2021 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

OK, I'm raising a flag here. If you're an R with < A from NRA-PVF I have concerns. I don't know who picks committee chairs, but the Senate Judiciary Chair (Liz Brown, District 15 Ft Wayne) is not only < A, but is not endorsed by NRA-PVF. Eric Koch was the Chair last year, and is now the Vice Chair.

We might be fighting uphill this session. Then again we always are.

 

[KellyinAvon]

We've got bills! Senate, no House yet. More to follow...

 

[jwamplerusa]

I need to do a Indiana State government thread.

Yes, please do!

 

[goldtrigger]

I've already sent postcards to my rep and senator.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Well, this is the abstract for SB 64, School Safety. It's from Travis Holdman in District 19 (Adams, Wells, parts of Blackford and Grant Counties.)

Same Senator who killed Jim Lucas's bill two years ago. This looks very similar to the bill he authored last year, I testified in opposition to the bill. It's crony capitalism, they've made who can do the training so specific there will be only one entity who can do the training.

The digest (below in italics) looks supportable. Below that is the crony capitalism part that I find reprehensible.

School safety. Provides that, before an employee or any other staff member of a school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school may carry a firearm in or on school property as authorized by a school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school, the employee or staff member shall do the following: (1) Successfully complete certain specialized weapons training or other firearm training. (2) Provide proof to the school board that the employee or staff member has successfully completed the training. (3) Complete the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory 2 (MMPI-II) and provide the results from the inventory to the school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school.

Establishes requirements for specialized weapons training. Requires an employee or any other staff member of a school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school to successfully complete 16 hours of weapons training each year that the employee or staff member is authorized and intends to carry a firearm in or on school property.

Provides that the specialized weapons training must be provided by a person or entity approved by the school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school.

Allows a school to barricade or block a door during an active shooter drill or during an active shooter emergency occurring in a school building. Provides that the Indiana secured school fund may be used to employ a law enforcement officer who has completed at least 40 hours of certified school resource officer training. Provides that, after June 30, 2021, a law enforcement officer or a school security officer who is not considered a school resource officer must complete 40 hours of certified school resource officer training.

Crony Capitalism part below:

3) The person or entity has a training team that operates in consultation with the following:
(A) A physician licensed in Indiana.
(B) A law enforcement officer who:
(i) works in Indiana for a law enforcement agency; or
(ii) has retired from a law enforcement agency in Indiana.
(C) A mental health professional.
(D) An attorney licensed in Indiana who is a member of the Indiana bar.
(E) A firearms instructor who:
(i) holds a valid certification from the National Rifle Association; and
(ii) has a minimum of five (5) years of documented professional instruction experience.
(F) An educator who teaches at a school in Indiana.
(G) A martial arts instructor who is certified by a national martial arts organization.

plus this:
Not less than one (1) hour of instruction by a trauma trained health care provider licensed in Indiana or an active duty, retired, or reserve military medic of the armed forces of the United States or Indiana National Guard

 

[KellyinAvon]

Senate Bill 49 from 2A supporter Jim Tomes.

Unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
Provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a financial institution or a governmental entity to refuse to do business with, or otherwise discriminate against, a person because the person supports or is engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.

Provides an exemption with respect to certain practices engaged in by a financial institution for a legitimate business reason or to comply with the directive of a regulator.

Provides for a civil cause of action for a person aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that the attorney general may bring a civil action in the name of the state against a person believed to be engaging in, or to have previously engaged in, an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that if the attorney general prevails in such an action, the attorney general shall recommend to the governor the discontinuation of state business relations with any person found to have engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.

 

[Jeepster48439]

Senate Bill 49 from 2A supporter Jim Tomes.

Unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
Provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a financial institution or a governmental entity to refuse to do business with, or otherwise discriminate against, a person because the person supports or is engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.

Provides an exemption with respect to certain practices engaged in by a financial institution for a legitimate business reason or to comply with the directive of a regulator.

Provides for a civil cause of action for a person aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that the attorney general may bring a civil action in the name of the state against a person believed to be engaging in, or to have previously engaged in, an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that if the attorney general prevails in such an action, the attorney general shall recommend to the governor the discontinuation of state business relations with any person found to have engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Kelly -

Thanks for posting the summaries of these two bills. I agree with the principle of SB49. Not sure I am really thrilled with the exemption (I bolded the quote), especially the ".... to comply with the directive of a regulator." part.

 

[Jeepster48439]

Well, this is the abstract for SB 64, School Safety. It's from Travis Holdman in District 19 (Adams, Wells, parts of Blackford and Grant Counties.)

Same Senator who killed Jim Lucas's bill two years ago. This looks very similar to the bill he authored last year, I testified in opposition to the bill. It's crony capitalism, they've made who can do the training so specific there will be only one entity who can do the training.

The digest (below in italics) looks supportable. Below that is the crony capitalism part that I find reprehensible.

School safety. Provides that, before an employee or any other staff member of a school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school may carry a firearm in or on school property as authorized by a school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school, the employee or staff member shall do the following: (1) Successfully complete certain specialized weapons training or other firearm training. (2) Provide proof to the school board that the employee or staff member has successfully completed the training. (3) Complete the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory 2 (MMPI-II) and provide the results from the inventory to the school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school.

Establishes requirements for specialized weapons training. Requires an employee or any other staff member of a school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school to successfully complete 16 hours of weapons training each year that the employee or staff member is authorized and intends to carry a firearm in or on school property.

Provides that the specialized weapons training must be provided by a person or entity approved by the school board of the school corporation, charter school, or nonpublic school.

Allows a school to barricade or block a door during an active shooter drill or during an active shooter emergency occurring in a school building. Provides that the Indiana secured school fund may be used to employ a law enforcement officer who has completed at least 40 hours of certified school resource officer training. Provides that, after June 30, 2021, a law enforcement officer or a school security officer who is not considered a school resource officer must complete 40 hours of certified school resource officer training.

Crony Capitalism part below:

3) The person or entity has a training team that operates in consultation with the following:
(A) A physician licensed in Indiana.
(B) A law enforcement officer who:
(i) works in Indiana for a law enforcement agency; or
(ii) has retired from a law enforcement agency in Indiana.
(C) A mental health professional.
(D) An attorney licensed in Indiana who is a member of the Indiana bar.
(E) A firearms instructor who:
(i) holds a valid certification from the National Rifle Association; and
(ii) has a minimum of five (5) years of documented professional instruction experience.
(F) An educator who teaches at a school in Indiana.
(G) A martial arts instructor who is certified by a national martial arts organization.

plus this:
Not less than one (1) hour of instruction by a trauma trained health care provider licensed in Indiana or an active duty, retired, or reserve military medic of the armed forces of the United States or Indiana National Guard

That list of 3(A)-(G) really looks like it is tailored made to eliminate all competition.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Kelly -

Thanks for posting the summaries of these two bills. I agree with the principle of SB49. Not sure I am really thrilled with the exemption (I bolded the quote), especially the ".... to comply with the directive of a regulator." part.

I need to look at this one again. I'm leaning yes but the devil is in the details. Senator Tomes is definitely on the side of 2A so benefit of the doubt for sure. As for SB64, that's still a hard NO!

 

[KLB]

Kelly -

Thanks for posting the summaries of these two bills. I agree with the principle of SB49. Not sure I am really thrilled with the exemption (I bolded the quote), especially the ".... to comply with the directive of a regulator." part.

It would be unfair to any business to put them in the middle of two government laws/regulations that were in contradiction. It isn't the place of a business to have to figure out which of those to follow.

 

[Jeepster48439]

I need to look at this one again. I'm leaning yes but the devil is in the details. Senator Tomes is definitely on the side of 2A so benefit of the doubt for sure. As for SB64, that's still a hard NO!

It would be unfair to any business to put them in the middle of two government laws/regulations that were in contradiction. It isn't the place of a business to have to figure out which of those to follow.

KLB - I just don't know what 'situation' the exemption is trying to address. I see little upside and a lot of downside potential in this, on the surface. As Kelly said... The devil is in the details. Also, SB49 is written to address discrimination against an individual, not a business. On the business side, I agree about trying not to put a business between a rock and a hard place. However, if we look hard enough, I am sure that we would find plenty of examples already on the books. I just can't think of any at this time.

 

[2A_Tom]

: popcorn:

 

[KellyinAvon]

: popcorn:

No popcorn needed Tom. Just a good discussion from all angles.

More to follow

 

[2A_Tom]

That is just a way of subscribing to the thread, I am surprised that my intention would be mistaken.

 

[KLB]

KLB - I just don't know what 'situation' the exemption is trying to address. I see little upside and a lot of downside potential in this, on the surface. As Kelly said... The devil is in the details. Also, SB49 is written to address discrimination against an individual, not a business. On the business side, I agree about trying not to put a business between a rock and a hard place. However, if we look hard enough, I am sure that we would find plenty of examples already on the books. I just can't think of any at this time.

Maybe something like this

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Ben Nelson]

Kelly -

Thanks for posting the summaries of these two bills. I agree with the principle of SB49. Not sure I am really thrilled with the exemption (I bolded the quote), especially the ".... to comply with the directive of a regulator." part.

. . . x2 . . . Thanks for posting the summaries, Kelly . . .

 

[Jeepster48439]

Maybe something like this

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

www.washingtontimes.com

To me, it looks like the exemption would not prevent that from occurring.

 

[KLB]

To me, it looks like the exemption would not prevent that from occurring.

It isn't meant to stop that from occurring, I would think it is meant to keep a business from trying to figure out who to listen to.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Senate Bill 49 from 2A supporter Jim Tomes.

Unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
Provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a financial institution or a governmental entity to refuse to do business with, or otherwise discriminate against, a person because the person supports or is engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.

Provides an exemption with respect to certain practices engaged in by a financial institution for a legitimate business reason or to comply with the directive of a regulator.

Provides for a civil cause of action for a person aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that the attorney general may bring a civil action in the name of the state against a person believed to be engaging in, or to have previously engaged in, an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Provides that if the attorney general prevails in such an action, the attorney general shall recommend to the governor the discontinuation of state business relations with any person found to have engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.

For those who are so inclined there is an open Federal Government Docket, ID OCC-2020-0042, regarding Fair Access to Financial Services. I have made comment.

 

[KellyinAvon]

KLB - I just don't know what 'situation' the exemption is trying to address. I see little upside and a lot of downside potential in this, on the surface. As Kelly said... The devil is in the details. Also, SB49 is written to address discrimination against an individual, not a business. On the business side, I agree about trying not to put a business between a rock and a hard place. However, if we look hard enough, I am sure that we would find plenty of examples already on the books. I just can't think of any at this time.

I've read the bill again Jeepster and I do see your concerns. I'm thinking there is a reason for the wording "person", but it does specify under section 8 (b):
For purposes of subsection (a), a person who supports or is engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition includes the following:
(1) A manufacturer of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
(2) A retailer of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
(3) A distributor of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
(4) A shooting range.
(5) A trade association.

You can always send Senator Tomes an email. The last time I did (changed verbiage in Indiana code from assault weapon to to machine gun) one of his staffers called me two hours later.