Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[brotherbill3]

so help me understand. Did the constitutional carry bill get rolled into 1071 as an amendment?

No; and Yes.

There will be summer study commission (several legislators, both parties) that will review the impacts and share information. This is a step forward.

Amended language link:

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017...mmittee_public_policy_1600/#document-f26ff29c

of course HB 1071 - STILL needs to PASS the house, senate and get to the governor with this in tact - but

BUT

It is NEW TERRITORY for the Constitutional Carry Language - and it is progress. Not as far or as fast as we would all like
Want it to happen - Get out and support HB 1071
and get out and CHANGE THE PARADIGM of what the uninformed think of Constitutional Carry.

 

[Trigger Time]

Thank you

 

[T.Lex]

Quick note on the change the paradigm angle, with which I agree.

There's an entity called the Legislative Services Agency (LSA). These people tend to be non-political, in the sense that their job is to draft bills that legislators want drafted and determine the impact of the bills that are drafted. I know several people there currently, and who've been there previously. Educating the LSA person - in a friendly way - will be very important.

Again, they generally try to be data-driven. Emotion is unlikely to be effective.

 

[jamil]

Quick note on the change the paradigm angle, with which I agree.

There's an entity called the Legislative Services Agency (LSA). These people tend to be non-political, in the sense that their job is to draft bills that legislators want drafted and determine the impact of the bills that are drafted. I know several people there currently, and who've been there previously. Educating the LSA person - in a friendly way - will be very important.

Again, they generally try to be data-driven. Emotion is unlikely to be effective.

How do we do that? How do we reach them?

 

[brotherbill3]

Quick note on the change the paradigm angle, with which I agree.

There's an entity called the Legislative Services Agency (LSA). These people tend to be non-political, in the sense that their job is to draft bills that legislators want drafted and determine the impact of the bills that are drafted. I know several people there currently, and who've been there previously. Educating the LSA person - in a friendly way - will be very important.

Again, they generally try to be data-driven. Emotion is unlikely to be effective.

Good point on the LSA's - I do not know - is there contact information available? _ I figured they work under the direction of the legislators - doing the technical work - like the CAD guy for Engineer or something.

and you're also right:
EMOTION is horrible thing to use to base legislation, law, business, or anything (yes even friendships/relationships) on. ...

 

[Bill of Rights]

so help me understand. Did the constitutional carry bill get rolled into 1071 as an amendment?

Kind of. It sounds to me like they're going to "study the issue" and make a recommendation up or down. The plus is that that gives us time, once 1071 passes, to work on committee members. I'd very much expect people like Smaltz and Lucas would be members of that committee, and people like Rep. Charlie Brown will not, though it will be composed of both parties. I think it will be composed equally. Here's the deal though: Those people need to get to the range. They need to get to Revere's Riders events. They need to be given good, factual, truthful information about what Constitutional Carry is and is not, and the successes that the other states where it is already law have realized as a result.

More than that, I think this gives us time to get those postcards you mentioned, written. We need to get the people in the districts to TELL our legislators that we want it. They need to have solid data, not just a feeling, that the people want this to happen. My survey this year from my Representative didn't even include a question on it. We will be chatting, but the fact is that my Rep wasn't on this committee, so her questions were probably focused to the issues on which her committees would be meeting.

We have to get 1071 heard and passed (and it's just passed First Reading) to make it all happen, though. Given what it's on, I see it having a good chance of passing, hopefully not amended any further.

Keep in mind that this post consists of only my thoughts and my perceptions. I have nothing to hang my hat on, more than that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

The LSAs (and related LAs - Legislative Assistants for the legislators) won't be known until after the session, as they set up the study commissions. Right now, LSA has its hands full shepherding all the still-live bills through the hearings.

 

[sidewinder27]

Back to the 15-minute conversation...

Sheriff Clark was cordial and polite and quite willing to talk. He only sounded intimidating one or two times when he was really trying to stress a point he was making. Yes, most of what he said was right out of the written statement up thread. But there were a couple of things that stood out. I'll give them each the paragraph they deserve.

Sheriff Clark had a basic problem with the term "Constitutional Carry". He told me so point-blank. He said the term politicizes the issue and we (us common folk) already carry Constitutionally. Sheriff Clark lamented the fact the issue was not called "permitless or unlicensed carry" because to him, it was more descriptive.

Sheriff Clark simply could not separate the notion of Constitutional Carry from the act of procuring and legally possessing a handgun. He indicated several times in our conversation he thought Constitutional Carry would result in more guns, hence more danger for his deputies, on the street.

At lease three times he went back to the increased difficulty thing, how Constitutional Carry would hamper his deputies' ability to investigate MWAG, know who is armed at traffic stops, etc. I told him if they get a MWAG call and nobody is doing anything unlawful LEO's should leave us alone. I asked him if he could cite any instances where Constitutional Carry had led to any of the concerns he voiced becoming a reality. He could not; he simply reiterated the perception of decreased officer safety and hampered investigations. He even said the "permit" helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals," I kid you not.

I actually laughed at him regarding the animal sacrifice analogy. I couldn't help myself, it was just so ludicrous hearing him say that without having read it first in their talking points. Kinda pissed him off for a minute.

He did mention the lost revenue, saying there was no way to replace it and actually telling me his deputies would suffer gear-wise as a result. He even asked me what would pay for their guns and vests without the revenue. He also said the State would lose $9 million/year if Constitutional Carry went into law. It was as if some bean counters had determined nobody would apply for Indiana LTCH if HB 1159 passed, which is again, ludicrous.

As for the summer study, he said he supported the idea and hoped "...it would lead to some compromise, like a training requirement..." No bull, that's what he said.

The man seemed to have a genuine disdain for the notion of Constitutional Carry in general and Rep. Lucas in particular. His mind is make up, folks. This particular Indiana Sheriff will, in my opinion, never support Constitutional Carry in our state. And he made it clear most of Indiana's LEO organizations stand united against Constitutional Carry.

Oh, and I asked him if he was concerned someone might run against him based on this issue when he's up for election. He was adamant in stating he doesn't let politics get in the way of doing what he thinks is the right thing and opposing HB 1159 was the right thing to do. Again, I kid you not. If someone wants to run against him on the issue, go ahead he said.

Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but it is what it is. I always looked up to our County Sheriffs as heroes, a last line of defense between us and the Fed should the Fed get out of hand. But this is really depressing. When I picked up the phone to make the call I had no idea I'd get 15 minutes with my County Sheriff. I really didn't know what his position on the issue was and I was hoping he was one of the few on the right side of this issue. It's just so disappointing, and I told him so. I told him ISA (and other LEO Organizations') arguments rang hollow with me and so many other Hoosiers, unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact.

I never, ever thought HB 1159 would get torpedoed by LEO with anti-gun groups cheering them on. It's like a bad dream.

By the way, Indiana County Sheriffs are term-limited to (2) 4-year terms and Hendricks County Sheriff Clark is up for re-election in 2018. Also, I read 46 of 92 (that's HALF, folks) of Indiana's County Sheriffs are newly-elected and serving their first terms. I could not find a list with political party affiliations attached.

Oh, and early in the conversation he asked for my name after accusingly asking me if I was the person who just emailed him on Facebook (which I wasn't). I gave him my name, which he recognized. I figured they already had it from caller ID. Anyone think that'll lead to me getting hassled? I don't at this point.

I wonder if I should do a FOIA to see if he had my info ran.

Here is the Sheriffs last response to me this morning. you make some good points. It is obvious that you have done your homework and are passionate about this issue. I appreciate the discussion and encourage you to continue to reach out to your legislators who ultimately have to make these decisions

 

[KellyinAvon]

One step at a time. This is a very long journey, but it's a step closer

 

[JTScribe]

These people at the ISA are insane.

I asked the PIO to submit the following question to the ISA:



2) The ISA has taken the position against 'Constitutional carry' on the basis that it will negatively impact investigations. Before coming to this conclusion, did the ISA seek out any information from any law enforcement agencies of the 13 states that have similar laws? Given that it's a trend that's spreading nationwide, the ISA's concerns seem a bit overstated.

Response I got:

Below is the response I received from ISA. Hope it is helpful.

Judy
Gun Safety
Indiana Sheriffs’ Association Position on Gun Control
Indiana’s Sheriffs join our Nation as we mourn the loss of precious lives. In the aftermath of tragedy, much focus has been directed at issues pertaining to guns and gun control.
While the debate stirs strong feelings across our country, Indiana’s Sheriffs have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Furthermore, we have sworn to do this according to law and to the best of our ability.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. As sheriffs we recognize the rule of law and that the United States Supreme Court and our State courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of all laws. The 2nd Amendment is no stranger to debate and has faced challenges since it was adopted by our forefathers in 1791. Now, just as then, it has been made very clear; law abiding citizens are guaranteed this right so that they may protect themselves from those who would place them in harm’s way.
While much of the debate has focused on firearms, Indiana’s Sheriffs believe firearms are inanimate objects that have no will of their own. They are merely instruments of violence exploited by those with evil intent. We also believe the energy of this debate would be better focused on the issues upon which we agree. It is critical that we continue to work to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to commit acts of violence against our citizens.
We must increase our efforts to identify individuals with malevolent intent in advance and better use the system currently in place to prevent them from gaining access to firearms. The approach to this multifaceted problem must be comprehensive in nature. In addition to the vigorous prosecution for those who break the law, we must also focus our efforts on strengthening the safety and security of our school facilities, providing better access to mental health treatment, and enhancing training and resources for those who may be targets of violence.
Indiana’s Sheriffs also recognize that no attempt to prevent the violence that occurred at Sandy Hook will be complete unless we find a way to address the culture of violence that negatively impacts today’s youth. While these tasks may seem daunting, sheriffs stand ready for the challenge and the opportunity to address these issues.
As Indiana’s Constitutional Sheriffs, we remain focused on solutions, but we will not accept any concept that separates law-abiding citizens from their 2nd Amendment Rights without due process. The authority of the Office of Sheriff is derived from the Indiana Constitution and those who have entrusted us with our office. Those documents bind us together as a people, both as Hoosiers and as Americans. At a time when those who are governed have less trust in those who govern, it is important that we hold steadfast in our beliefs. We must focus our attention not on what divides us but instead on what keeps us together!
Indiana’s County Sheriffs have given great thought and consideration to their position on the current issues pertaining to our citizens' 2nd Amendment Rights and the recent national discussion concerning gun control legislation. The position of Indiana’s Sheriffs’ Association is simply that—the position of the Association. The reporting of our position as a matter of public record is acceptable in any public form, but, unless explicitly granted, we do not endorse, nor desire the Indiana Sheriffs’ Association’s name or individual member sheriffs’ names being used without specific permission. This refers to “For Profit” organizations using Indiana’s County Sheriff’s name in a way that suggests we are “endorsing” or “joining” their positions or statements regarding this national issue. The Indiana Sheriffs’ Association remains an independent and private association representing the Office of Sheriff in the State of Indiana.

 

[cbhausen]

These people at the ISA are insane.

I asked the PIO to submit the following question to the ISA:



2) The ISA has taken the position against 'Constitutional carry' on the basis that it will negatively impact investigations. Before coming to this conclusion, did the ISA seek out any information from any law enforcement agencies of the 13 states that have similar laws? Given that it's a trend that's spreading nationwide, the ISA's concerns seem a bit overstated.

Response I got:

Below is the response I received from ISA. Hope it is helpful.

Judy
Gun Safety
Indiana Sheriffs’ Association Position on Gun Control
Indiana’s Sheriffs join our Nation as we mourn the loss of precious lives. In the aftermath of tragedy, much focus has been directed at issues pertaining to guns and gun control.
While the debate stirs strong feelings across our country, Indiana’s Sheriffs have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Furthermore, we have sworn to do this according to law and to the best of our ability.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. As sheriffs we recognize the rule of law and that the United States Supreme Court and our State courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of all laws. The 2nd Amendment is no stranger to debate and has faced challenges since it was adopted by our forefathers in 1791. Now, just as then, it has been made very clear; law abiding citizens are guaranteed this right so that they may protect themselves from those who would place them in harm’s way.
While much of the debate has focused on firearms, Indiana’s Sheriffs believe firearms are inanimate objects that have no will of their own. They are merely instruments of violence exploited by those with evil intent. We also believe the energy of this debate would be better focused on the issues upon which we agree. It is critical that we continue to work to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to commit acts of violence against our citizens.
We must increase our efforts to identify individuals with malevolent intent in advance and better use the system currently in place to prevent them from gaining access to firearms. The approach to this multifaceted problem must be comprehensive in nature. In addition to the vigorous prosecution for those who break the law, we must also focus our efforts on strengthening the safety and security of our school facilities, providing better access to mental health treatment, and enhancing training and resources for those who may be targets of violence.
Indiana’s Sheriffs also recognize that no attempt to prevent the violence that occurred at Sandy Hook will be complete unless we find a way to address the culture of violence that negatively impacts today’s youth. While these tasks may seem daunting, sheriffs stand ready for the challenge and the opportunity to address these issues.
As Indiana’s Constitutional Sheriffs, we remain focused on solutions, but we will not accept any concept that separates law-abiding citizens from their 2nd Amendment Rights without due process. The authority of the Office of Sheriff is derived from the Indiana Constitution and those who have entrusted us with our office. Those documents bind us together as a people, both as Hoosiers and as Americans. At a time when those who are governed have less trust in those who govern, it is important that we hold steadfast in our beliefs. We must focus our attention not on what divides us but instead on what keeps us together!
Indiana’s County Sheriffs have given great thought and consideration to their position on the current issues pertaining to our citizens' 2nd Amendment Rights and the recent national discussion concerning gun control legislation. The position of Indiana’s Sheriffs’ Association is simply that—the position of the Association. The reporting of our position as a matter of public record is acceptable in any public form, but, unless explicitly granted, we do not endorse, nor desire the Indiana Sheriffs’ Association’s name or individual member sheriffs’ names being used without specific permission. This refers to “For Profit” organizations using Indiana’s County Sheriff’s name in a way that suggests we are “endorsing” or “joining” their positions or statements regarding this national issue. The Indiana Sheriffs’ Association remains an independent and private association representing the Office of Sheriff in the State of Indiana.

How is this helpful? Where in that wall of text is your question answered?

All of us should do the same: ask specific questions in writing and demand real answers.

In the meantime, let's work hard to make that summer study (and those involved in it) see and agree with our point of view.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Does anybody know how the sheriffs' concern over the loss of funding is addressed (or would be addressed) if Lucas' cc bill were passed?

 

[brotherbill3]

Does anybody know how the sheriffs' concern over the loss of funding is addressed (or would be addressed) if Lucas' cc bill were passed?

I do not - but Mr. Lucas has given and stated that this was going to be addressed.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At least we're not Maryland where pro-gun proposals are few and far in between.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...nal+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf56268443=1

 

[PRasko]

So I'm going to be the asshat to ask it, because I'm thoroughly confused.

HB 1071 Amendment 1.

Study the repeal of handgun licensing.

Were all the jokes a lie? Lifetime LTCH is going bye-bye if this is passed? More to the point. If and when it passes does MY lifetime LTCH become null a void when concerning reciprocity with other states?

Does that mean I have to purchase another damned license?

 

[PRasko]

Hang on a second LOL

Did anyone read HB 1071?

Synopsis:Authorization to carry a handgun. Provides that certain
persons protected by a civil protection order may carry a handgun
without a license for: (1) 60 days after the date the civil protection
order is issued; or (2) 60 days after the date the person applies for a
license to carry a handgun, if the person applies for the license during
the 60 day period following issuance of the civil protection order;
whichever is later. Makes a technical correction.

If this passes as is, with amendment 1. This IS NOT constitutional carry, this will repeal handgun licensing and only allow those under civil protection orders to carry a firearm?

-edit-

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or having a brain fart.

 

[cbhausen]

In short, we have to run those who are opposed or neutral to Constitutional Carry out of reasons to oppose the measure. Not easy for those who are staunchly against the measure but far from impossible.

Let's do this and let's be organized about it. Shall we do a meet and greet to get the ball rolling? Maybe set up action items, assign them to individuals (volunteers), and do follow-ups?

 

[cbhausen]

Hang on a second LOL

Did anyone read HB 1071?



If this passes as is, with amendment 1. This IS NOT constitutional carry, this will repeal handgun licensing and only allow those under civil protection orders to carry a firearm?

-edit-

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or having a brain fart.

Yes, HB 1071 is limited in scope but a start. And the commission of a summer study to assess the effects of Constitutional Carry inIndiana go along for the ride if 1071 becomes law.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So I'm going to be the asshat to ask it, because I'm thoroughly confused.

HB 1071 Amendment 1.

Study the repeal of handgun licensing.

Were all the jokes a lie? Lifetime LTCH is going bye-bye if this is passed? More to the point. If and when it passes does MY lifetime LTCH become null a void when concerning reciprocity with other states?

Does that mean I have to purchase another damned license?

As I read it, if 1159 was to pass as currently written, yes, your LTCH would lose its import and become what it has been all along: just a piece of pink paper(or plastic). As currently written, it would fully disappear from our law, but along with it would go the requirement to be issued it by the state. What would also disappear, as I read it, is any reciprocity that 32 other states give us for being issued that state instrument. I've communicated these concerns and some other thoughts to Mr. Lucas and am hopeful he will consider them wen redrafting this bill next year. If I'm correct in my read and my proposed solutions, the ISA, ISP, & various FOPs that rose against this bill may have done us a favor, though not one they intended to do.

The focus now, with 1071 having passed the House Committee, is to get the bill on its way to the Senate and through their committee, to the Senate for passage, and on to Gov. Holcomb's desk.
HB 1071 allows an exception to the LTCH process for a person who is not otherwise prohibited to use a temporary "protective" order as a LTCH for 60 days, or longer if the person who is ostensibly protected makes application for the LTCH. There is no "training requirement" (nor should there be) and in committee, there was concern raised as to the state of mind of people in that situation. I see that as being a stumbling point throughout the rest of the process to get this passed, though not one we can't easily counter. The simple fact is that the people who feel they are in danger are seeking protection from a piece of paper or a bunch of electrons sent through a computer. The difference between cover and concealment comes to mind; while the protective order allows for the punishment of the person harming the protectee, it will not erase injuries nor bring anyone back to life. True protection comes from the ability to protect oneself.

To borrow a page from the antis book, the emotional appeal is for these poor people to be safe without having to be hermits, locked away in their homes to obtain the protection of the law if they are armed. God help them, under current law, if they have to go shopping, go to work, go for a drive, or even want to date someone new... because the law will identify them as either victims, when they are assaulted and/or killed, or as criminals if they didn't seek out and pay for that little pink permission slip. When leaving an abusive situation, money is tight. Someone might gift a gun, or the protectee might already have one, but $125+ is a steep fee in that situation.

Lets all contact our reps and senators to get this thing through.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JTScribe]

In short, we have to run those who are opposed or neutral to Constitutional Carry out of reasons to oppose the measure. Not easy for those who are staunchly against the measure but far from impossible.

Let's do this and let's be organized about it. Shall we do a meet and greet to get the ball rolling? Maybe set up action items, assign them to individuals (volunteers), and do follow-ups?

Either that, or make Constitutional carry a litmus test. No support, no money, no votes, and spread the word.