Good gun bills

[injb]

Another new gun related bill just published: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/433..haven't read it myself, but it sounds like it could be good:

Repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun. Provides for a 10 year sentence enhancement if a person possesses a sawed-off shotgun in violation of federal law while committing certain offenses. Makes conforming amendments.

There haven't been any new house bills so I'd look for Rep. Lucas's new bill on Monday.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Another new gun related bill just published: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/433...haven't read it myself, but it sounds like it could be good:



There haven't been any new house bills so I'd look for Rep. Lucas's new bill on Monday.

And with bipartisan support, too! I'm personally shocked to see Sens. Jim Arnold and Greg Taylor as co-authors!

 

[Redhorse]

Students for Concealed Carry have been following HB 1143 closely. This would really help college students like me out!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And with bipartisan support, too! I'm personally shocked to see Sens. Jim Arnold and Greg Taylor as co-authors!

As the RKBA advances one of the pillars of Democratic faith, gun control, crumbles. Soon more and more Democrats will drop their knee-flex opposition to the right to arms as the right to arms becomes "normal" in the culture.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The abolition of the "sawed-off shotguns" is a vital step in that it removes another "too scary to be legal" ("dangerous and unusual" in the language of Heller) firearm that our enemies can point to.

The notion that a shotgun is abnormally dangerous with a 17.5" barrel but perfectly fine with a 18.5" barrel is so silly that it can only be believed by politicians.

 

[ModernGunner]

The notion that a shotgun is abnormally dangerous with a 17.5" barrel but perfectly fine with a 18.5" barrel is so silly that it can only be believed by politicians.

17.5" barrel?!?

 

[ryknoll3]

We need a shall-sign bill as well.

 

[BigMoose]

Alaska is constitutional carry, but they have a Handgun license for anyone who wants one for reciprocity. I would like to see us do that.

And while we are at it, can we remove the EMBARRASSING Chinese throwing stars ban? PLEASE?

 

[CathyInBlue]

All Constitutional carry needs is the addition of language to IC 35-4-2-1 that makes it explicit that the license is only required for concealed carry of cartridge-based handguns and that open carry of cartirdge-based handguns remains as unregulated as any carry of long guns or of non-fixed-ammunition handguns. The wholesale repeal of IC 35-4-2-1 is desireable, but if not politicly feasible, the above would be a good first step compromise.

 

[MAJB Retired]

All Constitutional carry needs is the addition of language to IC 35-4-2-1 that makes it explicit that the license is only required for concealed carry of cartridge-based handguns ....

I can support that!

 

[CathyInBlue]

It would be sufficient to make a parallel situation to US V Black (4th Cir.) applicable to the Hoosier state, but it would open the "how open is open/how concealed is concealed" can of worms. So, there would have to be clear guidance for LEOs to follow to prevent JBTs from claiming an untucked shirt tail qualifies as unlicenced concealed carry. As I said, wholesale repeal of 35-47-2-1 et seq. would be the simplest.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Regarding reciprocity should 1144 pass...would the existing LTCH not still be valid? Going forward they wouldn't be required for carrying within the state but would this bill void them and cause those of us desirous of reciprocity to spend money to acquire some other piece of paper?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Good question. If 35-47-2-1 is repealed wholesale, what state authority would still undergird the little pink permission slips?

Kirk? Guy?

 

[yote hunter]

Regarding reciprocity should 1144 pass...would the existing LTCH not still be valid? Going forward they wouldn't be required for carrying within the state but would this bill void them and cause those of us desirous of reciprocity to spend money to acquire some other piece of paper?

If that the case then the state should have to give use our money back we spent to get them, or grandfather us in for the new ones we will need !!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

If that the case then the state should have to give use our money back we spent to get them, or grandfather us in for the new ones we will need !!!!!

I don't expect the State to give us back the money we spent for the LLTCH, nor would we be "grandfathered" for new ones we would need. Look at it this way: If you go see the latest big movie at the theater, you buy a ticket to do so. If you subsequently purchase the DVD, the theater and/or the studio don't refund your ticket price.The concept that I understand Rep. Lucas is trying to embrace is that of us not needing any state-issued paper to lawfully carry a handgun. No permission slips, no background checks, no state bureaucracy whatsoever surrounding the lawful right to arms.

If I was guessing, the current LTCH would still exist, if only as a relic of a former law, and the eventual goal is probably to compromise this back to a system of having a LTCH available, just not required within our borders, much like WY, AK, and AZ. I don't see us going "Full Vermont", though I think the removal of the effects of bad law is always a net positive.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[John Galt]

The best thing is to start out from as strong of a position as possible. More than likely, there are compromises that will be asked to be made, plus, bills can always be amended, for better or worse. It's not even guaranteed a hearing, so the best thing to do is to do everything you can to see that it gets a hearing, and then everyone can offer suggestions. It dies if it doesn't get heard and all of this back and forth is for naught.

 

[John Galt]

Consider this also. Say 1144 does pass, yet has been amended to provide for an alternate license for reciprocity ability. It could then be argued that Indiana has two methods of regulating our gun rights, one is a total lack of regulation (CC) with the other being a system that has requirements (for reciprocity).
How long do you think it will take the Dems to make an issue of this when, someday, they get control of the House and which one do you think they will go after to eliminate?

 

[dudley0]

Would HB1143 also cover public schools since they are state run?

Pipe dream I know... but maybe?

 

[Kurr]

All Constitutional carry needs is the addition of language to IC 35-4-2-1 that makes it explicit that the license is only required for concealed carry of cartridge-based handguns and that open carry of cartirdge-based handguns remains as unregulated as any carry of long guns or of non-fixed-ammunition handguns. The wholesale repeal of IC 35-4-2-1 is desireable, but if not politicly feasible, the above would be a good first step compromise.

Would I then have to strap a pistol belt on over my winter coats? Then remove it and my coat, hang my coat up and strap the pistol belt back on during winter?

I prefer the full Constitutional carry with license for reciprocity.

 

[chipbennett]

Alaska is constitutional carry, but they have a Handgun license for anyone who wants one for reciprocity. I would like to see us do that.

And while we are at it, can we remove the EMBARRASSING Chinese throwing stars ban? PLEASE?

Yes, the bill obviously needs such a provision before passage. However, the first hurdle is getting HB 1144 out of committee. After that, push for such amendments.