2022 Legislative Session Thread

[Bill of Rights]

One thing I noted in the first ISP guy's questions from Jim....

I could be mistaken, and please tell me if I am, I don't think that *applying for a license to carry handgun* is a crime, even as a former felony offender. Is it a crime for that person to carry a stungun or taser? As I recall, being issued a LTCH is required to carry those items.

I am not of the belief that a mistake in one's past, for which one has served a sentence, should forever mark that person as a defenseless victim.

(Put another way, if at age six, you broke a vase your mom had, because you were throwing a ball in the house, a rule of which you were aware, it would not be unreasonable to discipline you.... Maybe a "time out", maybe grounding, maybe a spanking.... maybe some combination of the above, or even a different penalty should be expected. But when that punishment has ended, a parent should not then, when the child is seven, eight, 10, 12, 15, whatever... continue to say, "Well, you broke that vase when you were six, so no, you can't (do whatever)."

I cannot imagine a parent refusing permission for a 16 yr old to get his/her driver's license because of an act committed when the child was six! Granted, we're only talking about 10 years later, but that's over 60% of that child's entire life.)

Just my thoughts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Chief Pat Flannelly...I knew Pat when he was a brand new, fresh out of the academy, rookie cop.

It disappoints me that he has taken the position he has taken here, but it does not surprise me. "Why would we be considering removing one of the most effective tools law enforcement has at its disposal?" Because our Constitution is meant to limit government and protect peoples' freedoms,not the reverse.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DataGeek19]

Law enforcement both for and against talk about systems and querying people. The key to the success is a simple ideology change. Law Enforcement Agencies in the current constitutional carry states realize officers shouldn’t take any investigatory or enforcement steps based on the mere presence of a gun. For us, Pinner versus State is the confirmation.

Investigatory action, to include Triple I or any other IDACS/NCIC query should only be taken when a suspected crime is being investigated. The mere presence of a firearm is not a crime.

 

[Jaybird1980]

For some reason I cannot figure out how to get the video to play. It just says no live streaming.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Interesting, I tried to write my Representative this morning and my correspondence is being rejected with the response of "Banned keyword found - Error Code 6001".

Basically the same thing I wrote to her last week, with updates and some revised text. No naughty words or anything I can see as objectionable.

I am hoping the error message is due to an overwhelmed webmail subssystem from all of the HB1077 supporters. Tried it in two different browsers with the same result.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Law enforcement both for and against talk about systems and querying people. The key to the success is a simple ideology change. Law Enforcement Agencies in the current constitutional carry states realize officers shouldn’t take any investigatory or enforcement steps based on the mere presence of a gun. For us, Pinner versus State is the confirmation.

Investigatory action, to include Triple I or any other IDACS/NCIC query should only be taken when a suspected crime is being investigated. The mere presence of a firearm is not a crime.

This comes back to Rep Austin's comments. "How do we best protect our officers?" (paraphrase)

And this is a valid question. Our officers do need to know that they are safe, or at least as safe as they CAN be. We also have to remember at the same time that that safety must be considered alongside both the safety of the people and the rights of the people. The legislators were not elected solely by law enforcement, but rather by the people, of whom law enforcement is a subset.

We have a roadside test for the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. The PBT is not by itself admissible in court. One argument against the decriminalization of marijuana use is that we have no similar test for that, and the counterargument is that when the need is there, the market will fill the need-- in other words, it will come. The PBT is present to add to the officers' "toolkit" alongside a penalty of automatic license revocation for refusal.
If there is a need, someone will find a way to create the necessary list of prohibited people. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But it will happen.

$0.02

Blessings,
Bill

 

[wingrider1800]

Thank you Kelly, Bollorollo, and anyone else who attended. You guys go above and beyond and it benefits all of us greatly. Again, thank you all very much.

 

[gregr]

But wait , there's more!

SB 15 (Jim Tomes)
Government acquisition and disposition of firearms. Specifies that a law enforcement agency having possession of a firearm may not destroy the firearm unless the serial number of the firearm was obliterated at the time the law enforcement agency took custody of it. Prohibits a local unit of government, including a law enforcement agency, from conducting a firearm buyback program.


I like it!

Now, the issue of getting firearms returned to their owners after a case has been settled must be addressed.

 

[gregr]

Chief Pat Flannelly...I knew Pat when he was a brand new, fresh out of the academy, rookie cop.

It disappoints me that he has taken the position he has taken here, but it does not surprise me. "Why would we be considering removing one of the most effective tools law enforcement has at its disposal?" Because our Constitution is meant to limit government and protect peoples' freedoms,not the reverse.

Blessings,
Bill

Our Constitutionally protected rights are not to be subjected to any "litmus test" by government, nor, law enforcement. It disturbs me that law enforcement is against constitutional carry. To be perfectly blunt, as well as obvious, criminals already carry without a carry permit, and good, decent, law-abiding American citizens ought not be required to request permission from the state before they freely exercise their Second Amendment rights. Sadly, an illiterate society doesn`t seem to grasp the obvious meaning of shall not be infringed.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This comes back to Rep Austin's comments. "How do we best protect our officers?" (paraphrase)

And this is a valid question. Our officers do need to know that they are safe, or at least as safe as they CAN be. We also have to remember at the same time that that safety must be considered alongside both the safety of the people and the rights of the people. The legislators were not elected solely by law enforcement, but rather by the people, of whom law enforcement is a subset.

We have a roadside test for the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. The PBT is not by itself admissible in court. One argument against the decriminalization of marijuana use is that we have no similar test for that, and the counterargument is that when the need is there, the market will fill the need-- in other words, it will come. The PBT is present to add to the officers' "toolkit" alongside a penalty of automatic license revocation for refusal.
If there is a need, someone will find a way to create the necessary list of prohibited people. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But it will happen.

$0.02

Blessings,
Bill

If your life and schedule will allow we always need a guy like you testifying on any given Wednesday.

 

[KellyinAvon]

For some reason I cannot figure out how to get the video to play. It just says no live streaming.

Try a different browser. I viewed it on Firefox, in the past I had to use Edge or even Internet Explorer.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Our Constitutionally protected rights are not to be subjected to any "litmus test" by government, nor, law enforcement. It disturbs me that law enforcement is against constitutional carry. To be perfectly blunt, as well as obvious, criminals already carry without a carry permit, and good, decent, law-abiding American citizens ought not be required to request permission from the state before they freely exercise their Second Amendment rights. Sadly, an illiterate society doesn`t seem to grasp the obvious meaning of shall not be infringed.

Greg, you’re not wrong on any of this. I think what they are not saying is that it’s partly about cash, even with license fees being a thing of the past, and partly about control. No one wants to give up any part of either one that they have.

It ain’t right but it’s likely the way things are.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DataGeek19]

This comes back to Rep Austin's comments. "How do we best protect our officers?" (paraphrase)

And this is a valid question. Our officers do need to know that they are safe, or at least as safe as they CAN be. We also have to remember at the same time that that safety must be considered alongside both the safety of the people and the rights of the people. The legislators were not elected solely by law enforcement, but rather by the people, of whom law enforcement is a subset.

We have a roadside test for the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. The PBT is not by itself admissible in court. One argument against the decriminalization of marijuana use is that we have no similar test for that, and the counterargument is that when the need is there, the market will fill the need-- in other words, it will come. The PBT is present to add to the officers' "toolkit" alongside a penalty of automatic license revocation for refusal.
If there is a need, someone will find a way to create the necessary list of prohibited people. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But it will happen.

$0.02

Blessings,
Bill

The states currently with constitutional carry don’t have databases specifically for people prohibited from possession of a firearm. Even if a state created one they can only include data from their state. People have criminal history from other states and we have open borders.

My point is databases are available now for investigative purposes if there is a suspicion a crime was committed. Law enforcement should not look at possession of a firearm alone as a crime. Yes, officer safety is paramount; however, does the fact that a person carrying a firearm has a license to carry truly make the officer safe? No.

Law enforcement is a dangerous profession but data from the current constitutional carry states don’t show that removing the licensing/permit requirement to carry a firearm makes it more dangerous.

I don’t want to give anyone ideas but I am surprised the same Indiana Law Enforcement entities against constitutional carry don’t advocate for mandatory disclosure of firearms from occupants during traffic stops…

 

[Jaybird1980]

Try a different browser. I viewed it on Firefox, in the past I had to use Edge or even Internet Explorer.

That's it, wouldn't work with Brave. Thanks Kelly.

 

[gregr]

Greg, you’re not wrong on any of this. I think what they are not saying is that it’s partly about cash, even with license fees being a thing of the past, and partly about control. No one wants to give up any part of either one that they have.

It ain’t right but it’s likely the way things are.

Blessings,
Bill

I understand what you`ve said, and I know that`s the truth. I just cannot and will not accept any of it. We The People are in the right in this, and the United States Constitution is the bottom line.

 

[Jaybird1980]

The Ft. Wayne gang task force detective really confused me.

He states that the gang members will give the guns to a person in the car who is legal to possess a firearm. He then says getting rid of the permit would then make it an ability to say the others in the car are in possession of a gun? If they're not in possession now, why would removing the card from someone's pocket make the other gang members in the car in possession?

And he then seems to oppose that because it would create a task for them and they would have to go through the gang members background, well no Isn't that part of your job?


Edit: I just got to Guy's testimony and he knocked it out of the park.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The states currently with constitutional carry don’t have databases specifically for people prohibited from possession of a firearm. Even if a state created one they can only include data from their state. People have criminal history from other states and we have open borders.

My point is databases are available now for investigative purposes if there is a suspicion a crime was committed. Law enforcement should not look at possession of a firearm alone as a crime. Yes, officer safety is paramount; however, does the fact that a person carrying a firearm has a license to carry truly make the officer safe? No.

Law enforcement is a dangerous profession but data from the current constitutional carry states don’t show that removing the licensing/permit requirement to carry a firearm makes it more dangerous.

I don’t want to give anyone ideas but I am surprised the same Indiana Law Enforcement entities against constitutional carry don’t advocate for mandatory disclosure of firearms from occupants during traffic stops…

One did in the committee testimony. Had I been there, I would have suggested that he look up the name "Daniel Harless" who at the time his name came to my attention, lived in Canton Ohio and worked there as a police officer. Looking up the video, he would have seen the result of laws like that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I haven't seen this bill mentioned here yet. HB 1124 Firearm training for school employees. Bad, bad bill. At least IMO. Requires at least 40 hrs of training before being allowed to, training has to include a certified firearm instructor, current or retired IN LEO, along with a Dr., Lawyer, and Indian chief, and a psych test. Okay maybe not the Indian chief. And a minimum of 16 hrs of additional training every year. Similar to if not the same as the one that was introduced last year iirc.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/bills/house/1124#document-06069846

 

[KellyinAvon]

The states currently with constitutional carry don’t have databases specifically for people prohibited from possession of a firearm. Even if a state created one they can only include data from their state. People have criminal history from other states and we have open borders.

My point is databases are available now for investigative purposes if there is a suspicion a crime was committed. Law enforcement should not look at possession of a firearm alone as a crime. Yes, officer safety is paramount; however, does the fact that a person carrying a firearm has a license to carry truly make the officer safe? No.

Law enforcement is a dangerous profession but data from the current constitutional carry states don’t show that removing the licensing/permit requirement to carry a firearm makes it more dangerous.

I don’t want to give anyone ideas but I am surprised the same Indiana Law Enforcement entities against constitutional carry don’t advocate for mandatory disclosure of firearms from occupants during traffic stops…

So how are your public speaking skills?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I haven't seen this bill mentioned here yet. HB 1124 Firearm training for school employees. Bad, bad bill. At least IMO. Requires at least 40 hrs of training before being allowed to, training has to include a certified firearm instructor, current or retired IN LEO, along with a Dr., Lawyer, and Indian chief, and a psych test. Okay maybe not the Indian chief. And a minimum of 16 hrs of additional training every year. Similar to if not the same as the one that was introduced last year iirc.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/bills/house/1124#document-06069846

I see the issue, that's a link to the 2021 session (didn't get a hearing, John Weber from NRA helped the author see the light.) IIRC that was a crony-capitalism bill that also came up in 2020 (I testified in opposition, I HATE crony-capitalism.)

If the requirements in that bill were any more specific, the training team would include a retired USAF SMSgt with a distinguished grey beard who lives between Brownsburg and Plainfield.

The Rep who wrote it's name escapes me, didn't care for him.