2021 Legislative Session Thread

[Jaybird1980]

I replied to him on the database...no reply yet.

I have sent 17 messages plus phone calls. This is the only response I've ever received from him

 

[KellyinAvon]

Well Bohacek finally replied only took 3 months.

View attachment 136352

Database is the words of NAGR, led by shakedown artist Dudley Brown. Process addresses access to information that exists. We're not re-inventing the wheel here, don't act like it.

Criminal penalties not applicable? No, a prohibited possessor in possession of a firearm is committing a felony.

Taxpayer cost? Seriously?? People seven times less likely to convicted of a crime involving a firearms than the Police (Dr John Lott) have been funding Police departments that support all taxpayers, and those who don't pay taxes.

 

[chipbennett]

Well Bohacek finally replied only took 3 months.

View attachment 136352

The dumbass senator doesn't even know that Indiana doesn't have "concealed carry permits"? Why am I not surprised?

 

[IndyBeerman]

The dumbass senator doesn't even know that Indiana doesn't have "concealed carry permits"? Why am I not surprised?

Shows his ignorance and that he could care diddly squat about it.

If he cared and was a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment and actually had a carry license he would have referred to it as a LTCH.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The dumbass senator doesn't even know that Indiana doesn't have "concealed carry permits"? Why am I not surprised?

Shows his ignorance and that he could care diddly squat about it.

If he cared and was a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment and actually had a carry license he would have referred to it as a LTCH.

Concealed carry permit/LTCH.... this is small potatoes. Words do have meanings, of course, but if someone ask what kind of car you drive and the answer is F-150 (or Silverado or Ram or Jeep) you’re just going to answer the question, not make him look/her ask “what kind of truck/what kind of Jeep/what kind of vehicle, first.

lf we really want to cover all of them, we would have to say “government-issued and unConstitutional permission slip to exercise a natural and God-given right” but GIAUPSTEANAGGR is a little long winded.

I’m willing to give him a pass on “CCW permit”.

The rest, not so much. We HAVE a database listing former felons and domestic batterers who are prohibited. Making a database to list people’s mental health seems to violate hipaa. Add that to the fact that unless I’m misinformed, officers approach EVERY car with the idea that the driver might be armed, so knowing prohibited status is not something I’d expect to change much in the way of officer safety—I am willing to change my mind on that, given good reason to do so.

Further, if the bill was lacking something, hear and amend it. Bray and Brown act like it was just an up/down vote as passed by the House.... and they are fooling no one who is paying any attention. Primary their sorry butts back to obscurity in ignominy!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jeepster48439]

........ Add that to the fact that unless I’m misinformed, officers approach EVERY car with the idea that the driver might be armed, so knowing prohibited status is not something I’d expect to change much in the way of officer safety—I am willing to change my mind on that, given good reason to do so.

I do believe I heard officers testify in hearings that this is the protocol. Until the officer identifies who they are interacting with, they have no way to know or find out if that person is a felon or not.

Using logic, , and assuming a traffic stop, the officer can find out who the car is registered to and they may be told if the owner has a LTCH or not, but they don't know if the driver is the owner or not. So the officer still needs to approach the encounter with the same caution. I don't see training changing as a result of any new process instituted to inform the officer of prohibited status.

 

[chipbennett]

Concealed carry permit/LTCH.... this is small potatoes. Words do have meanings, of course, but if someone ask what kind of car you drive and the answer is F-150 (or Silverado or Ram or Jeep) you’re just going to answer the question, not make him look/her ask “what kind of truck/what kind of Jeep/what kind of vehicle, first.

lf we really want to cover all of them, we would have to say “government-issued and unConstitutional permission slip to exercise a natural and God-given right” but GIAUPSTEANAGGR is a little long winded.

I’m willing to give him a pass on “CCW permit”.

The rest, not so much. We HAVE a database listing former felons and domestic batterers who are prohibited. Making a database to list people’s mental health seems to violate hipaa. Add that to the fact that unless I’m misinformed, officers approach EVERY car with the idea that the driver might be armed, so knowing prohibited status is not something I’d expect to change much in the way of officer safety—I am willing to change my mind on that, given good reason to do so.

Further, if the bill was lacking something, hear and amend it. Bray and Brown act like it was just an up/down vote as passed by the House.... and they are fooling no one who is paying any attention. Primary their sorry butts back to obscurity in ignominy!

Blessings,
Bill

I disagree. A Senator should know the statutes he is asked to create, amend, or eliminate. We're not talking about Joe Blow on the street or your next-door neighbor. We're talking about someone making false claims about proposed legislation, while also mis-stating a fundamental nature of existing law.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Well Bohacek finally replied only took 3 months.

View attachment 136352

Ok, it took me some time to write up a response. Every time I started I would get frustrated and go off on a rant. Let me know what you think, I'm sure I've missed something or misspoke somewhere.

Senator Bohacek

I have several issues with your response.

First the bill didn't require creation of a new database/process. They already have a database that list who is a Prohibited Person, they just want better access to it, instead of having to call in they want to have access in the patrol cars.

Second no one should be adding riders on to a bill that will knowingly kill a bill, especially one aimed at regaining our rights back. If they want better access and technology they need to find a way to do that while not infringing on our rights anymore. The people of America and Indiana are tired of bloated bills being passed at their expense.

Third, without this new "database" criminal penalties would not be applicable? What? A Prohibited Possessor in possession of a firearm is already a felony. This bill has nothing to do with that and will not change that. This is nothing but a cheap excuse.

Fourth, Indiana doesn't even have a Concealed Carry Permit. That fact that you don't even understand this is disturbing. We have a License to Carry Handgun. If you infact are a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment you would know this already.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I disagree. A Senator should know the statutes he is asked to create, amend, or eliminate. We're not talking about Joe Blow on the street or your next-door neighbor. We're talking about someone making false claims about proposed legislation, while also mis-stating a fundamental nature of existing law.

You're free to disagree, of course. That doesn't change the fact that the rest of my point ("car" vs pickup vs van vs jeep vs whatever) holds true. He used a general term for an object, and we all knew what he meant. As I said, words have meanings, but the use of general term is not exclusive of any member of the set. If we want to include clips and magazines and for that matter, belts, in a single descriptive term, we could say "Ammunition feeding device".... which most people would just say clips (going on current practice) and many of us would probably generalize unless specificity was required, to "mags". "Ammunition feeding device" is kind of an unwieldy term. Too, this particular politician was talking to a reporter.... How many of THEM are going to know LTCH? Most of them probably think that you need a permit to buy a gun, think that there's a training requirement, that guns aren't allowed in banks or bars, and think that criminals obey laws. Didn't Mr. Freeman create a "law" that says if it's the law in Texas, it's the law everywhere, meaning that they heard a law exists SOMEwhere, so they think it's for them, too.

Case in point, my supervisor at work last night had to be shown that there is a federal requirement that if you work 8 hrs continuously, you must be allowed to take a 30 min. lunch, and for each additional 4 hrs, a 15 min. break. It's not the law in Indiana (state level,that is) and it's not common practice that people DO it...but by law, it must be allowed.

And when shown it was federal, she still tried to argue that it's not applicable in Indiana! (We had a nurse who had argued the point with her... The argument went badly for both sides.)

Blessings,
Bill