voiding the LTCH "out of existence" - does that leave the removal of GFZ at schools for the last sesssion parking lot bill in "federal limbo" ??

and
#1) if the LTCH goes away - what happens to the existing LTCH data / documents? ...

all issues that can be addressed.

I see several thinking the same way. and since this is about protecting INDIANA citizen rights - why force us to go to UT or FL to renew regularly (and is subject to change w/o our input) - what most of us (here) already have 'bought' as a privilage tacked on to our rights.

NOTE: I'm not against HB 1144, I just have some concerns ... and I've already seen the post comment counts on FB from anti's piling up. Fortuanately most of these rant there and not to their representative in the IGA.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'd hate to see this go down in flames because of things like reciprocity (and I had completely forgotten about the federal school zone thing) don't get "built-in".

Can't REP you for the moment; - so I'll quote. I am agreeing. I e-mailed Mr. Lucas the other day, w/ some of the questions after only having time for a cursory review.

I had 3 questions:
#3 was yours about reciprocity. - I only travel a bit. Hopefully this can be amended back in that the LTCH remains as an option.

the others were in regards to
#2) School zones, I thought there was an issue w/ the federal GFZ at schools that having the LTCH was also a "Get outta jail free" defense against. - I am not nearly as well versed on this. ... but voiding the LTCH "out of existence" - does that leave the removal of GFZ at schools for the last sesssion parking lot bill in "federal limbo" ??

and
#1) if the LTCH goes away - what happens to the existing LTCH data / documents? ...

all issues that can be addressed.

I see several thinking the same way. and since this is about protecting INDIANA citizen rights - why force us to go to UT or FL to renew regularly (and is subject to change w/o our input) - what most of us (here) already have 'bought' as a privilage tacked on to our rights.

NOTE: I'm not against HB 1144, I just have some concerns ... and I've already seen the post comment counts on FB from anti's piling up. Fortuanately most of these rant there and not to their representative in the IGA.

 

[brotherbill3]

not really in disagreement GFGT.

 

[Redhorse]

I know this is not a popular position currently but I'm not in favor of this bill because as I have read it, the whole LTCH process gets repealed. Perhaps I misread Kirk? I trust your legal judgement.

 

[chipbennett]

I know this is not a popular position currently but I'm not in favor of this bill because as I have read it, the whole LTCH process gets repealed. Perhaps I misread Kirk? I trust your legal judgement.

IANAL, and I found the bill easy to follow - mainly because it doesn't add anything. It merely strikes existing wording.

The bill strikes references in the IC to criminalizing the carry of a handgun, and strikes references in the IC to issuance/use of the LTCH. It renders the IC silent on the carry of handguns, which creates de facto constitutional carry.

May I ask what about the bill that you are not in favor of.

 

[jamil]

So, I spoke with Rep. Lucas today, and we discussed HB 1143, HB 1144, and another bill that should post today or tomorrow.

Regarding HB 1144, my primary concern was with the loss of reciprocity if Indiana moves to constitutional-only carry, with no provision for issuing resident permits. He indicated that his intent was to start with as clean of a state as possible with the legislation, knowing that, should the bill even make it out of committee, it would go through the amendment mill. He mentioned that, even if the bill passes as-proposed, we would still have the option of a Florida or Utah permit, if reciprocity is needed.

I do think that maintaining reciprocity is of almost critical importance. (It will be great to be able to carry without permit in Indiana, but it would suck to lose my ability to carry in the vast majority of the 33 (soon 34) states in which I can currently carry with my Indiana LTCH.) But I understand and support where Rep. Lucas is coming from. Constitutional carry is a huge win, and even if a token permit for reciprocity isn't added as an amendment, it can be addressed later.

Rep. Lucas also mentioned another bill that he submitted, that should post in the next couple days: as he explained it, it basically provides indemnification from liability for businesses that follow state law and allow patrons to carry in the public areas of their businesses (i.e. it's the Screw You MDA Kroger Bullies bill). The implication is two-fold: it protects businesses from liability should something happen (steals MDAs thuunder), but it also at least *implies* that businesses that post incur some manner of liability for the patrons, when they deny those patrons the ability to exercise their right to defend themselves. (That was my take, anyway.)

Haven't checked Florida, but not Utah. They require proof of license in your home state. If no LTCH, no Utah non-resident permit.

Perhaps you are thinking too broadly, or, better bet, I am not making myself clear. Just because Indiana abolishes the crime of Carrying Without Larry, does not mean the Larry goes away or the state stops issuing Larrys.

The state continuing to issue the LTCH is a must have. If establishing constitutional carry in Indiana eliminates permitted carry in states with reciprocity, it means I can't carry to work anymore. Arizona offers a permit for this reason. Not providing for it in this bill is short sighted.

 

[John Galt]

POLITELY let Public Policy Chair Representative Tom Dermody know of your desire for the gun bills to get a hearing at 800-382-9841 or h20@in.gov.

 

[Ericpwp]

Shall Sign

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

POLITELY let Public Policy Chair Representative Tom Dermody know of your desire for the gun bills to get a hearing at 800-382-9841 or h20@in.gov.

Done.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I spoke with Grant at Dermody's office. He was receptive.

 

[BFP]

I have spoke to Jim about this, he is adding an amendment to the bill that would allow for LTCH, which would cover reciprocity.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

My rep, Bauer (D) had his LA call me back yesterday about 1029 and wow, was she ticked off to learn that Gutwein never contacted me. She said Bauer was doing all he could to kill it. Pretty cool that she followed up with me after she told Gutwein to contact me.

Another thread has state that 1029 has been withdrawn and had a quote that verified it. I'll be satisfied when the in.gov website shows that to be true. Ever vigilant, INGO. Ever vigilant.