2019 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

The House dissented the Senate amendments on both bills today. Dissent to the amendment of HB 1253 was seen from the Zoo (a mile away ) I didn't see anything outrageous with 1651, but there we go. Conferees and advisors appointed, we shall see what the next few days bring.

Conference committee reports on HB 1284 came out today: looks like everybody is nodding their heads on what the bill will look like. Civil immunity for lawfully justified use of force is not a small victory. And the Church Carry/5-year NICS exempt that's free after 1 July 2020 language is now in HB 1284.

How did they do it? I don't know. THIRD BASE!!

 

[KellyinAvon]

My take: the "church bill", with the language about the 5 year license, etc -- I wish that part had been ripped out. My cynical side believes this will come back to haunt us sooner or later. This "teacher training bill"--I've been luke warm on that this whole session (after the gutted it). We'll see how it turns out but when they gutted the original bill, my preference would have been just to drop it. The language above, if it stays as is, does not look like progress to me.

Your cynicism means you've been paying attention GFGT. I'm not sure how the free 5 year LTCH will affect the big pot of money (the ones where the most law-abiding subsidize police departments) but getting rid of the LTCH program to offset the costs of running it will be on my Power Point slides supporting ConC.

 

[chipbennett]

Your cynicism means you've been paying attention GFGT. I'm not sure how the free 5 year LTCH will affect the big pot of money (the ones where the most law-abiding subsidize police departments) but getting rid of the LTCH program to offset the costs of running it will be on my Power Point slides supporting ConC.

I'm just going to say (and hopefully what is said on INGO stays on INGO) that I was making this point on Facebook in some of Jim Lucas' and Guy Relford's posts, and Jim messaged me to ask that I "lay low" on that point until the bill was signed. I'm pretty sure that the strategy here is to remove the LTCH-sourced pot of money, in order to cut the legs out from underneath of the single, biggest argument against constitutional/permitless carry the next time Jim tries to push a bill through. I think he might be slightly concerned that those same voices will urge Holcomb to veto the 5-year LTCH bill, based on that same argument. So, wait until he signs it, and then urge everyone who has or who is considering a 4-year LTCH to opt instead for the free, "enhanced", 5-year LTCH.

Side note: am I the only one who cringes when I see/hear "ConCarry"? From an image perspective, it sounds more like "convict" carry than "constitutional" carry. (Of course, we all know that con(vict)s carry already, regardless of prohibited-person laws, licensing laws, or any other laws.)

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm just going to say (and hopefully what is said on INGO stays on INGO) that I was making this point on Facebook in some of Jim Lucas' and Guy Relford's posts, and Jim messaged me to ask that I "lay low" on that point until the bill was signed. I'm pretty sure that the strategy here is to remove the LTCH-sourced pot of money, in order to cut the legs out from underneath of the single, biggest argument against constitutional/permitless carry the next time Jim tries to push a bill through. I think he might be slightly concerned that those same voices will urge Holcomb to veto the 5-year LTCH bill, based on that same argument. So, wait until he signs it, and then urge everyone who has or who is considering a 4-year LTCH to opt instead for the free, "enhanced", 5-year LTCH.

Side note: am I the only one who cringes when I see/hear "ConCarry"? From an image perspective, it sounds more like "convict" carry than "constitutional" carry. (Of course, we all know that con(vict)s carry already, regardless of prohibited-person laws, licensing laws, or any other laws.)

No Power Point slides until the bill gets signed, got it. This is my fastball after all.

 

[chipbennett]

No Power Point slides until the bill gets signed, got it. This is my fastball after all.

Even more powerful will be reporting of actual budget/revenue/expenditure numbers once the 5-year LTCH has been in place for some time. Just a speculation, but could it be that the claims about the current "pot of money" (and thus, about potential impact of loss of that pot of money) are... exaggerated a bit by those who argue against constitutional carry?

 

[KellyinAvon]

HB 1284 (Civil Immunity for lawful use of force, plus Church Carry and 5 years LTCH): conference committee reports passed both House and Senate today!!!!

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

HB 1284 (Civil Immunity for lawful use of force, plus Church Carry and 5 years LTCH): conference committee reports passed both House and Senate today!!!!

Hurray!

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

I've been looking for the final copy with changes...

 

[Jeepster48439]

So is it now time to contact the Governor to urge him to sign or veto?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[KellyinAvon]

So is it now time to contact the Governor to urge him to sign or veto?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Thumbs up on 1284! Plug and play letter and link coming next. Change/edit/improve as needed. Also, replace "name, address, phone, e-mail" with your name, address,

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm a two-finger typist. Thankfully copy/paste is a thing. Link to Governor Holcomb below too.

https://www.in.gov/gov/2752.htm

Governor Holcomb,
I’m writing to encourage your support of HB 1284: Self Defense and the Defense of Others, authored by Representative Jim Lucas, co-authored by Representatives Stutzman, Smaltz, and Goodin, and sponsored by Senators Tomes, Messmer, Garten, Doriot, Ford, Houchin, Freeman, Koch, Bohacek, Rogers, Kruse, Crane, and Raatz.
HB 1284 provides for civil immunity in cases of justified use of force. Despite what the bill’s opponents said, without justification under the law there is no immunity.
IC 35-41 Chapter 3 section 2 contains the words: No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. I do not believe this means the citizens of the Great State of Indiana should be required to bankrupt themselves proving their innocence after being declared legally justified in using force under the law.
This bill has been amended to include the language of HB 1643, Firearms Matters, authored by Representatives Smaltz, Wesco, Speedy.

By changing the definition of school property, excluding property not in exclusive use and control of a school, head start program, developmental daycare from the definition. Much work went into the bill’s language to insure against unintended consequences affecting other laws.
According to the Indiana Department of Education: there are 362 non-public schools in Indiana. 58 are not obviously religiously affiliated, lacking words such as: Saint, Christian, Catholic, Lutheran, Islam, Providence, Holy and/or Cross. 304 nonpublic schools, 84% do contain those words.
Although not required, HB 1284 includes the statement “This subdivision does not affect the right of a property owner to prohibit, in whole or in part, the possession of a firearm on a property where a school or house of worship is located. This bill affirms the rights of all property owners.

The language from 18 USC, Section 922 (federally prohibited possessors of firearms: felons, adjudicated mentally deficient, illegal aliens, fugitives from justice, etc.) is added under the list of circumstances in which a LTCH shall not be issued.
Again, your support of HB 1284 is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[KellyinAvon]

[h=1]Indiana: Important Self-Defense Bill Passes Legislature, On to Governor[/h]
On April 22[SUP]nd[/SUP], both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly voted to concur with the amendments made to House Bill 1284 during the conference committee process. HB 1284 has been amended to now include many important concepts from HB 1643. House Bill 1284 will now go to Governor Eric Holcomb’s desk for his signature. Your NRA would like to thank Representative Jim Lucas (R-69) and Representative Ben Smaltz (R-52) for their tireless efforts during the 2019 legislative session promoting legislation to improve the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.



House Bill 1284, authored by Representative Lucas will provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice. It will require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney's fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others. In addition, HB 1284 was amended to extend the four-year License to Carry a Handgun (LTCH) to five years, eliminate fees for the five-year LTCH (starting in 2020), clarify the authority of private property owners to establish carry policies in places of worship, and allow those applying for a LTCH to register to vote at the same time. Removing barriers for lawful carry in Indiana, to include taxes and fees, is significant for many Hoosier gun owners that desire to carry for the defense of themselves and others.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...efense-bill-passes-legislature-on-to-governor

 

[engi-ninja]

I don't see anything about redefining "school property" in the actual bill.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't see anything about redefining "school property" in the actual bill.

I don't think the intent of any legislation this session was to redefine "school property;" rather, legislation clarified that carry was legal in churches held on property otherwise defined as "school property."

 

[Cameramonkey]

In other news, Obtuse Taylor is at it again. He had a sound bite on WIBC last night (Paraphrased because I heard this 18 hours ago while driving) "Guns in church are bad. I dont know how they think having a gun in church is a good idea or how they expect to save everyone with a gun."

Unless he is confusing the definition of "saving" in this specific religious context.

As usual I yelled at the radio. What an idiot.

 

[engi-ninja]

I don't think the intent of any legislation this session was to redefine "school property;" rather, legislation clarified that carry was legal in churches held on property otherwise defined as "school property."

Ok, I was just confused because the canned letter mentioned redefining school property. I got all excited, thinking I might be able to carry at the Children's Museum :-P

 

[chipbennett]

In other news, Obtuse Taylor is at it again. He had a sound bite on WIBC last night (Paraphrased because I heard this 18 hours ago while driving) "Guns in church are bad. I dont know how they think having a gun in church is a good idea or how they expect to save everyone with a gun."

Unless he is confusing the definition of "saving" in this specific religious context.

As usual I yelled at the radio. What an idiot.

Half of my church is armed. It's one of the safest places I can think to be.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, I was just confused because the canned letter mentioned redefining school property. I got all excited, thinking I might be able to carry at the Children's Museum :-P

Carry at the Children's Museum isn't illegal.

I know there is some concern of interpretation of "in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function", but I'm unaware of how that has been interpreted by the courts for public places that are school field trip destinations. Interpreting that provision to apply to any public place hosting a school field trip would cover any arbitrary public place at any arbitrary time (including the Zoo, at almost any time) - an interpretation so expansive that it a) couldn't have been legislative intent, and b) would be unconstitutionally restrictive even if so.

Concealed means concealed. Just sayin'.

 

[engi-ninja]

Carry at the Children's Museum isn't illegal.

I know there is some concern of interpretation of "in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function", but I'm unaware of how that has been interpreted by the courts for public places that are school field trip destinations. Interpreting that provision to apply to any public place hosting a school field trip would cover any arbitrary public place at any arbitrary time (including the Zoo, at almost any time) - an interpretation so expansive that it a) couldn't have been legislative intent, and b) would be unconstitutionally restrictive even if so.

Concealed means concealed. Just sayin'.

I'm not concerned about the field trips, but there's apparently a Head Start program at the museum, which technically makes it "school property." Or so I've read on here anyway. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Ok, I was just confused because the canned letter mentioned redefining school property. I got all excited, thinking I might be able to carry at the Children's Museum :-P

Feel free to edit if needed.