Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Trigger Time]

While I'm in agreement that free people should be able to carry, and if someone should not carry, s/he should not be free in society, I have a concern about having a gun store across the street from the prison, figuratively speaking.

The "easy solution" is "well, if Joe Wifebeater has been stewing about 'what that b***h did to get me locked up' for the year that he's been there", then don't let Joe out. Given that the law prescribes a given penalty for a given crime, with a maximum sentence, I'm not sure how that would happen. Further, if the law was changed to allow the COs/warden (who profit by keeping prisoners in) to extend or even to testify to extend Joe's sentence, we breed corruption. Plus, if Joe is incarcerated and has been stewing because he was falsely convicted (say, wife and her lover conspired, lover put some marks on her that she said Joe did,) suddenly, we're talking about incarcerating a falsely accused man for the rest of his life, because I'm pretty sure in that situation, he's not going to suddenly be OK with what happened and just accept it.

Obviously, this is not a common situation I've described, and could easily be called a straw man. I'm not saying it's common. I'm saying it's a situation that requires thought and awareness, because it or another like it has potential to be exploited, and God forbid any of us are ever put in that or a similar situation (wrongly accused and convicted) we should not lose our freedom for any longer than necessary.

I also would consider the idea that a person be "made whole" after a probationary period allowing for his reintegration into free society, for our protection as well as for his own and his sanity as well; going from almost no freedoms to almost no restrictions on his behavior would be a bit of a culture shock. (Think of Brooks, from Shawshank Redemption.)

Again, I support making a man whole once he is free. I think how that happens requires some diligent consideration.

Blessings,
Bill

sorry. But I giggled at your line of thinking. We can't pre-cop. Also if people are gonna kill someone then it's already in their nature and mind to do it. We need to stop pre-policing our society and just actualy stick it hard to violent offenders. Shoot them, or put them in jail forever. Whatever. But we must wait till they actualy commit crimes. Bad **** happens. It's inevitable. jello have all of us freedom of choice for a reason.

 

[jamil]

While I'm in agreement that free people should be able to carry, and if someone should not carry, s/he should not be free in society, I have a concern about having a gun store across the street from the prison, figuratively speaking.

The "easy solution" is "well, if Joe Wifebeater has been stewing about 'what that b***h did to get me locked up' for the year that he's been there", then don't let Joe out. Given that the law prescribes a given penalty for a given crime, with a maximum sentence, I'm not sure how that would happen. Further, if the law was changed to allow the COs/warden (who profit by keeping prisoners in) to extend or even to testify to extend Joe's sentence, we breed corruption. Plus, if Joe is incarcerated and has been stewing because he was falsely convicted (say, wife and her lover conspired, lover put some marks on her that she said Joe did,) suddenly, we're talking about incarcerating a falsely accused man for the rest of his life, because I'm pretty sure in that situation, he's not going to suddenly be OK with what happened and just accept it.

Obviously, this is not a common situation I've described, and could easily be called a straw man. I'm not saying it's common. I'm saying it's a situation that requires thought and awareness, because it or another like it has potential to be exploited, and God forbid any of us are ever put in that or a similar situation (wrongly accused and convicted) we should not lose our freedom for any longer than necessary.

I also would consider the idea that a person be "made whole" after a probationary period allowing for his reintegration into free society, for our protection as well as for his own and his sanity as well; going from almost no freedoms to almost no restrictions on his behavior would be a bit of a culture shock. (Think of Brooks, from Shawshank Redemption.)

Again, I support making a man whole once he is free. I think how that happens requires some diligent consideration.

Blessings,
Bill

I've kinda played around with the idea of having a court, through due process, having to order a person to be prohibited. But that is more in context of gun ownership in conjunction with a background check system that so many people are attached to keeping. I don't like our current system because it makes group association become a criterion for "improper person". Felon. Adjudicated mentally ill. Etcetera.

Requiring a court to declare the person "improper" would at least fulfill the due process part. So basically, background checks would be reduced to searching to see if a court has declared the person to be "improper".

This could fit in with the scenario you mention as well. If a court declares Joe Wifebeater "improper", he can't possess a firearm, let alone carry one. But then, again, to the point that if they can't be trusted with a firearm, they can't be trusted with freedom. He's joe wifebeater who wants to break the law by killing his wife. He probably won't much sweat the weapons charge that goes along with murder. Probably best to keep him locked up.

 

[jamil]

sorry. But I giggled at your line of thinking. We can't pre-cop. Also if people are gonna kill someone then it's already in their nature and mind to do it. We need to stop pre-policing our society and just actualy stick it hard to violent offenders. Shoot them, or put them in jail forever. Whatever. But we must wait till they actualy commit crimes. Bad **** happens. It's inevitable. jello have all of us freedom of choice for a reason.

Okay. Here's something I agree with you on. Except for the last sentence. And I might agree with you on that depending on how you mean jello fits in with freedom of choice.

 

[chipbennett]

Okay. Here's something I agree with you on. Except for the last sentence. And I might agree with you on that depending on how you mean jello fits in with freedom of choice.

As long as I have the freedom of choice not to eat it, I'm good.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No argument, Chip, with the idea that our country is so many orders of magnitude safer because Martha Stewart and LtCol Oliver North were both prohibited persons and could not legally own firearms. (Dang, still can't find that purple crayon!) I'm speaking specifically of those who have given reason to believe they may be intent on violent action. It is not, I think, proper to expect every little old lady who might be mugged for her purse to carry on-body and turn around like the opening of "Baretta" (for anyone old enough to remember him, undercover, busting the purse snatcher) or small-voiced officer Hooks from "Police Academy" with a

"FREEZE, DIRTBAG!"​

The non-violent offender has still given cause to question his judgment, but the most compelling argument I've heard (and used) is that the former felon who, giving benefit of the doubt, intends to turn his life around may still have former associates that would like to bring him back to crime, or may have scores to settle from before his incarceration. I can't see how we can make a free man both helpless and defenseless, to resist those efforts, and still expect that he will "go and sin (offend) no more".

Freedom certainly can be messy. To return to my example above of the little old lady, I can't reasonably expect that she will be able or even willing to dive to cover, draw, and put a round effectively in some dirtbag's COM. I'm not sure I can even expect that of Susie Soccermom, whose abusive ex has just gotten out. Some people just don't have it in them to take a life, and that's not altogether a bad thing. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that, "Welp, they made their choice. Too bad for them."

Again, my belief is that the ones who have given good cause to believe they may be intent on doing harm to someone once released, should be at a minimum delayed, with their lawful access to that right returned slowly, giving time for them to adjust to freedom, not like the kid who's had a tootsie roll once or twice a month suddenly be given the keys to the candy factory. While Mr. Jefferson was quite wise, I think perhaps he may have laid out a false dichotomy. Better a dangerous liberty than a peaceful slavery, but better a peaceful liberty than a dangerous one.



Blessings,
Bill

(Pardon the aggressive cut job...)

One of the biggest problems that I have with this concern is that most (or, at least: FAR too many) felony convictions are for non-violent crimes. Thus, there are far too many people denied their right to self-defense as a result of having committed one of myriad non-violent crimes, that have no bearing on the likelihood of the person convicted of such crimes to misuse a firearm.

Do some bad people with ill intent sometimes get to do bad things in a free society, because individual liberty is held sacrosanct? Yes. But I will take that outcome to the alternative. Freedom is messy. Life is fraught with danger. As Thomas Jefferson said, Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

 

[chipbennett]

Freedom certainly can be messy. To return to my example above of the little old lady, I can't reasonably expect that she will be able or even willing to dive to cover, draw, and put a round effectively in some dirtbag's COM. I'm not sure I can even expect that of Susie Soccermom, whose abusive ex has just gotten out. Some people just don't have it in them to take a life, and that's not altogether a bad thing. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that, "Welp, they made their choice. Too bad for them."

Dirtbags who have proven to be dirtbags should not be free to roam among society, continually making victims of the non-dirtbags. At the same time, the individual is ultimately responsible for ensuring his own, immediate protection. When both of those points are respected, then your examples of the little old lady and Susie Soccermom become the rare exception, rather than the rule.

Again, my belief is that the ones who have given good cause to believe they may be intent on doing harm to someone once released, should be at a minimum delayed, with their lawful access to that right returned slowly, giving time for them to adjust to freedom, not like the kid who's had a tootsie roll once or twice a month suddenly be given the keys to the candy factory.

I agree with this point, which is why I would support restoration of rights only after completion of any probation that is part of one's sentence.

While Mr. Jefferson was quite wise, I think perhaps he may have laid out a false dichotomy. Better a dangerous liberty than a peaceful slavery, but better a peaceful liberty than a dangerous one.

Perhaps I am too much the cynic, but I do not believe that "peaceful liberty" is possible in a society of humans (at least, not on this side of the Second Coming). We have millennia of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, if "peaceful liberty" were possible, then there would be no need for government (cf. the Declaration of Independence).

 

[jamil]

Perhaps I am too much the cynic, but I do not believe that "peaceful liberty" is possible in a society of humans (at least, not on this side of the Second Coming). We have millennia of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, if "peaceful liberty" were possible, then there would be no need for government (cf. the Declaration of Independence).

ATM?

Thought I'd drag in the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yep I'm all for someone who has served their time to get restoration of their rights. If we as a society are going to set penalties for actions then we need to stick by them and once those penalties are served then that person should be considered fully rehabilitated and a full citizen again.
now do I believe that some criminals will never change and also are dangerous after the current said sentences are served? Yes I do. I think some things like rape, child molestation and murder should be met with the death penalty. Maybe if those people had the chance to once again commit evil acts due to full reenstatement then our sentences would lengthen and become more harsh like I believe they should be.
The system is broken because people are not afraid to reafend or have the ability to. Also because some more stable former inmates feel forced back into a life of crime for all of the unrealistic hoops they have to jump through after incarceration and also knowing that even jumping through said hoops they will never be a full member of society anyways and obtain no real good job anyways.
So yes while normal members of society realize that breaking laws are bad or that the consequences are too severe. Some feel that the risk is worth it so they break the law. Let's make the punishments more harsh. Also let's stop saying that people shouldn't have their rights back once full time is served. If they shouldn't be owning a gun again or livingbnext to a school then I guess they never should have been released right? We need to seriously start fixin our punishment system. You have non violent offenders in some cases doing life sentences while a murderer can get out in relatively very little time.

 

[ATM]

ATM?

Thought I'd drag in the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint.

Like I need to be dragged. My points endure.

 

[John Galt]

The Constitutional Carry bill is HB1159. Get busy educating people what it does and does not do.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This seems like an appropriate time for someone to say "Have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?" so, have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?

 

[miguel]

Okay. Here's something I agree with you on. Except for the last sentence. And I might agree with you on that depending on how you mean jello fits in with freedom of choice.

Hey! There is always room for Jello!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Constitutional Carry bill is HB1159. Get busy educating people what it does and does not do.

I love how this guy ^^ has the inside track on things like this. Thanks, John! Rep inbound. Do you have the text of the bill where we can see it? It's not on the site yet.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Spear Dane]

This seems like an appropriate time for someone to say "Have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?" so, have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?

As a matter of fact, I have, along with a few other folks.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This seems like an appropriate time for someone to say "Have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?" so, have you written Brian Bosma about HB1159 today?

Not only 'yes' but a 'yes' from several days ago and already received a political, non-answer-answer.

Dear GFGT,

Thank you for contacting Speaker Bosma and expressing your opinion regarding proposed legislation which would repeal the law that requires a license to carry handgun in Indiana. Speaker Bosma appreciates you sharing your thoughts on this legislation and has requested that I respond to you on his behalf. Similar legislation was introduced during the 2016 legislative session but failed to make it out of committee. This topic undoubtedly stimulates a thought-provoking policy issue for future General Assemblies. Constituents voicing their opinions on issues and making suggestions to legislators, as you have done, is a vital part of the legislative process.

The Speaker supports the Second Amendment for many reasons, most importantly maintaining Hoosiers’ freedoms and ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. It is essential that responsible, law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms legally in our state, a right that is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The decision on whether to support a repeal of the handgun license or not is one that should be made after much thought, research, and deliberation has taken place. Moving forward, should the Indiana General Assembly address this policy issue, the Speaker will keep your thoughts in mind.

Once again, thank you for voicing your opinion. Please feel free to contact Speaker Bosma with any questions, comments, or concerns you may have in the future. Constituent contact is essential to the legislative process, and Speaker Bosma truly appreciates the citizens of Indiana taking the time to share their thoughts about the issues concerning our state.







Sincerely,

Chris Kulik
Legislative Assistant to
Speaker Brian Bosma
200 W. Washington Street, Room 401-1
Indianapolis, IN 46204
1-317-232-9677

 

[brotherbill3]

GFGT - Thanks (out of rep at the moment).

I'm gonna use your 'response-non-repsonse' that you shared to reshape my next letter - and prevent such a response. Make them think.
HA.

(and I'd quote but that wan't letting me put spaces in my response earlier - it was all one run-on word - might be the computer here.)

 

[indyjoe]

(and I'd quote but that wan't letting me put spaces in my response earlier - it was all one run-on word - might be the computer here.)

Getting that with Chrome too. Type something and hit return. Then come back up and it seems to work for me. Also Go Advanced seems to fix it.

If was going to try to figure out what in the Javascript was going wonky, but haven't had a chance.

 

[2A_Tom]

This may help, Bill.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-not-working-intermittently-when-posting.html

 

[brotherbill3]

This may help, Bill.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-not-working-intermittently-when-posting.html

...

thanks it ... seems ... to be ... worky ... now.

grassy(bleep). (LOL)

 

[chipbennett]

Not only 'yes' but a 'yes' from several days ago and already received a political, non-answer-answer.

Snip:

Similar legislation was introduced during the 2016 legislative session but failed to make it out of committee.

No, Bosma. It didn't "fail[] to make it out of committee." YOU SPIKED IT in committee.

Snip:

The decision on whether to support a repeal of the handgun license or not is one that should be made after much thought, research, and deliberation has taken place.

This legislation has been introduced in the two previous sessions. What "thought, research, and deliberation" have YOU undertaken, Bosma?

(Yes, as others have stated, this canned response will inform my efforts when contacting the Speaker.)