2021 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

I just looked at the general assembly website. It looks like the bill will get a first reading in the Senate on 3/11 (tomorrow) and be assigned to the judiciary committee.

That's what I'm talkin about!!! Thanks for the info goldtrigger!

Edit: that's a pretty recent update. 1430 this PM I didn't see any action. More to follow...

 

[chipbennett]

That's what I'm talkin about!!! Thanks for the info goldtrigger!

Edit: that's a pretty recent update. 1430 this PM I didn't see any action. More to follow...

Why did INGO stop giving me new post notifications for this thread? Hopefully this fixes it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

(Constitutional Carry Legislative Alert Sounder)

OK INGO, time for the straight up unvarnished view on where we are with ConC in 2021.

Passed the House, referred to the Senate, first reading and referred to committee today. OUTSTANDING!!

Referred to the Judiciary Committee. I'd have preferred Corrections and Criminal Law strictly based on the Pro-2A Senators on the committee. We still got this, not gonna be a stay home and let it pass deal even with two sponsors on the committee.

Edit: Senate Judiciary has met on Wednesday afternoons consistently on Wednesdays beginning at 1330-1400. Plan for it if you think you can be there!! The Senate is still having testimony in another room, talking to a laptop in selfie-mode. If you can be there and have 3 minutes of material, start thinking about it.

Judiciary Committee:
R's
Chair Liz Brown Dist 15, NRA-PVF B+/not endorsed by NRA. Read this as, "Send many emails."
Vice-Chair Eric Koch, Dist 44, NRA-PVF "A", sponsor of HB 1369.
Mike Bohacek, Dist 8, NRA-PVF "B"/not endorsed by NRA. Not warm or fuzzy on this one.
Jim Buck, Dist 21, NRA-PVF "A"
Aaron Freeman, Dist 32 NRA-PVF "A", co-sponsor of HB 1369. Solid Pro-2A Senator from my view.
Mike Gaskill, Dist 26, NRA-PVF "AQ" (newbie with no voting record, preliminary "A" based on NRA-PVF questionnaire)
Susan Glick, Dist 13, NRA-PVF "A"
Michael Young, Dist 35, NRA-PVF "A"

The D's are two "Ds" and an "F". How these aren't three F-'s is beyond me. Note to self: find out why NRA-PVF doesn't give out F-'s and if The 2A Project is giving out F-'s.

Next post will be the updated draft email/letter. The link for the Senate Judiciary Committee will be there as well.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Updated draft email/letter is below along with the link to the committee members. With the Senators it's copy/paste the email into your email opposed to how it works from the site on the House side. Feel free to copy/paste/edit/fix my English/send to friends and family and other 2A supporters.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/committees/judiciary_4200

Senator,

I am writing to urge your support of HB 1369, Firearms Matters. This bill was authored by Representative Ben Smaltz and co-authored by Representatives Lehman, Wesco, and Lucas. HB 1369 is sponsored by Senators Houchin, Messmer, Koch, Freeman, Garten and Tomes. This bill codifies the lawful carry of handguns, and comes at a time when the essential right of self-defense has never been more important.

There will soon be 18 States with permit-less/no license carry of handguns. Those who opposed such legislation predicted dire consequences, as they do for any bill remotely considered Pro-2nd Amendment and Pro-Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution. Observation shows this is not the case, as does data from FBI Uniform Crime Reporting.

Over the past decade Indiana has passed a number of Pro-2nd Amendment and Pro-Article 1, Section 32 bills into law. These include: the law forbidding the prohibition of firearms stored in vehicles in employer’s parking lots (2010), the firearms law preemption statute (2011), and the strengthening of the language and due process protections under the “Laird Law” (2019). The dire consequences predicted by those who oppose any law that supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms simply did not happen.

In 2019, no one saw the year 2020 coming. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation: our country gained 8.4 million new gun-owners in 2020. Early on citizens saw shortages of basic supplies and other things never before seen in this country due to the COVID pandemic. Police Departments were being depleted due to COVID exposure and subsequent quarantines. Later riots broke out across the country amidst calls to “defund and reimagine” the Police. People who would’ve depended on calling 911 in 2019 came to a horrific revelation in 2020: “You are on your own, no one is coming.”

As Hamilton County Sheriff Dennis Quakenbush stated in testimony supporting HB 1369, “Calling 911 shouldn’t be Plan A for your self-defense.” The essential right of self-defense does not stop at the property line. I’m sure I can count on your support with this vital legislation.

Thank you,



Name

Address

Phone Number

Email

 

[d.kaufman]

Emails still being sent to my reps weekly. Still have yet to get a single response. My reps are definitely Fs when it comes to the 2A, but I will continue to email and call

 

[Viper1973]

And the first torpedo has been launched...

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/opin...cle_6a243b28-8109-11eb-9735-53ad9ee0169e.html

it will appear in all of their sister publications across the state today

 

[chipbennett]

(Constitutional Carry Legislative Alert Sounder)

OK INGO, time for the straight up unvarnished view on where we are with ConC in 2021.

Passed the House, referred to the Senate, first reading and referred to committee today. OUTSTANDING!!

Referred to the Judiciary Committee. I'd have preferred Corrections and Criminal Law strictly based on the Pro-2A Senators on the committee. We still got this, not gonna be a stay home and let it pass deal even with two sponsors on the committee.

Edit: Senate Judiciary has met on Wednesday afternoons consistently on Wednesdays beginning at 1330-1400. Plan for it if you think you can be there!! The Senate is still having testimony in another room, talking to a laptop in selfie-mode. If you can be there and have 3 minutes of material, start thinking about it.

Judiciary Committee:
R's
Chair Liz Brown Dist 15, NRA-PVF B+/not endorsed by NRA. Read this as, "Send many emails."
Vice-Chair Eric Koch, Dist 44, NRA-PVF "A", sponsor of HB 1369.
Mike Bohacek, Dist 8, NRA-PVF "B"/not endorsed by NRA. Not warm or fuzzy on this one.
Jim Buck, Dist 21, NRA-PVF "A"
Aaron Freeman, Dist 32 NRA-PVF "A", co-sponsor of HB 1369. Solid Pro-2A Senator from my view.
Mike Gaskill, Dist 26, NRA-PVF "AQ" (newbie with no voting record, preliminary "A" based on NRA-PVF questionnaire)
Susan Glick, Dist 13, NRA-PVF "A"
Michael Young, Dist 35, NRA-PVF "A"

The D's are two "Ds" and an "F". How these aren't three F-'s is beyond me. Note to self: find out why NRA-PVF doesn't give out F-'s and if The 2A Project is giving out F-'s.

Next post will be the updated draft email/letter. The link for the Senate Judiciary Committee will be there as well.

I will be out of state the next two weeks (of course). I will commence email letter-writing.

 

[chipbennett]

And the first torpedo has been launched...

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/opin...cle_6a243b28-8109-11eb-9735-53ad9ee0169e.html

it will appear in all of their sister publications across the state today

That's the best the opposition can do? That's the most phoned-in, facile editorial I think I've ever seen on the issue. It reads like it was written by an unpaid Bullying Mommies intern.

EDIT: Why not add a bit of Fisking, eh?

Many police agencies oppose the measure. They say eliminating the screening that is part of the permitting process would put more guns on the streets and make communities less safe. It’s just a fact, they say, that without proper screening, more people who should not own guns will have them.

This complaint conflates Indiana's current licensing requirement for carrying a handgun with the purchase of a handgun. Under current Indiana statutes, the purchase of a handgun does not require the purchaser to be licensed to carry a handgun. Thus, the presence or absence of a licensing requirement for the carry of a handgun has no impact whatsoever on the ability of a prohibited person to purchase a handgun. Further, the efficacy (or, more accurately, the lack of efficacy) of Indiana's current licensing requirement for the carry of a handgun is well-known: criminals and other prohibited persons in Indiana have not been hindered in any way whatsoever in either obtaining or in carrying a handgun. Why does no one challenge police agencies on those statistics?

The bill’s supporters say that’s just too much hassle for the average citizen to endure, but the fact is, Indiana law enforcement agencies turned down nearly 4% of applicants last year because of red flags uncovered in those background checks. With more than 120,000 applications, that’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,800 people who were denied a license last year.

Without a licensing process, every one of those applicants would have a gun today.

Ignoring the fact that many initial denials are false positives (the same with NICS denials, by the way), again, this complaint conflates the denial of a license to carry a handgun with the completely unrelated process of obtaining a firearm. There is simply no way to know how many Hoosiers own (or carry) handguns based on licensing statistics alone. And again, we already know how many criminals - prohibited persons - unlawfully carry handguns, with or without a valid license to carry.

There is one other issue with eliminating handgun permits. These licenses generate more than $5 million in annual revenues. That’s money the state uses to pay for the training of police officers. Without that revenue, of course, the state would have to find another source of funding.

This funding issue is already addressed in the version of the bill as passed by the House, and was previously addressed under the 2019 legislation that removed the licensing fee from the then four-year, now-five-year license. Regardless, this funding as it currently exists is arguably, functionally equivalent to an unconstitutional poll tax. The exercise of a constitutionally protected right should never be subjected to a tax, regardless of how altruistic the purpose to which that tax revenue is applied.

It’s undeniable that criminals will find ways to get their hands on weapons with or without a licensing procedure.

Quite true. So, then: what is the compelling state interest in maintaining the licensing requirement for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutionally protected right? How is the current licensing requirement facilitated that interest? Has even one prohibited person ever been prevented from possessing or carrying a handgun, due to the current licensing requirement?

Still, the fact that law enforcement is hard doesn’t mean society should give up the effort.

This argument as applied to Indiana's licensing requirement for carrying a handgun was mooted years ago, by virtue of the Pinner decision by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Indiana should do all it can to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Eliminating handgun permits is a step in exactly the wrong direction.

No one has yet articulated even the slightest of arguments to support the assertion that eliminating the licensing requirement for carry of a handgun would be a "step in the wrong direction" for keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

 

[KellyinAvon]

That's the best the opposition can do? That's the most phoned-in, facile editorial I think I've ever seen on the issue. It reads like it was written by an unpaid Bullying Mommies intern.

EDIT: Why not add a bit of Fisking, eh?

This complaint conflates Indiana's current licensing requirement for carrying a handgun with the purchase of a handgun. Under current Indiana statutes, the purchase of a handgun does not require the purchaser to be licensed to carry a handgun. Thus, the presence or absence of a licensing requirement for the carry of a handgun has no impact whatsoever on the ability of a prohibited person to purchase a handgun. Further, the efficacy (or, more accurately, the lack of efficacy) of Indiana's current licensing requirement for the carry of a handgun is well-known: criminals and other prohibited persons in Indiana have not been hindered in any way whatsoever in either obtaining or in carrying a handgun. Why does no one challenge police agencies on those statistics?


Ignoring the fact that many initial denials are false positives (the same with NICS denials, by the way), again, this complaint conflates the denial of a license to carry a handgun with the completely unrelated process of obtaining a firearm. There is simply no way to know how many Hoosiers own (or carry) handguns based on licensing statistics alone. And again, we already know how many criminals - prohibited persons - unlawfully carry handguns, with or without a valid license to carry.


This funding issue is already addressed in the version of the bill as passed by the House, and was previously addressed under the 2019 legislation that removed the licensing fee from the then four-year, now-five-year license. Regardless, this funding as it currently exists is arguably, functionally equivalent to an unconstitutional poll tax. The exercise of a constitutionally protected right should never be subjected to a tax, regardless of how altruistic the purpose to which that tax revenue is applied.


Quite true. So, then: what is the compelling state interest in maintaining the licensing requirement for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutionally protected right? How is the current licensing requirement facilitated that interest? Has even one prohibited person ever been prevented from possessing or carrying a handgun, due to the current licensing requirement?


This argument as applied to Indiana's licensing requirement for carrying a handgun was mooted years ago, by virtue of the Pinner decision by the Indiana Supreme Court.


No one has yet articulated even the slightest of arguments to support the assertion that eliminating the licensing requirement for carry of a handgun would be a "step in the wrong direction" for keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

Put this in bullet format, if you can’t be here recruit someone to go in and testify with this material. After identifying themselves they will say it was prepared by you, and read from there.We can get there from here…

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And the first torpedo has been launched...

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/opin...cle_6a243b28-8109-11eb-9735-53ad9ee0169e.html

it will appear in all of their sister publications across the state today

Isn't this the paper that dox'd Indiana gun owners by printing their names and home addresses?

GFY, Media.

 

[chipbennett]

Put this in bullet format, if you can’t be here recruit someone to go in and testify with this material. After identifying themselves they will say it was prepared by you, and read from there.We can get there from here…

I planned to incorporate these points into my copy-paste email. As testimony material, I would probably want to find some actual statistics to back up my points. Let me see if I can do that.

 

[Viper1973]

Isn't this the paper that dox'd Indiana gun owners by printing their names and home addresses?

GFY, Media.

Yep.... They're owned by the Alabama teachers and are ravenously anti-freedom. They even have a poll on their website. I wish it'd tilt so far to our side they'd have to take it down.

 

[KLB]

Yep.... They're owned by the Alabama teachers and are ravenously anti-freedom. They even have a poll on their website. I wish it'd tilt so far to our side they'd have to take it down.

Start a thread about it.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Yep.... They're owned by the Alabama teachers and are ravenously anti-freedom. They even have a poll on their website. I wish it'd tilt so far to our side they'd have to take it down.

Provide a link?
I'll help.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Senator Jim Tomes added as a sponsor today to HB 1369.

 

[dchuck]

Right now Bohacek is on auto-response for emails. I tweaked the c/p message with personal attention as well. Daily messages will be sent.

However, I did start off my email with:
I’d like to preface this with anticipated appreciation of your support for HB1369 regarding Firearms Matters.

Take the "no" answer out of his vocabulary. Sales 101.

 

[Viper1973]

Provide a link?
I'll help.

Poll is down at the bottom of their homepage... you have to scroll to the basement to get to it:

http://www.heraldbulletin.com

 

[2A_Tom]

Link to poll, so you do notneed to go through the other c***.

Should Indiana require a permit to carry a handgun?

Click here to view this item from heraldbulletin.com.

www.heraldbulletin.com

 

[d.kaufman]

Link to poll, so you do notneed to go through the other c***.

Should Indiana require a permit to carry a handgun?

Click here to view this item from heraldbulletin.com.

www.heraldbulletin.com

Voted. Need to get after that poll. Shows 74% voting yes a permit should be required

 

[foszoe]

Voted. Need to get after that poll. Shows 74% voting yes a permit should be required

Down to 70.4 now....