2022 Legislative Session Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Why do we get multiple bills submitted for basically the same thing?
    It is hard telling. After much review: SB 311 IS HB 1077 without the amendment (changes commission of a crime to commission of a felony on page 12.) I don't mean they do the same thing, the bills are IDENTICAL.

    Don't know why Senator Houchin went this route, all politics are political so it's hard telling.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Here is the roll call for HB 1077
    What I find interesting is that one of the "Excused" Representatives is the Majority Caucus Chairman and two of the Republican "Nay" votes are Assistant Majority Caucus Chair persons
    View attachment 175671
    Thanks IRD. Looks like we have three R's who voted Nay (Aylesworth, Saunders, Ziemke) and three D's with Nays who were once endorsed by NRA-ILA.

    One D Yea: Fleming (Dist 71) has a "D" from NRA-ILA. Was this the one "D" Yea vote last year?

    First: Dime out the Rinos and give props to the D with a D from the ILA. Then: update the 1077 email to be sent to our Senators. Got a crapload of sponsors and co-authors now.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Updated and ready to fill the inboxes in the Senate. Send it towards your Senator now, when it's referred to the Judiciary Committee we'll aim for those inboxes.

    Senator,

    I am writing to urge your support of HB 1077, Firearms Matters. This bill was authored by Representative Smaltz and co-authored by Representatives Lehman, Lucas, Snow, Carbaugh, Lindauer, Engleman, Gutwein, Wesco, Teshka, May, Behning, Heaton, Frye, Mayfield, Hostettler, Jeter, Judy, Abbott, Lauer, Barrett, Leonard, Cook, Davis, Ledbetter, VanNatter, Heine, Manning, Davisson, Payne, and Borders. HB 1077 is sponsored by Senators Koch, Tomes, Houchin, and Messmer.

    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 are currently 21 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. This is further proved by the fact that no State which has repealed its handgun licensing scheme, has re-instated it because it drove an increase in criminal activity. Put simply: the law-abiding don’t commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes and are undeterred by licensing schemes.

    HB 1077 does not change the definition of “proper person” that currently exists, nor does it make it lawful to possess a firearm when an individual is currently a prohibited possessor.

    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”, and “Church Carry” (2019). Again, the dire consequences predicted by those who oppose any law that supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms simply did not happen.

    Of the 21 States with Constitutional Carry of handguns, 20 previously had handgun licensing requirements. Zero States have reinstated the licensing requirement.

    I’m sure I can count on your support with this vital legislation.

    Thank you,



    Name

    Address

    Phone Number

    Email
     

    Compatriot G

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2010
    862
    28
    New Castle
    Thanks IRD. Looks like we have three R's who voted Nay (Aylesworth, Saunders, Ziemke) and three D's with Nays who were once endorsed by NRA-ILA.

    One D Yea: Fleming (Dist 71) has a "D" from NRA-ILA. Was this the one "D" Yea vote last year?

    First: Dime out the Rinos and give props to the D with a D from the ILA. Then: update the 1077 email to be sent to our Senators. Got a crapload of sponsors and co-authors now.
    Fortunately, Rep. Saunders is retiring. I've thought about sending him some hate mail, but it won't make any difference.
     

    Lwright

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 25, 2017
    273
    28
    Indianapolis
    Updated and ready to fill the inboxes in the Senate. Send it towards your Senator now, when it's referred to the Judiciary Committee we'll aim for those inboxes.

    Senator,

    I am writing to urge your support of HB 1077, Firearms Matters. This bill was authored by Representative Smaltz and co-authored by Representatives Lehman, Lucas, Snow, Carbaugh, Lindauer, Engleman, Gutwein, Wesco, Teshka, May, Behning, Heaton, Frye, Mayfield, Hostettler, Jeter, Judy, Abbott, Lauer, Barrett, Leonard, Cook, Davis, Ledbetter, VanNatter, Heine, Manning, Davisson, Payne, and Borders. HB 1077 is sponsored by Senators Koch, Tomes, Houchin, and Messmer.

    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 are currently 21 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. This is further proved by the fact that no State which has repealed its handgun licensing scheme, has re-instated it because it drove an increase in criminal activity. Put simply: the law-abiding don’t commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes and are undeterred by licensing schemes.

    HB 1077 does not change the definition of “proper person” that currently exists, nor does it make it lawful to possess a firearm when an individual is currently a prohibited possessor.

    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”, and “Church Carry” (2019). Again, the dire consequences predicted by those who oppose any law that supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms simply did not happen.

    Of the 21 States with Constitutional Carry of handguns, 20 previously had handgun licensing requirements. Zero States have reinstated the licensing requirement.

    I’m sure I can count on your support with this vital legislation.

    Thank you,



    Name

    Address

    Phone Number

    Email
    Done
     

    tbhausen

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    83   0   0
    Feb 12, 2010
    4,927
    113
    West Central IN
    Who would’ve guessed? WISH ****ed this up just as bad as WTHR. Sensationalist language designed to influence public perception/opinion:

     
    Last edited:

    tbhausen

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    83   0   0
    Feb 12, 2010
    4,927
    113
    West Central IN
    Although he was, generally speaking, a liberal *******, George Carlin said it best: “Think about how stupid the average human being is, then think that half of them are even stupider than that”. I’m not sure if that statement is more applicable to the people who write these ******** articles, or the people who read them (who, of course, they’re written for).
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    Fortunately, Rep. Saunders is retiring. I've thought about sending him some hate mail, but it won't make any difference.
    "Congratulations on your upcoming retirement. I'm looking forward to being represented by someone who knows the meaning of the US and Indiana Constitutions." seems not too hateful...
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    All looks quiet as far as committee hearings this week, Public Policy has a two booze and no gun bills. Look for one or both "self-defense" (SB 143/HB 1114 AKA pointing a firearm/less than deadly force authorized situation is not = to deadly force) bills up for hearing next week. These are 6 page long bills, easy to read anyway.
     

    DataGeek19

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 9, 2017
    190
    63
    Southern Indiana
    Why is there a Bill authored by Republicans to meddle with police departments and their reserve officers, what's the story behind this one?

    SB159 is all about reserve police officers. if passed “as is” it will place limits on the number of reserve officers each agency can have. It will limit “off-duty” employment for those reserve officers by eliminating police powers outside of their agency’s jurisdiction jurisdiction and supervision.

    What is known as “off duty” security jobs is a big deal especially in Indianapolis. That is why you see police officers from other jurisdictions working security jobs to include colts games, temporary road closures and bars/restaurants.

    Most of those are reserve officers who gain their police powers through their “host” agency they volunteer with. At those security side jobs, they make more money than a standard security guard because they have “police powers”.

    There are some agencies known for their mass production of reserve officers. There have been concerns about the level of training and whether their officers should be able to have police powers outside of the agency’s jurisdiction.

    Some people would argue there is more regulation over volunteer firefighters in this state than with reserve police officers. The proposed legislation can be looked at as reform for the reserve police officer program. This will be welcomed by some and viewed as unnecessary by others.

    It will be interesting to see if the ILEA and the Indiana Chief of Police Association support the bill. Their testimonies will probably provide a clue on why this is on the legislative radar.

    This will be an interesting bill to watch. Thank you for sharing.
     
    Last edited:

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,006
    77
    Porter County
    Thanks IRD. Looks like we have three R's who voted Nay (Aylesworth, Saunders, Ziemke) and three D's with Nays who were once endorsed by NRA-ILA.

    One D Yea: Fleming (Dist 71) has a "D" from NRA-ILA. Was this the one "D" Yea vote last year?

    First: Dime out the Rinos and give props to the D with a D from the ILA. Then: update the 1077 email to be sent to our Senators. Got a crapload of sponsors and co-authors now.
    Yep Aylesworth is worthless.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    HB 1371
    Second amendment protection. Provides that certain federal laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms are invalid, not recognized, rejected, and shall not be enforced in Indiana. Specifies penalties and causes of action concerning a political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs a: (1) law enforcement officer who enforces or attempts to enforce certain provisions or otherwise deprives a citizen of Indiana of particular constitutional rights or privileges; (2) federal official, or person who gives material aid to a federal official, who knowingly enforces or attempts to enforce certain laws. Specifies exceptions. Makes findings and defines particular terms.

    COmes across as a 2A Sanctuary State bill. Authored by Nisly, so I'm suspicious at best.

    Ah, here it is from page 6:

    (b) A political subdivision or law enforcement agency described under subsection (a) is: (1) liable in: (A) an action at law or in equity; or (B) a proper proceeding for redress; to a person injured by the actions taken by a law enforcement officer under subsection (a); and (2) subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each violation of subsection (a).

    This is there to make sure the bill never sees the light of day. Then NAGR (Nisly is one of Dudley's boys and has pulled some serious crap over the years) can claim that people like Jim Lucas and Ben Smaltz don't support our 2A rights.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    It would be more correct to say that they don't support people like DUD(ley).

    Though I have to say I don't see an enormous difference between that quote from page 6 and what 35-47-11.1 has with "the greater of actual costs or triple the plaintiff's attorney fees plus one's own court costs and attorney fees.
     

    JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    (b) A political subdivision or law enforcement agency described under subsection (a) is: (1) liable in: (A) an action at law or in equity; or (B) a proper proceeding for redress; to a person injured by the actions taken by a law enforcement officer under subsection (a); and (2) subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each violation of subsection (a).
    Though I have to say I don't see an enormous difference between that quote from page 6 and what 35-47-11.1 has with "the greater of actual costs or triple the plaintiff's attorney fees plus one's own court costs and attorney fees.

    Arizona already has a penalty structure like this for local laws that subvert sate law:



    (Unfortunately, those state laws in AZ double-down on the fed stuff like suppressors - see the cool gun section). It would be nice to see (all of) the states actually go to bat and fight off infringements based on the interstate commerce starting with intra-state concerns, but admittedly I don't know the full legal ramifications of this.
     
    Last edited:

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    [***ALERT*** 2A Legislation Alert Sounder ***ALERT***]

    SB Bill 14 (Firearms Matters, Senator Tomes) is up for hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday at 1330, Room 130 in the Statehouse.

    This is HB 1077 (ConC) with the over 21 caveat. I'm not a fan of that, but it can be fixed by amendment, conference committee, however.

    I'll bump the draft email in a minute. Time for Operation Fill Their Inboxes II (Electric Boogaloo)

    Link for the Judiciary Committee is below.

     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom