Here's Kelly's take: Nisly's amendment was a no-go from the start because it changed HB 1071 into Constitutional Carry. That was not really amending the bill so you can't do that.Well I'm confused. That does not sound like what happened according to what I read here.
Here's Kelly's take: Nisly's amendment was a no-go from the start because it changed HB 1071 into Constitutional Carry. That was not really amending the bill so you can't do that.
I'm all-in for CC. It shouldn't be this hard since as Guy pointed out on his show last Saturday several of the CC states aren't as pro-gun as Indiana. We're fighting up-hill against the antis as well as the "Fudds and Butters" (GodFearinGunTotin, 2017) and we must work within the system we have. The system sucks but it's what we've got.
This is not a sprint, it's a marathon. New Hampshire (CC #13) didn't just start down this road, they've been at it since 2011.
Kelly's take is spot-on, in my opinion. Also, getting Constitutional permitless carry moved to a study committee (instead of just killing it completely) is a positive step.
Wow. I posted multiple comments directing people to INGO and trying to point out NAGR was jumping from conclusions. It looks like they've deleted all of my comments and blocked me from replying to any more. Nothing I said was rude or used foul language.
Wow. I posted multiple comments directing people to INGO and trying to point out NAGR was jumping from conclusions. It looks like they've deleted all of my comments and blocked me from replying to any more. Nothing I said was rude or used foul language.
It seems to me that HoosierCarry and NAGR are in the "all or nothing" camp, believing that if we demand everything, they will HAVE to give it to us. They are wrong, in that they are forgetting that "all or nothing" can result in "nothing", which is far easier to accomplish than "everything".
Simply, if Rep. Nisly had done the legwork, he'd have had a broad base of support. Considering that his amendment violates House Rule 118, it was a non-starter, and no one would have supported it, least of all Jim Lucas, knowing the work he's put into making this happen for three years running. He'd have had someone to second his challenge to the rule from the chair. Of 98 other Representatives, NONE of them were willing to do so.
(ETA: House Rule 118. Substituting Another Bill. No bill may be amended by annexing to it or incorporating with it any other bill pending before the House.)
By posting this and attacking Rep. Jim Lucas, NAGR has guaranteed that until Mr. Lucas gets a formal apology, NAGR will never see another dime from me. Will they notice? Probably not. But if others take the same stance, they will.
Too, their reference to "the three letter gun group"... comes across as petty and childish. I'm not sure who's dividing us as gun owners, but this is a fast way to minimize our value as a block of votes and of dollars. I predict NAGR will not give that apology, even if/when Mr. Lucas succeeds in getting Constitutional carry passed, because they would then have to admit they were wrong.
NRA is not always right. They've made some moves over the years that were strategic, but that later came back to bite them in public opinion. The simple fact is, though, they've been around a lot longer than anyone else, and they've been in this fight, which is more than can be said for online posturing.
Blessings,
Bill
I am just throwing this against the wall.
The left has been using incrimentalism for over a century bu adding amendments to must pass bills.
Examples, Hughes and Johnson amendments.
Would it have been possible to amend the bill had Constitutional carry not been on the docket? Could this be a possibility next year?
Looks like NAGR has taken a side. And they've tagged Jim Lucas on their post.
Pic is blocked at work...but I know I saw a FB feed saying we needed to hammer the one fella that voted down making 1071 in to 1059(?). Or maybe it was GOA.
After reading the rest of the posts...I think my take when I saw this on FB yesterday was right. All or nothing....incremental movementisn't enough. I know there are some like that on here...but at least they don't have their posts deleted.
PLEASE SHARE THIS
A "pro" gun group going by the name Hoosier Carry has a VERY MISLEADING POST on their website and here is my response to this back-stabbing deceit!
As the author of HB1159, this appears to be nothing more than a PR and marketing stunt by some "pro" gun rights groups than an actual legitimate attempt at advancing legislation. Anyone that knows me knows my dedication to advancing our gun rights and the countless hours I've spent working on this issue and I am insulted to be accused of not supporting this issue.
HB1159 met resistance from every police representative group in Indiana and given the hurdle this placed upon passing Con Carry, it was determined that the best course of action to advance it was to assign it to a summer study committee, where the police groups, and those they influence, could be educated on it and better prepare it for when I introduce it again next year. The added bonus of keeping this language alive is that if it gets out of the House, it goes over to the Senate where the original Constitutional Carry language could be inserted back into the bill, therefore possibly giving us Constitutional Carry this year! This is called political strategy.
Even if we don’t get Con Carry passed this year, there is still an excellent chance of a summer study getting done on this issue, greatly advancing the ball.
I relayed this to Rep. Nisly and made him aware of the possible consequences of his actions and how it could potentially derail not just years of hard work, but actually set the Con Carry movement back substantially. Apparently, Rep. Nisly, and those pushing him to do what he did, were more interested in distorting his actions into a “Look at us, we’re fighting for your rights” photo op without doing the proper legwork to pass legislation.
Rep. Nisly spoke with no one before offering his amendment and it caught everyone off guard. This is not how legislation is made, as it takes hours of reaching out and discussing with all involved parties your intentions and working with them. This is how legitimate legislation gets passed.
I was not contacted by him, either as a professional courtesy or for input on this issue. The mere fact that no one was contacted indicates to me more of an interest in a PR stunt than the actual legitimate advancement of legislation and it is sad to see this event being used in a destructive manner instead of a positive manner to advance our gun rights.
Jim Lucas
State Representative