2022 Legislative Session Thread

[WeeJ]

If the governor is signing that many bills it tells me that we have too many laws on the books. A politician should be judged by how many laws he repeals rather than how many he authors or votes into existence.

 

[Mgderf]

This is getting irksome.

 

[gregr]

If the governor is signing that many bills it tells me that we have too many laws on the books. A politician should be judged by how many laws he repeals rather than how many he authors or votes into existence.

Sadly, the more evil, lawless immoral and corrupt a society becomes, the more laws that attempt to constrain the evil must be written.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If the governor is signing that many bills it tells me that we have too many laws on the books. A politician should be judged by how many laws he repeals rather than how many he authors or votes into existence.

I don’t have a problem with him signing 500 a day, as long as the ones he’s signing are returning liberties to the people. Remember that it takes a new law to repeal on old one. (Barring Court action, of course)

 

[Truth45]

Meijer can put up their cute little gunbuster sign if they choose, but can they prove you saw it? Can they enforce it, based solely on it being present at some of their stores? I think that's been a subject of debate, and I think that their request would have to meet the criteria for "trespassing" for it to be enforceable. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

Well what I mean is that there seems to be some confusion with some people in regards to only being able to constitutional carry on ones owned property. Or an owner of property with permission. So the Bed Bath And Beyond owner for example is giving permission to constitutional carry inside their stores since there are no firearms signs. Was just using Meijer as an example of an "owner" not giving permission to carry at all.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well what I mean is that there seems to be some confusion with some people in regards to only being able to constitutional carry on ones owned property. Or an owner of property with permission. So the Bed Bath And Beyond owner for example is giving permission to constitutional carry inside their stores since there are no firearms signs. Was just using Meijer as an example of an "owner" not giving permission to carry at all.

To make it super simple….

Nothing has changed except that you now do not have to ask the state’s permission before you carry. Presuming HEA1296 becomes law, that is

 

[Truth45]

To make it super simple….

Nothing has changed except that you now do not have to ask the state’s permission before you carry. Presuming HEA1296 becomes law, that is

Sounds good! Thanks.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well what I mean is that there seems to be some confusion with some people in regards to only being able to constitutional carry on ones owned property. Or an owner of property with permission. So the Bed Bath And Beyond owner for example is giving permission to constitutional carry inside their stores since there are no firearms signs. Was just using Meijer as an example of an "owner" not giving permission to carry at all.

That is existing/old law. Not having a sign does not grant permission under the current law. So as of right now you can't carry in BB&B without a LTCH, unless the owner manager tells you you can. Now you come over to my house for a BBQ, I can tell you it's okay to carry on my property and you can do so without a license.

 

[Truth45]

That is existing/old law. Not having a sign does not grant permission under the current law. So as of right now you can't carry in BB&B without a LTCH, unless the owner manager tells you you can. Now you come over to my house for a BBQ, I can tell you it's okay to carry on my property and you can do so without a license.

Right so constitutional carry would replace the LTCH and can still carry in stores as long as it's allowed by that store? And just pulled out the grill today from the shed for a BBQ this weekend haha.

 

[Lex Concord]

Right so constitutional carry would replace the LTCH and can still carry in stores as long as it's allowed by that store? And just pulled out the grill today from the shed for a BBQ this weekend haha.

If one is not prohibited from carrying, one may legally carry anywhere in Indiana that would not cause one to be in violation of Indiana statute. This is true under the current LTCH regime, and will continue to be true if and when Constitutional carry becomes law.

In short: No gun signs to NOT carry the force of law in Indiana.

That said, it is not only laws that specifically deal with the carrying of handguns, or prohibition thereof, that must be considered.

If you enter an establishment that posts such an anti gun sign,there is the potential you could be charged with criminal trespass, but that would likely require your carry to be noted (concealed means concealed) and addressed ( <= intentionally vague word).

Addressed could mean they see your gun and ask you to leave. If they ask you to leave and you refuse, you would pretty clearly be in violation of Indiana's criminal trespass statute (see: IC 35-43-2-2 - Note that there are two versions, one in effect until 7-1-2022 and a new version going into effect on 7-1-2022)

Some argue that the posting of a sign prohibiting firearms at the entrance is sufficient to serve as notice under criminal trespass statute, others say not so, still others say if the sign is worded in a specific manner and you tilt your head at 37.5 degrees and squint...

The point being, a gun banner sign doesn't automatically put you in violation of any Indiana statute if you ignore and carry on. It's not part of the IC and, as such, would require a court to make a definitive determination.

Do your own research, consult your preferred legal counsel, contemplate the level of risk your chosen behavior entails, and weigh that against your comfort with said risk.

IANAL & YMMV

 

[Colts Ironman]

Hi there.

OK... I read your post above and had some thoughts.

1) You have to fill out two forms to buy a handgun at retail in Virginia. IMHO, this is about five forms too many. We can't presenty avoid the 4473, but that still is too much infringement of the right for my taste. On top of the 4473, which federal law supposedly prevents being archived, VA also has a state form,the Firearms Transaction Record, that may or may not have similar protections written into law, whether they are actually observed and followed or not.

2) That one cannot in Virginia purchase a handgun without being able to lawfully carry it.... and you view that as a failing on the part of the process? Take the example of a person who, at 18, committed a felony. Now, at 39, this person has had his/her ability to lawfully exercise the right to possess a firearm restored, but the court did not see fit to allow him/her to carry outside the home. I don't think that this person should be prohibited by law from effective self-defense. Perhaps there is some reason to deny them the right to carry, but defense of their home should be allowed regardless, IMHO.

3) You suggest that because they might not know they cannot lawfully carry, the background check is advisable. This is precisely one of the arguments that Sen. Brown and others used to try to kill permitless carry in Indiana again this year. That a law passed makes a given job of police more difficult is not, IMHO, a reason to infringe upon everyone's natural right(s).

I also cannot believe that someone who cannot lawfully carry would not have some suspicion as to that fact. The things that make someone "not a proper person" are:

IC 35-47-1-7"Proper person"

Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:

(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;

(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;

(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;

(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;

(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;

(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;

(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;

(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;

(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;

(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;

(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;

(12) has not been the subject of a:

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or

(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7;

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;

(B) guilty but mentally ill; or

(C) incompetent to stand trial; or

(14) is not currently designated as dangerous (as defined in IC 35-47-14-1) by a court following a hearing under IC 35-47-14-6.

All of these, with the exception of (7), require the action of a court, and in most cases, a conviction of a crime. How someone would not know they had been either committed, found mentally incompetent, or not know they had been convicted, I cannot imagine. If there is a way that you see that I don't, please share? As to (7), there would be no application made, so no false statements.

I do understand your concerns, but I don't share them. I grant that this will make more work for law enforcement, both at the police and prosecutor levels. It also advances personal liberty.

Mr. Franklin is often credited with some version of "They who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".

I won't claim that he actually said that, nor deny it, but I think it's a good thought no matter the source.

I welcome your reply and hope that I did not come across too harshly here.

Blessings,
Bill

I completely agree and get the point. 7 helps me understand but there have been people in Virginia who applied and didn't realize they had a warrant for their arrest due to things like failure to appear. They went to buy a gun and the state police showed up at the gun store. Not knowing they had a failure to appear warrant. Might be different here. It's not a failing process. I don't agree we should have to do anything But if you can pass a background check to buy you should be able to carry without a permit once the law passes. From what I'm reading, if you own a gun you still have to be eligible to carry. The eligibility to carry should be voided if the state is CC I'm just confused as to why one wouldn't be able to get a permit yet, still be able to legally purchase or own a firearm.

Hi there.

OK... I read your post above and had some thoughts.

1) You have to fill out two forms to buy a handgun at retail in Virginia. IMHO, this is about five forms too many. We can't presenty avoid the 4473, but that still is too much infringement of the right for my taste. On top of the 4473, which federal law supposedly prevents being archived, VA also has a state form,the Firearms Transaction Record, that may or may not have similar protections written into law, whether they are actually observed and followed or not.

2) That one cannot in Virginia purchase a handgun without being able to lawfully carry it.... and you view that as a failing on the part of the process? Take the example of a person who, at 18, committed a felony. Now, at 39, this person has had his/her ability to lawfully exercise the right to possess a firearm restored, but the court did not see fit to allow him/her to carry outside the home. I don't think that this person should be prohibited by law from effective self-defense. Perhaps there is some reason to deny them the right to carry, but defense of their home should be allowed regardless, IMHO.

3) You suggest that because they might not know they cannot lawfully carry, the background check is advisable. This is precisely one of the arguments that Sen. Brown and others used to try to kill permitless carry in Indiana again this year. That a law passed makes a given job of police more difficult is not, IMHO, a reason to infringe upon everyone's natural right(s).

I also cannot believe that someone who cannot lawfully carry would not have some suspicion as to that fact. The things that make someone "not a proper person" are:

IC 35-47-1-7"Proper person"

Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:

(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;

(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;

(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;

(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;

(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;

(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;

(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;

(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;

(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;

(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;

(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;

(12) has not been the subject of a:

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or

(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7;

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;

(B) guilty but mentally ill; or

(C) incompetent to stand trial; or

(14) is not currently designated as dangerous (as defined in IC 35-47-14-1) by a court following a hearing under IC 35-47-14-6.

All of these, with the exception of (7), require the action of a court, and in most cases, a conviction of a crime. How someone would not know they had been either committed, found mentally incompetent, or not know they had been convicted, I cannot imagine. If there is a way that you see that I don't, please share? As to (7), there would be no application made, so no false statements.

I do understand your concerns, but I don't share them. I grant that this will make more work for law enforcement, both at the police and prosecutor levels. It also advances personal liberty.

Mr. Franklin is often credited with some version of "They who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".

I won't claim that he actually said that, nor deny it, but I think it's a good thought no matter the source.

I welcome your reply and hope that I did not come across too harshly here.

Blessings,
Bill

I understand now. What I was trying to say (in my head) was If you can pass the background check by filling out a 4473, that's all it should take. The law still in effect makes no sense. The fingerprint process, waiting on approval at local and state levels but you can walk in, fill out a 4473 and walk out with a gun in 5 minutes seems ridiculous. I understand section 7 now better but I don't agree with that reading. The eligibility or ineligibility to carry should be voided if the state is Constitutional Carry AND you are legally able to purchase a gun. I read into this bill too much.

To me, Constitutional Carry represents the right to carry whether you're able to get a permit or not. If I can buy a gun legally, I should be able to carry. No permit needed. "The right to keep and bear arms" is not also, "The right to keep and bear arms in your house only" I have that right to keep and bear anywhere I wish. So to say, sure you can buy a gun legally but you can't carry it because you aren't eligible, permit or not, for some reason, doesn't sit well with me.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's 2022, we've got a ConC bill on the Governor's desk, let's not read too much into this.

First off, I don't know how much of my life I've spent moving towards this. Mad props to @Bill of Rights and @brotherbill3 for starting me down this path. I like to say I needed a hobby. I did, golf is a waste of good pasture and if I put that 68 Camaro back together I'd be scared to drive it on the road. Somewhere in my phone is a picture of me with both Bills, GFGT, and Ben Smaltz at the Statehouse back in 2017. I met two other friends of the 2A that day for the first time: Jim Lucas and Guy Relford.

That day in 2017 the bill which would allow those with a personal protection order sworn out against someone carry without a license. The usual cast of characters came out in opposition. The same ones I'd see over and over again.

Second, nothing is going to change that ain't here now, except you don't need permission from the government to exercise a Constitutional Right. Had the same fight with Church Carry. And no Senator Obtuse, there hasn't been fratricide in Churches as a result. If a Church doesn't want me to be armed, I'll find another Church.

Stores want my money but not me armed today. Concealed means concealed.

Supporting the 2A is one heck of a hobby. Must've been 2019, me, @cbhausen and two of his buds were in the library in Anderson with one of Senator Braun's staffers and a room full of old antis. We were outnumbered, but not out gunned (figuratively or literally.)

Can't remember what bill it was, the only pro-2A in the room was me and Guy. We had to sit through a "Race horses being tested for steroids" bill before the gun bill came up. That was painful. I mean like chewing broken glass painful.

I understand the concern, but we have the end zone in front of us. We talked about "moving the sticks" in years past always with this goal in sight. We made some good progress (Civil Immunity, Church Carry, free LTCH, 5-year set up to be the same as a NICS check) and we are almost there. I don't care if we ran the Philly Special, a Statue of Liberty Play, or if it was the Holy Roller or the Immaculate Reception, we can see the goal line.

There are a lot of people who have realized that calling 911 isn't Plan A for self defense in the past two years. Likewise if you depend on the government, you will be let down at the worst possible time.

(A bit longer than I planned, not the first time for that.)

Which brings me to my next post...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Sent to me in confidence I would not reveal the identity of the author. Feel free to TELL Eric...

Dear Gov. Holcomb,
You have had on your desk HEA 1296, Firearms Matters, for over 24 hours. This bill is one of which you were aware very early in the legislative session, as evidenced by your efforts to kill it before it reached your desk.
The language was thoroughly vetted in committee, despite the committee chair's obviously vehement objection to its passage. The bill passed the committees in which it was heard, and finally came to the floors of the chambers, where it passed handily.
The decision now rests with you: Do you want to sign it and make it law on July 1, 2022, or do you want to end your political career, because there aren't many Republicans who will vote for you if you don't sign it into law. I suppose you might find yourself welcome amongst the Democrats. I feel certain that the next meeting of the General Assembly will pass it into law over your veto, should you choose the latter, so a pyrrhic victory at best.
Choose wisely,and thank you for doing so.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sent to me in confidence I would not reveal the identity of the author. Feel free to TELL Eric...

Dear Gov. Holcomb,
You have had on your desk HEA 1296, Firearms Matters, for over 24 hours. This bill is one of which you were aware very early in the legislative session, as evidenced by your efforts to kill it before it reached your desk.
The language was thoroughly vetted in committee, despite the committee chair's obviously vehement objection to its passage. The bill passed the committees in which it was heard, and finally came to the floors of the chambers, where it passed handily.
The decision now rests with you: Do you want to sign it and make it law on July 1, 2022, or do you want to end your political career, because there aren't many Republicans who will vote for you if you don't sign it into law. I suppose you might find yourself welcome amongst the Democrats. I feel certain that the next meeting of the General Assembly will pass it into law over your veto, should you choose the latter, so a pyrrhic victory at best.
Choose wisely,and thank you for doing so.

I hope this type of pressure works. I hope the peer pressure of neighboring OH passing it works. I hope the fact that 23 other states have passed it plus the governor of GA saying he’ll sign it if it gets to his desk helps bring more pressure to bear.

 

[Truth45]

If one is not prohibited from carrying, one may legally carry anywhere in Indiana that would not cause one to be in violation of Indiana statute. This is true under the current LTCH regime, and will continue to be true if and when Constitutional carry becomes law.

In short: No gun signs to NOT carry the force of law in Indiana.

That said, it is not only laws that specifically deal with the carrying of handguns, or prohibition thereof, that must be considered.

If you enter an establishment that posts such an anti gun sign,there is the potential you could be charged with criminal trespass, but that would likely require your carry to be noted (concealed means concealed) and addressed ( <= intentionally vague word).

Addressed could mean they see your gun and ask you to leave. If they ask you to leave and you refuse, you would pretty clearly be in violation of Indiana's criminal trespass statute (see: IC 35-43-2-2 - Note that there are two versions, one in effect until 7-1-2022 and a new version going into effect on 7-1-2022)

Some argue that the posting of a sign prohibiting firearms at the entrance is sufficient to serve as notice under criminal trespass statute, others say not so, still others say if the sign is worded in a specific manner and you tilt your head at 37.5 degrees and squint...

The point being, a gun banner sign doesn't automatically put you in violation of any Indiana statute if you ignore and carry on. It's not part of the IC and, as such, would require a court to make a definitive determination.

Do your own research, consult your preferred legal counsel, contemplate the level of risk your chosen behavior entails, and weigh that against your comfort with said risk.

IANAL & YMMV

Okay, I am new to all of this and I've seen some people talking about the language in the bill and they seem confused by somethings, which confused me lol. But I am sure I am interpreting the bill correctly and just wanted verify. I didn't think it made any sense that you could carry only on your own property as a couple people have stated, made no sense. Thanks!

 

[Mgderf]

Do you suppose the "Governor" is waiting for late Friday afternoon so he can try to sneak it by the news cycle and give it the weekend to settle down?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you suppose the "Governor" is waiting for late Friday afternoon so he can try to sneak it by the news cycle and give it the weekend to settle down?

Could be. I wonder if he’s working the phones figuring out if there will be enough will to work up an override. Maybe he’s trying to figure out if his ISP supt. will still be his BFF if he signs it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Do you suppose the "Governor" is waiting for late Friday afternoon so he can try to sneak it by the news cycle and give it the weekend to settle down?

I've thought about that, wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Mgderf]

I've thought about that, wouldn't surprise me.

I hope I'm wrong.
I would love to see him exhibit a little testicular fortitude, instead of what we have experienced to date.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've thought about that, wouldn't surprise me.

The one thing that helps me from being homicidal at this point is that there’s still 25-30 other bills that hit on 3/15 that he hasn’t done anything with either.