HB 1369 constitutional carry bill introduced for Indiana

[drillsgt]

There was a committee hearing on this today. I was able to watch an hour or so of it after work and I have a question. From the testimony I watched the state police chiefs association and the indiana fop oppose the bill but there were several county sheriffs that spoke in support. Why the disconnect between county and local agencies? Are Sheriff's deputies not members of the fop?

I'm shocked...

 

[Gabriel]

There was a committee hearing on this today. I was able to watch an hour or so of it after work and I have a question. From the testimony I watched the state police chiefs association and the indiana fop oppose the bill but there were several county sheriffs that spoke in support. Why the disconnect between county and local agencies? Are Sheriff's deputies not members of the fop?

Sheriffs are elected while chiefs are appointed puppets of the Mayor.

 

[Chance]

News is now quickly shifting to the $3.5 million lost if licensing eliminated. It’s all about the money, not our rights!

 

[fullmetaljesus]

News is now quickly shifting to the $3.5 million lost if licensing eliminated. It’s all about the money, not our rights!

We would still need our ltch to carry out of state.

 

[Chance]

We would still need our ltch to carry out of state.

That one is already free

 

[fullmetaljesus]

That one is already free

Not the lifetime

 

[Chance]

Who cares if you can get the 5 year free? That covers out of state issues? The shift from your Constitutional rights to “look at the money” still stands.

 

[actaeon277]

Unfortunately I'm from NWI. So my Rep, and Senator are anti-gunners.
Pretty sure, even if I voice my opinion, they won't care.
In NWI, a "D" by your name means you don't have to worry.

Representative Vernon Smith​

Democrat, District 14​

House Bill 1551​

Introduced House Bill (H)​

Authored by​

• Rep. Vernon Smith.

DIGEST​

Surrender of firearms for domestic violence crimes. Provides that a person who: (1) has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence; and (2) knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm; commits possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer, a Class A misdemeanor. Provides certain defenses. Requires a court to issue an order, upon entry of a judgment of conviction for a crime of domestic battery or a crime of domestic violence, that: (1) prohibits ownership or possession of a firearm until the defendant's right to possess a firearm is restored; and (2) requires the defendant to surrender: (A) any firearm owned or possessed by the defendant; and (B) any valid license or permit to carry a handgun (license); to a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over the area where the defendant's offense occurred, where the defendant resides, or where the defendant plans to reside. Requires a court to order an appropriate law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer to seize, within 72 hours, any firearm or license owned or possessed by a defendant convicted of domestic battery or a crime of domestic violence. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally fails to surrender: (1) all firearms owned or possessed by the person; or (2) any valid license or permit to carry a handgun possessed by the person; after being convicted of domestic battery or a crime of domestic violence commits unlawful retention of a firearm or license by a domestic batterer, a Class A misdemeanor. Enhances the offense to a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense. Provides certain defenses. Specifies how a confiscated firearm or license shall be: (1) returned to the rightful owner; or (2) disposed of; if a defendant's right to possess a firearm is restored. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments

Senator Lonnie Randolph​

Democrat, District 2​

Senate Bill 171​

Introduced Senate Bill (S)​

Authored by​

• Sen. Lonnie Randolph.

DIGEST​

Minimum age for license to carry a handgun. Changes the minimum age required for a license to carry a handgun.

Senate Bill 173​

Introduced Senate Bill (S)​

Authored by​

• Sen. Lonnie Randolph.

DIGEST​

Prohibition of firearms at polling places. Prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in, on, or near: (1) a chute; (2) polls; (3) areas where voters congregate or are likely to congregate; or (4) any room where ballots are being counted. Provides that the offense is a Class C misdemeanor. Enhances the offense to a: (1) Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense; or (2) Level 6 felony if the person points the firearm at another person. Specifies: (1) a defense; and (2) certain notice requirements. Prohibits certain other defenses. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments

 

[2A_Tom]

I am not sure why there is a separate thread forHB 1369 outside the 2021 Legislative thread, But it is now becoming another general legislative thread.

It would be nice to have one so you do not have to check both so you do not miss anything or check both to read duplicate posts.

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

 

[chipbennett]

News is now quickly shifting to the $3.5 million lost if licensing eliminated. It’s all about the money, not our rights!

That ship already sailed. The no-cost 5-year LTCH went into effect last July. There is no longer an LTCH gravy train, with or without permit-less carry.

 

[Chance]

That ship already sailed. The no-cost 5-year LTCH went into effect last July. There is no longer an LTCH gravy train, with or without permit-less carry.

I understand that but look at all of the news outlets today with respect to this bill and it is all emotional BS about the loss of money.

 

[chipbennett]

I understand that but look at all of the news outlets today with respect to this bill and it is all emotional BS about the loss of money.

Fake news, appeal to emotion, straw men, and similar logical fallacy when constitutional carry is up for debate? Surely you jest...

 

[2A_Tom]

Senator Lonnie Randolph​

Democrat, District 2​

Senate Bill 171​

Introduced Senate Bill (S)​

Authored by​

• Sen. Lonnie Randolph.

DIGEST​

Minimum age for license to carry a handgun. Changes the minimum age required for a license to carry a handgun.

Sir,

The current age requirement for an LTCH (18) is to facilitate the employment of young people with security firms. By changing the age to 21 as you propose you will be limiting the employment opportunities of your constituents.

Eighteen year olds serve our country in the active military and reserves. They are old enough to take on the responsibility of protecting our country they are mature enough to have the responsibility and right of self defense.

Changing the age requirement will take no illegally owned guns off the streets. Criminals do not get an LTCH. Criminals break the law.

Licensed gun owners are one of the most law abiding groups citizens. Studies have shown they are more law abiding than the police.

 

[2A_Tom]

Senate Bill 173​

Introduced Senate Bill (S)​

Authored by​

• Sen. Lonnie Randolph.

DIGEST​

Prohibition of firearms at polling places. Prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in, on, or near: (1) a chute; (2) polls; (3) areas where voters congregate or are likely to congregate; or (4) any room where ballots are being counted. Provides that the offense is a Class C misdemeanor. Enhances the offense to a: (1) Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense; or (2) Level 6 felony if the person points the firearm at another person. Specifies: (1) a defense; and (2) certain notice requirements. Prohibits certain other defenses. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments.

Sir,

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

To my knowledge there have been no incidents of firearms use or misuse in Indiana or other States' Polling Places. I can find no impetus for this legislation aside from the fact that you are historically Anti-gun.

The freedoms that our creator endowed us with are endorsed in our Constitution. You took an oath to preserve and defend that Constitution.

Please Sir, consider what side of history you are on.

 

[MCgrease08]

I understand that but look at all of the news outlets today with respect to this bill and it is all emotional BS about the loss of money.

And that's been the story for the past several years. Seriously, they get to dust off the same article session after session. They even talk to the same advocates every year too. There is always a stooge from Mom's Demand Action, they usually pull in the anti-gun "law" professor from IU, Jody Madeira (sp?) And then they occasionally work in a quote from Guy Rellford for the pro side.

16 other states have CC carry. They manage just fine. This needs to be hammered into the heads of your reps. Tell them the stories we read here on this very board about people waiting 5-6 months for the local PD to process apps. There really are no more reasons for them to keep opposing this. If government is delayed due to the "pandemic" people's rights are being delayed and denied.

Hammer your reps to tell new House Speaker, Todd Huston, to get this through. We need enough votes to override Holcomb's likely veto.

 

[Jaybird1980]

And that's been the story for the past several years. Seriously, they get to dust off the same article session after session. They even talk to the same advocates every year too. There is always a stooge from Mom's Demand Action, they usually pull in the anti-gun "law" professor from IU, Jody Madeira (sp?) And then they occasionally work in a quote from Guy Rellford for the pro side.

16 other states have CC carry. They manage just fine. This needs to be hammered into the heads of your reps. Tell them the stories we read here on this very board about people waiting 5-6 months for the local PD to process apps. There really are no more reasons for them to keep opposing this. If government is delayed due to the "pandemic" people's rights are being delayed and denied.

Hammer your reps to tell new House Speaker, Todd Huston, to get this through. We need enough votes to override Holcomb's likely veto.

I saw this article where one of the Mom's Demand Action loons was saying how getting rid of the LTC would make it possible for people who are not able to buy a firearm to buy one. They don't understand a LTC is not what allows people to buy a firearm.

Indiana measure would repeal law requiring licenses to carry handguns

The chair of the committee that heard the measure Wednesday said, over the next few days, people can talk with legislators about their support or opposition of the bill.

www.wishtv.com

 

[actaeon277]

View attachment 125214 View attachment 125215

Ummm, Rep. Lucas has been working on replacing that income.
That's a problem already figured out.

 

[actaeon277]

Senate Bill 173​

Introduced Senate Bill (S)​

Authored by​

• Sen. Lonnie Randolph.

DIGEST​

Prohibition of firearms at polling places. Prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in, on, or near: (1) a chute; (2) polls; (3) areas where voters congregate or are likely to congregate; or (4) any room where ballots are being counted. Provides that the offense is a Class C misdemeanor. Enhances the offense to a: (1) Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for the offense; or (2) Level 6 felony if the person points the firearm at another person. Specifies: (1) a defense; and (2) certain notice requirements. Prohibits certain other defenses. Defines certain terms. Makes conforming amendments.

Sir,

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

To my knowledge there have been no incidents of firearms use or misuse in Indiana or other States' Polling Places. I can find no impetus for this legislation aside from the fact that you are historically Anti-gun.

The freedoms that our creator endowed us with are endorsed in our Constitution. You took an oath to preserve and defend that Constitution.

Please Sir, consider what side of history you are on.

Tom, you know he either knows, or doesn't care.

 

[tsm]

Ummm, Rep. Lucas has been working on replacing that income.
That's a problem already figured out.

We should point out that’s 3.5 million that remains in the pockets of the citizens, who should be assumed to be better stewards of those funds than the government. Asking the government to be more efficient seems reasonable.