Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

OK. So who do we hound again in particular? Our rep? The author? Bosma?

 

[brotherbill3]

OK. So who do we hound again in particular? Our rep? The author? Bosma?

My take is your state representative. Best thing we can do it push the HB-1071 through the house - that's the next step.
If you know or are familiar with any that aren't well know to support the 2A - maybe add them ... and Mr Bosma

 

[KellyinAvon]

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

You have some excellent intel, Bill. The General Assembly site isn't showing the reading under Bill Actions yet. 1330 Monday? I can be there!

 

[brotherbill3]

I meant to add - I am swamped - so I'm out - might listen/watch on line. I've already contacted my rep and soon to be rep about this.
(soon to be is one Mr. Bosma ... ) ...

I do not think there is any testimony by citizens at this, as it is before the full house.

 

[longbarrel]

I meant to add - I am swamped - so I'm out - might listen/watch on line. I've already contacted my rep and soon to be rep about this.
(soon to be is one Mr. Bosma ... ) ...

I do not think there is any testimony by citizens at this, as it is before the full house.

Mr. Bosma is the main one holding this up. You don't have to like it, but it is true.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Mr. Bosma is the main one holding this up. You don't have to like it, but it is true.

The information a few of us obtained from a reliable but to-remain-anonymous source indicates otherwise. I cannot disseminate that information at this time and in no event will I do so on the open board.

For the information of all: the Second (and Third, for that matter) Reading is done in the House session, and is not open to public testimony. The next time we can have a direct say, on the record, is in the Senate committee, when 1071 gets there.

That's not to say you can't go to watch the session, just that you won't be speaking on the bill. You MIGHT have a chance to speak with your own rep, though, before it's heard.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[brotherbill3]

The information a few of us obtained from a reliable but to-remain-anonymous source indicates otherwise. I cannot disseminate that information at this time and in no event will I do so on the open board.

For the information of all: the Second (and Third, for that matter) Reading is done in the House session, and is not open to public testimony. The next time we can have a direct say, on the record, is in the Senate committee, when 1071 gets there.

That's not to say you can't go to watch the session, just that you won't be speaking on the bill. You MIGHT have a chance to speak with your own rep, though, before it's heard.


Blessings,
Bill

2nd'ed - since I'm out of rep ...

I was asked about a sample letter to representatives for HB-1071 -
There is one at the end of this post - that urges for HB-1159 - while also pushing for 1071 ...
Let's get out side our bubble a bit.
And a full update on IGA legislation so far related to firearms as a bonus.
Hope this helps.
also - on other social media ...

Want to share this as full update: (mods / BoR feel free to relocate if needed) ...
http://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/1230567707035122

IGA – Firearms Legislation Update – 2017 – Feb 18

Well it’s been a busy IGA session, but only moderate progress has been made on pro-firearm-owners’ rights and legislation. The biggest and most important bill at the moment is HB 1071 which comes forward from the Public Policy Committee for its 2nd reading in the full House on Monday (02.20) afternoon. This means calling and sending e-mails is critical at this time. I have a sample letter that I wrote to my representative, and summary of HB1017 below.

First – several small steps were taken and there are a few more days of committee activity this week to move bills forward. Bills that have passed their initial chamber and/or committee and are continuing to advance are:
HB 1095 (Plastic Coated Ammunition) referred to Senate;
HB 1250 (Handgun Licenses and Law Enforcement Officers) passed 2nd reading;
SB 13 (Use of Firearms to Secure Loans) referred to House;
SB 191** (Disposal of Firearms) referred to House;
SB 344 (Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien) passed committee; 2nd reading;
SB 43 passed 2nd reading.

These are very good pro-2A bills that work to correct errors, inaccuracies or omissions from the Indiana Code (IC). None of the (few, fortunately) anti-rights bills have been permitted to waste the valuable and limited time of the committees; though several other stronger and more desirable pro-rights proposals have also languished in committee. (Some of these have for the 3rd or 4th year in a row). And no, I do no realistically expect all of you to agree with all of the choices. But we have seen slow baby steps of improvement and we generally support this; while advocating for full protection and restoration of our natural rights under the law. This brings us back to HB 1071.

I testified a few weeks ago on behalf of passing HB 1071. My points noted and pushed for a hearing of HB 1159 (which is this year’s constitutional “permit-less” carry legislation). This legislation (HB 1071) is being poorly and falsely portrayed by the media and those against it. It grants use of a Court Issued Protective Order as a TEMPORARY exemption (i.e. a temporary LTCH) so that one can carry a handgun outside of their home. The provision has a time limit of 60 days with another 60 if the process for obtaining the LTCH is started within the first 60 days; and that this only applies to a “proper person” who is eligible to receive a LTCH.

The proposal does NOT change any laws with possession of a firearm in your home or on personal property or at your business. It does NOT change any aspects of the legal acquisition of a firearm. It does not force or mandate anyone to possess a firearm. It only provides a more accessible means for a person (generally, women) to protect themselves outside of their homes, IF they so choose.

Through a committee amendment the language of HB 1159 was incorporated to this with a requirement for a summer study, which keeps this language moving forward. No, this is NOT the solution that we would desire from the legislature. But from many discussions I have had, Constitutional Carry has a perception problem. It is largely misunderstood, and misrepresented, by the majority of the general population. This option keeps the language and the discussion at the proverbial “Top of the Pile” and keeps open the option for senate and conference amendments.

We need to get outside our ‘bubble’ of safety (yes, even advocates like our staff) and present the facts on this (which I will do later). For the moment the STRONGEST thing we can do – is write and call the representatives at the State House and Support HB 1071 – as Amended; stating our full support for this and for Constitutional Carry.

Here’s a link for “How to find Your Legislator”: Find your Legislator - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session

Here’s a link to HB 1071: House Bill 1071 - Authorization to carry a handgun - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session


And below is a Sample Letter on HB 1071 - Remember – Firm but polite arguments based on facts are best.

Thank you – Please – LIKE and COMMENT – and SHARE and DISUCSS with others!!!

BB3



Dear Representative ____,

I am writing to urge your fullest support of HB 1071, as amended and passed by the House Public Policy Committee. This is an excellent step towards resolving a constitutional conflict with the existing Indiana Codes (IC).

HB 1071 give a person with who has obtained a Protective Order, from the court system, the option to carry a handgun for a temporary period, while they go through the process of obtaining an Indiana License to Carry a Handgun (LTCH). This is conditional, in that they must be "proper person" and are not prohibited from the possession of firearms. The law does not affect the legality of having a firearm in the home for their self-protection. The law does not affect their ability to purchase a firearm legally. It only acts as a temporary LTCH until they can obtain one.

It is well documented that the Supreme Court (US) has ruled, correctly, that the police are not obligated to protect any given individual. While the police are valiant and the majority take the motto “To serve and protect” greatly to heart, they simply do have the powers of clairvoyance to make it a legal requirement or responsibility. The police protect the public welfare in general, but each of us is responsible for our own protection; and that of those around us to our own abilities.

As such, this bill provides a means for a person who is has been threatened sufficiently that the court has issued a protective order for them to have access and carry the most effective modern tool for self-protection: a handgun.

Additionally, the bill provides for a summer study to remove the conflict between the state constitution, in article 1, section 32, and IC 35-47-2. The first protects or guarantees a law abiding citizen the right to bear arms "for defense of themselves and the state"; the latter make bearing a handgun a crime, unless you have paid a "tax" in the form of the LTCH fees. While I would prefer to see this corrected immediately; a summer study of this issue is a positive step forward, which I fully support.

HB-1071 is a good bill, a positive step as we deal with the reality of such situations and empower people. It provides a legal protection for someone seeking physical protection and allows them time to come into compliance with (arguably unconstitutional) sections of IC 35-47-2. Please support this legislation.

In Liberty,

YOUR NAME
Affiliations

 

[ATM]

So, what will they actually be studying this summer?

What is an individual right?

Why shall an individual right not be infringed?

How to repeal an infringement of an individual right?

Or, will it just be further study and polling of the general popularity of letting this infringement remain in place with no action?

Do our legislators and those lobbying against repeal of the LTCH requirement really prefer that everyone carry rifles in public to handguns?

Are they so dense that they need to be shown this summer?

That would certainly make for a more interesting study, a study of unintended consequences.

 

[brotherbill3]

Since I've asked for clarification of what the summer study (or interim committee) would do ...

So, what will they actually be studying this summer?

What is an individual right?
For some this does need explained. *

Why shall an individual right not be infringed?
For some this does need explained. *

How to repeal an infringement of an individual right?
I hope this is understood by all there. but perhaps needs explaining.

Or, will it just be further study and polling of the general popularity of letting this infringement remain in place with no action?
Yes - further discussion and opportunity to clarify what this means, does, and the consequences - and NO, hopefully not without action.

Do our legislators and those lobbying against repeal of the LTCH requirement really prefer that everyone carry rifles in public to handguns?
Those against - probably - like Mr. Representative Charlie Brown (cue coasters song from 1950's - chorus part) ... probably prefer a disarmed public ...
but what do I know.

Are they so dense that they need to be shown this summer?
Yes - many of them - and since public opinion and understanding of the legislation is so far off (out side of the bubble of INGO) ... so do "WE"

That would certainly make for a more interesting study, a study of unintended consequences.

Why do we NOT want to keep pushing the issue this summer, at the least?
This is an area forward we have not had yet.

Following the previous sessions the bill was introduced, and it died and was not discussed by the legislators -
out side of the author and a few close supporters - (and here in our bubble) -
from March until January - when we we pick it up again for 2 months and then it would go dormant ... thanks to the prior committee chairman ...

I know you're active in spreading the word of real "America" - put on your 1770's hat - how did the founders win the revolution?
Was only because they petitioned the legislatures of the time? you know better than that - per Mr. Adams ... we need to re-win that original victory.
that battle field is the same place.

and yeah - I am part of those that needs to step up the activity to win that revolution ... we all are. No Lone Rider - Group Effort.

Just my nickles worth. (and yes I recognize the sarcasm / humor, but I'm also fighting this outside of INGO and dealing w/ "Fudds n Butters" ... )

ETA: * for some this explanation is needed, and no I do support that in a legislator;
It seems to be a failing of education and lack of understanding "Servant-Leadership"

 

[ATM]

Thanks for your reply, BB3.

Why do we NOT want to keep pushing the issue this summer, at the least?

I am considering how best to push the issue this summer and leaning toward increasing my public rifle carry to see what interesting conversations it might generate.

As always, I will have a plan and it will be a trap.

 

[cbhausen]

Let me be the first:

[video=youtube_share;2uLIs-W7iyI]http://youtu.be/2uLIs-W7iyI[/video]

 

[KellyinAvon]

I had an interesting question come my way from my son last night. How will Constitutional Carry affect other laws that are broken? If you don't use a handgun in the crime, but you have it in your possession and are not a prohibited person? Will other laws change or are current laws still applicable? Of course he asked it at the end of Guy's show last night, if he's have asked at 1710 he could have called. I told him a lot of the 27 pages of the bill (which I did read) were amending other parts of Indiana Code.

Other than being a gun owner, a lifetime LTCH, and a fairly regular carrier of a handgun my son also works in a Pharmacy (which makes him about as likely to be robbed at some point as the overnight clerk at the local Speedway.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I had an interesting question come my way from my son last night. How will Constitutional Carry affect other laws that are broken? If you don't use a handgun in the crime, but you have it in your possession and are not a prohibited person? Will other laws change or are current laws still applicable?

It won't. Why would it? What other laws was he referencing?

Robbery will still be Robbery. Rape will be Rape. Burglary will be Burglary.

 

[MCgrease08]

It won't. Why would it? What other laws was he referencing?

Robbery will still be Robbery. Rape will be Rape. Burglary will be Burglary.

One possible charge would go away. With the removal of the LTCH requirement, if a suspect were arrested and accused of being in possesion of a handgun during the commission of the alleged crimes, they could not be charged with carrying a handgun without a license.

If one was a prohibited person prior to the arrest, they could still face charges like felon in possesion of a firearm or similar.

 

[2A_Tom]

That wouldn't be a change it the other law.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It won't. Why would it? What other laws was he referencing?

Robbery will still be Robbery. Rape will be Rape. Burglary will be Burglary.

I dunno Kirk, out of the three of us (me and my 2 sons) there's an MBA, a pre-Pharm major and a Computer Engineering major. No lawyers were in the car. I think it was from a standpoint of robbery vice armed robbery and the chance of pile-on charges (maintaining a common nuisance anyone?) even though possessing a firearms had anything to do with a crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think what Kirk is pointing out is that the law is:

IC 35-42-5-1 Robbery
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property
from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) by putting any person in fear;
commits robbery, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level
3 felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or
results in bodily injury to any person other than a defendant, and a
Level 2 felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any person
other than a defendant.

And as such, the change to Constitutional Carry would make no difference.
The person committing the criminal act of taking another's property by use or threat of force is committing a crime. If he is armed, there is an increase in the severity of the crime.

I know that when a parent brings a small child to the ED with a fever, some of my co-workers over the years have been known to roll their eyes, thinking or saying, "why didn't they give some tylenol or motrin?" or "why is the child still wearing fleece pajamas with feet!?" They forget that what to us is commonplace and routine because we deal with it all the time, is to that parent an emergency (and at times, it *does* mean that a little more will be done, such as testing for and treating infections, but much of that, other than the urgent issue of "well he has a high fever right now!" can be addressed in the doctor's office, and the fever can usually be handled at home, by the same means we're going to use: get them out of that warm sleeper that's keeping heat in and give them tylenol and motrin.) What does this paragraph have to do with the subject? Simple:

I think that sometimes, things which we know well, we forget that others may not. Kirk knows the law and knows it very well. He may sometimes discuss things here in a tone that pre-supposes that the rest of us share that familiarity with it. That's not a failing, and it's one reason that Kirk is high on my short list of people to call if I do ever need someone who knows the law that intimately. It can be a little frustrating to talk with people who, when you're looking for an explanation of something specific, sound like they're speaking in riddles when they're actually just giving you credit for knowing what they know.

Kelly, if I understand the original question, your son was asking based on the belief that "robbery" and "armed robbery" were two different sections of the IC, but they are not. The CWOL would not be chargeable, as it would no longer be a criminal act is all. It's still a crime to rob, and it is worse in the eyes of the law to do so while in possession of a deadly weapon.

I hope that helps, both with the original question and with Kirk's question ("Why would it?") as well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cbhausen]

Any INGOers attending the session today? I (along with tbhausen) will be there and would like to put faces with names (unless we've met on an overpass already).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not this week. Got stuff going on here at home today and at church tomorrow.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Any INGOers attending the session today? I (along with tbhausen) will be there and would like to put faces with names (unless we've met on an overpass already).

I will be there. Although the only time I ever get the police called on me is when I'm with the Bhausen brothers...