Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[brotherbill3]

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, several of us even when to last weeks committee meeting and a couple spoke in support of 1071.
There is even a whole separate thread on that meeting. - which really kicked off this weeks meeting and results.

1071 is limited in scope; and 1159 (constitutional carry) - is now assigned a slot for a summer study
This is to keep it progressing - if 1071 passes - without that aspect being removed.
This means the subject gets an even-more-thorough discussion through the legislature - and time for us to keep it in the fore-front and make inroads to change public perception.

1071 was a good bill as a step stone to this discussion and instead of 1159 (const. carry as drafted this session) getting no where ... this is now a launching point.

(more below in response to the next post) ... (only cause i'm too tired to tie them into one post)

 

[brotherbill3]

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?

It is unlikely, in the time we have, we will alter the "STAUNCHLY" opposed - they are as entrenched with their head up their ... seats of their pants ... as we are blind to those outside our bubble at times.

Pig-in-a-Poke to Cat-out-of-bag time - the legislators are getting - at BEST - 50-50 on support for Constitutional (permitless) Carry
- largely because people do not understand or do not value their actual rights (and would surrender them for "perception" of safety)
- add this to the ISA letter, the ISP response, the IACoP, the FOPs, etc.
- makes it a "Tough Sell" to even many Republican (RINO????) legislators.

We aren't going to move the anti's in a under a year - or not many - at least in my opinion.
What we need to move is the middle ground of the needle ... How though -
Easy - win the middle - the 87% - that have no interest.

Keep the issue at the forefront with SHORT (thats a reminder to me) but factually correct letters, comments, posts, whatever the subject comes up or in bringing it up.
Correct Errors, misconceptions of the ignorant and un-informed - WITHOUT spiteful funny sarcasm that they (or those watching) will not understand.
BY being able to WALK AWAY from trolling, sarcasm and spiteful disagreement.
By being educated stewards of this issue.
By getting "moderately interested" people - to the line and letting them experience firearms (in general) and showing them the world of "Carrying One"

Yeah - not easy - get out of our normal comfort zone.

Some Legislators are going to support this (Lucas, Smaltz, Torr, Mayfield, for a few examples) - some will Oppose at all costs (Charlie Brown) - many are going to rely on folks at Indiana Sheriffs Assoc. or Chiefs of Police Groups etc. - or their constituents that contact them.

I've said it before - but 1 letter each from 25 people is better than 10 letters each from 5 of us. (doesn't mean we shouldn't sent our 10 letters).


I've already seen some news articles on this via facebook and other social media. Need help w/ a response - that's what this place is for ...
INGO should be "safe zone" to work through discussion on some of these issues - and how to answer more tricky questions.
- and a place to vent the common frustration we'll all feel - time to time doing this.

.... my 2 cents ... carry on.

 

[brotherbill3]

As an example of my post above ... I Saw this earlier - on WNDUs facebutt timeline:

https://www.facebook.com/NewsCenter16/posts/10154702727816130


My posted comment:

Constitutional Carry - is already the law in 10 (or 12) states and will be added in another shortly. Additionally - 30 states currently do not require a "permit" to open carry. There is no blood in the streets ("WILD WEST") in these states. In fact after passage of constitutional carry - crime went down. Also - there are at least 6 more states considering this in their legislature this session.


Constitutional Carry doesn't make it legal for any currently prohibited person from carrying a firearm legally. It only means that a "proper person" does not need pay a "POLL TAX" in the form of "License Fees" to the state to exercise a State and Federally protected / guaranteed right. In fact the state constitution is more protective of this right than the Federal Constitution.


Constitutional Carry does not make it easier or more difficult to obtain a firearm or a handgun. All laws concerning ownership and purchasing of firearms are unchanged.


Indiana is currently a SHALL ISSUE state; you do not need any specific "State Mandated" training - it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY - to be trained and informed. So there is no change in this aspect.


The License to Carry a Handgun - will remain valid, but only required for reciprocity for interstate travel. It is highly recommended if you travel; and all current LTCHs will remain valid, so there will be no need for a refund.


People prohibited from carrying firearms, felons, etc. that do so illegally - will still be carrying illegally if this proposed legislation is passed. Perhaps even with greater risk of greater penalties. ...

 

[cbhausen]

I wonder how anti-gun activists would react to having ANY civil right other than RKBA denied until a ransom is paid to restore that right?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I saw a quick piece on Constitutional Carry going to Summer Study on WRTV-6 this AM. In 30 seconds they managed to conflate "LTCH" and "prohibited persons" by mentioning you can't get an LTCH if you're a felon or any domestic violence conviction. You can't legally possess a firearm either, but that wasn't mentioned.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Committee meetings. Use the drop down box on the tight side and look at 2-14-17.

It's about an hour.

https://iga.in.gov/information/archives/2017/video/committee_public_policy_1600/

 

[brotherbill3]

Committee meetings. Use the drop down box on the tight side and look at 2-14-17.

It's about an hour.

https://iga.in.gov/information/archives/2017/video/committee_public_policy_1600/

and for the discussion leading to this meeting - look at 2-7 - there are points made there for 1071 and 1159. - but that meeting is about 2:30:00 or so. ... it was VERY long.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I wonder how anti-gun activists would react to having ANY civil right other than RKBA denied until a ransom is paid to restore that right?

I would hope that any American would react to any civil right being held hostage in a very negative way. We as a people have become accustomed to curtailments of our freedoms and rights by our employees in government over many years, and as was pointed out in a discussion (I use that term loosely) I was present for, between an anti and Rep. Lucas, the right of assembly is so regulated (one must obtain a permit for a parade). In addition, there are infringements upon the 4A (though not subject at this time to ransom demands as you specified) and the right to representation of counsel seems to be subject to the depth of one's pockets as well. One may obtain a public defender, if finances don't allow for payment of fees, of course, but, and this is no slight against attorneys, either for pay or in a PD capacity, the saying is that you get what you pay for. More precisely, you don't get what you don't pay for. While that attorney is duty-bound to provide for you the best defense s/he is able to mount, there is a general belief, I think, that the best they have to give is "average" or they would not be doing that job. I'm not saying that perception is accurate or not.
It is a privilege of citizenship, rather than a right to run for public office, however, if one wishes to win, he must have the financial wherewithal to run and must have the backing of one of the two big parties, other than, in some cases, more local races, closer to the people.
The right of travel is curtailed as well; I can't walk, even if I was capable of doing so, from, say, Indy to Terre Haute. The highways do not permit lawful pedestrian traffic, and any motor vehicle would require a license for which I would need to pay, as well as the payment of excise taxes on the vehicle. Alternatively, I could take a bus or an Uber, but still, I would need to pay those excise taxes, albeit indirectly. I can't travel by air without some government ID for which I would need to pay. I'm not sure if bus or train travel require government ID or not, or if that's just "for our safety" in the post-9/11 world. (I seem to recall Mr. Franklin having some comment about that.)

I'm not saying any of the above is right. I think you'd have to agree that it's accurate, however, just as I agree that your point is completely valid: The RKBA is explicitly spelled out, and yet, we have thousands of infringements upon it, to the point that we often hear, even from amongst our own, that some agree with restrictions on barrel size, ammo capacity, ammo content/type, even licensing. Some few seem to even agree to registration. How often do we hear thrown back in our faces the line Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, referencing that some "reasonable restriction" exists on all rights? How often do we hear the canard about "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, that completely bypasses the concept of "prior restraint"? (My personal belief, unsupported by anything more than "just a feeling", is that Justice Scalia had to add the "reasonable restrictions" clause and perhaps the bit about "sensitive locations" before Justice Kennedy would sign on to the majority opinion, making it the majority, rather than the dissent. In short, I don't believe that he would have written that had there been five Originalists on the Court at that time. Just my feeling, though.)

Of note, the anti I mentioned that was talking at Rep. Lucas mentioned that she was in DC at the women's march the week prior. Somehow, I had no difficulty imagining her wearing a representation of her lower anatomy on her head, especially considering the fecal matter that was leaving the alimentary aperture between the cheeks on her face.
I do wish I'd had more difficulty imagining that, though. I hate vomiting.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[brotherbill3]

As it now stands - CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY - is now tied to a summer study as a part of HB 1071.

Without the 'perfect storm' of constitutional carry on the table - HB 1071 is a good bill that provides protection (the ability to CARRY, not obtain), TEMPORARILY, a handgun for those who have obtained the legal protection from another in the form of a court order (and only applies to those who meet the definition of a "proper person").

However, I realize that some may see this as creating yet another (if temporary) class of 'special citizens' ... I hope we can all see past this and focus on the goal -
Which is to get this THROUGH the House and Senate to the Governor's desk with the Summer Study still attached. - AND

AND to start to clarify educate and eliminate flaws (items omitted) from the latest version (HB1159) and to get the public informed and up to speed on what this does and does not do.

In that vein - the Indy star has a post - with generally misleading working and thin on the facts on HB-1071 - and statements that do not apply, yet are leveled against it.

Website: 2 bills, 2 views on guns and domestic violence
and
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indianapolisstar/posts/10156120374934852


Please - Make sure you understand 1071 and Constitution Carry if you reply and don't get sucked into Internet Trolling. ... Its ok to state facts and walk away.

I'll be replying later; I think. I plan to try - but work is overwhelming and lunch is over.

 

[TRW]

As it now stands - CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY - is now tied to a summer study as a part of HB 1071.

Without the 'perfect storm' of constitutional carry on the table - HB 1071 is a good bill that provides protection (the ability to CARRY, not obtain), TEMPORARILY, a handgun for those who have obtained the legal protection from another in the form of a court order (and only applies to those who meet the definition of a "proper person").

However, I realize that some may see this as creating yet another (if temporary) class of 'special citizens' ... I hope we can all see past this and focus on the goal -
Which is to get this THROUGH the House and Senate to the Governor's desk with the Summer Study still attached. - AND

AND to start to clarify educate and eliminate flaws (items omitted) from the latest version (HB1159) and to get the public informed and up to speed on what this does and does not do.

In that vein - the Indy star has a post - with generally misleading working and thin on the facts on HB-1071 - and statements that do not apply, yet are leveled against it.

Website: 2 bills, 2 views on guns and domestic violence
and
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indianapolisstar/posts/10156120374934852


Please - Make sure you understand 1071 and Constitution Carry if you reply and don't get sucked into Internet Trolling. ... Its ok to state facts and walk away.

I'll be replying later; I think. I plan to try - but work is overwhelming and lunch is over.

Thanks for sharing the Indy Star post. I jumped in and ended up having quite the field day posting and replying to comments. I ended up having a few good interactions that may still be ongoing.

 

[brotherbill3]

Here's a novel question -

Given the addition and importance of getting Constitutional Carry to through the State House ... and that it is tied to HB 1071 ... which needs to pass the house:

Have you WRITTEN your representatives to urge their full support of the bill as amended? Have you written speaker Bosma about it?


If you want progress on this - lets get it done peoples - ... I'll post my "last" letter - IF a few of you ask so you have a starting point ... and commit to sending letters.

I do not know when this will get to a vote on the house floor. It could be any day;
I think today they are dealing w/ the road tax / budget stuff but that isn't a guarantee this will not come up.

Do it Tabby ...

 

[trophyhunter]

Here's a novel question -

Given the addition and importance of getting Constitutional Carry to through the State House ... and that it is tied to HB 1071 ... which needs to pass the house:

Have you WRITTEN your representatives to urge their full support of the bill as amended? Have you written speaker Bosma about it?


If you want progress on this - lets get it done peoples - ... I'll post my "last" letter - IF a few of you ask so you have a starting point ... and commit to sending letters.

I do not know when this will get to a vote on the house floor. It could be any day;
I think today they are dealing w/ the road tax / budget stuff but that isn't a guarantee this will not come up.

Do it Tabby ...

I did this yesterday with family and friends to again commit their support to the bill as it now stands, family (children, grandchildren) all got this email.

"As you have all previously taken the time to contact your state house representatives making a case for Indiana's HB 1159 in support of Constitutional Carry it's become necessary to reiterate this support yet again as it has taken new shape in the form of HB 1071.

I respectfully request you take the time yet again to voice your opinions, and voting preferences in the various districts you all now reside in. Your responsible and timely involvement in state level politics matters equally to me as your status as heirs apparent."

With Love,
~The old man and his money.

 

[John Galt]

The current system was to remain in place, but for reciprocity purposes and not required for lawful carry. other states have shown minimal loss of revenue. Also, steps were being taken to allow local counties to expand the category of what could be covered by LOIT to include law enforcement safety training. The police departments actually stand a good chance of actually getting more money than they do now.
Their argument for fiscal reasons holds no water.

 

[John Galt]

IF HB1071 makes it out of the House with the language of HB1059 attached, even in summer study form, that means that the CC language is alive.
This means that when it goes over to the Senate, the original HB1059 language can be amended to return to the original language language of HB1059 ...
It isn't dead ...

 

[INgunowner]

Their argument for fiscal reasons holds no water.

Nothing motivates a government to fight like a threat to its revenue stream.

 

[brotherbill3]

IF HB1071 makes it out of the House with the language of HB1159 attached, even in summer study form, that means that the CC language is alive.
This means that when it goes over to the Senate, the original HB1159 language can be amended to return to the original language language of HB1159 ...
It isn't dead ...

FIFY - the number for this year's Const. Carry bill was off ... LOL ...

 

[Bill of Rights]

HB1071 is on the calendar for 2nd reading for Monday, 2/20, convening at 1330 hrs!!!

 

[brotherbill3]

HB1071 is on the calendar for 2nd reading for Monday, 2/20, convening at 1330 hrs!!!

Thanks for the update - BoR ... OK folks get those letters and calls to your legislators; spread the word ...

Also - note my look as we no longer have a legislature that takes the day off for President's Day. ... hmmm.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the update - BoR ... OK folks get those letters and calls to your legislators; spread the word ...

Also - note my look as we no longer have a legislature that takes the day off for President's Day. ... hmmm.

"The affairs of state must take precedence over the affairs of state." --William J. Lepetomane, Governor

 

[cbhausen]

Looks like tbhausen and I will be able to make this one... Who's going?