2022 Legislative Session Thread

[jwamplerusa]

Looks like a few more bills on the Senate side. A couple with low numbers appear to address violent crime and low bail.

Good! I have been hounding my State Rep to get something done this session on Bail, and a host of other items. .

Unfortunately my State Senator is a communist (AKA Democrat) so I don't waste the energy on him.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I took some time this afternoon and plaigerized KellyinAvon on communications to Representative Schaibley and Senator Brown.

 

[BigRed]

The Senate finally got their committees up. Judiciary Committee looks a lot like last year, unfortunately it has the same Chair who wouldn't schedule ConC a hearing last year. I have to say a big flag went up for me last year when I saw Eric Koch (current ranking member) was replaced by someone not endorsed by NRA-ILA.

The other R's: I have no issues. Aaron Freeman is on the committee and is as solid of a 2A supporter as we have. If ConC gets a hearing? It'll pass in the committee.

The D's are three antis. Lonnie Randolph is a disgusting excuse for a human being and completely devoid of any respectable characteristics. Tim Lanane is a waste of time. And the third? Senator Greg "Obtuse" Taylor.

Note to self: ask NRA-ILA POC why Senator Obtuse is an NRA-ILA "D" and not an "F" like the other two on this committee.

Senate Committee on Judiciary - Indiana General Assembly, 2022 Session

184.175.130.101

Taylor is an abomination and a completely useless piece of ****.

 

[BigRed]

You've been busy Kelly. Thanks

Seconded!

 

[KellyinAvon]

I took some time this afternoon and plaigerized KellyinAvon on communications to Representative Schaibley and Senator Brown.

Not plagiarism, research!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Senate Bill 6:
Bail for violent arrestees. Defines "violent arrestee" and "minimum bail amount", and requires: (1) a court to review the probable cause affidavit or arrest warrant before releasing a violent arrestee on bail; (2) bail to be set following a hearing in open court; and (3) a violent arrestee released on bail to pay 100% of the minimum bail amount by cash deposit. Prohibits a third party who is not a close relative of the violent arrestee from posting bail for the violent arrestee.

I can dig where they are trying to go with this, but prohibiting a third party who is not a close relative from posting bail... I think that's a bridge too far.

Senate Bill 7:
Marion County crime reduction pilot. Establishes the Marion County crime reduction board (board) as part of the Marion County crime reduction pilot project. Allows the board to approve interoperability agreements between law enforcement agencies to expand the jurisdiction, duties, and responsibilities of law enforcement agencies operating in downtown Indianapolis.

Need to read more...

Senate Bill 8:
Nonprofit bail funding. Allows a charitable organization to pay bail on behalf of a defendant if the organization meets certain criteria. Exempts from the certification requirement a charitable organization that pays bail for not more than two individuals in any 180 day period. Provides that if money or bonds have been set, bail by surety may be substituted for the money or bonds at any time before a breach. Prohibits the state and a political subdivision from: (1) posting bail for any person; or (2) providing a grant to any entity that provides funding for any person. Requires a court to apply the bail to certain court costs. Prohibits an entity that has received a grant from the state or a political subdivision from posting bail for any person or providing a grant, directly or indirectly, to an entity that posts bail for any person.

I like the "can't funnel tax dollars to bail out criminals or just do it with government entities", this looks solid.

Senate Bill 9:

Electronic monitoring standards. Establishes standards, including staffing minimums and notification time frames, for persons and entities responsible for monitoring individuals required to wear a monitoring device as a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or community corrections. Makes conforming amendments. Provides that a defendant commits escape if the defendant disables or interferes with the operation of an electronic monitoring device. (Under current law, the defendant commits the offense by removing an electronic monitoring device.) Requires a court to revoke the bail of a defendant who commits escape.

Yes!!

Bills for Session 2022

184.175.130.101

 

[KellyinAvon]

SB 7 mentioned in previous post: it establishes a board and who is on it. Crap-ton of LEO and other reps, includes Lucas Oil Stadium and Pacers security honchos.

A lot of doing anything is getting the right people in the room together.

 

[KLB]

Only applies if the crime was committed as a minor

I don't see where it says that, but even if that is what it says, why are we punishing people that were never convicted of a crime?

 

[Bill of Rights]

When I see Nisley’s name A flag goes up, and not a good one. This must be a subgroup of NAGR, Who are a part of the problem.

More to follow

NAGR attacked Jim Lucas a couple years ago as having torpedoed Constitutional Carry. Of course, they were lying, but they sowed doubt amongst those who don't follow these issues as closely as we do.

NAGR and HGR are not to be trusted, in my book, and any mailings I get from them will be returned postage due, without a return address, containing all the junk mail I can find.

I certainly can't encourage anyone else to do likewise.... That might cited as some form of criminal activity, and I don't want to do that. What I do myself is my own affair.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't see where it says that, but even if that is what it says, why are we punishing people that were never convicted of a crime?

I could be mistaken, but I think that that same provision is present in current law, that one may not be issued a LTCH if certain offenses were committed prior to attaining legal age of majority.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Senate Bill 6:
Bail for violent arrestees. Defines "violent arrestee" and "minimum bail amount", and requires: (1) a court to review the probable cause affidavit or arrest warrant before releasing a violent arrestee on bail; (2) bail to be set following a hearing in open court; and (3) a violent arrestee released on bail to pay 100% of the minimum bail amount by cash deposit. Prohibits a third party who is not a close relative of the violent arrestee from posting bail for the violent arrestee.

I can dig where they are trying to go with this, but prohibiting a third party who is not a close relative from posting bail... I think that's a bridge too far.

Senate Bill 7:
Marion County crime reduction pilot. Establishes the Marion County crime reduction board (board) as part of the Marion County crime reduction pilot project. Allows the board to approve interoperability agreements between law enforcement agencies to expand the jurisdiction, duties, and responsibilities of law enforcement agencies operating in downtown Indianapolis.

Need to read more...

Senate Bill 8:
Nonprofit bail funding. Allows a charitable organization to pay bail on behalf of a defendant if the organization meets certain criteria. Exempts from the certification requirement a charitable organization that pays bail for not more than two individuals in any 180 day period. Provides that if money or bonds have been set, bail by surety may be substituted for the money or bonds at any time before a breach. Prohibits the state and a political subdivision from: (1) posting bail for any person; or (2) providing a grant to any entity that provides funding for any person. Requires a court to apply the bail to certain court costs. Prohibits an entity that has received a grant from the state or a political subdivision from posting bail for any person or providing a grant, directly or indirectly, to an entity that posts bail for any person.

I like the "can't funnel tax dollars to bail out criminals or just do it with government entities", this looks solid.

Senate Bill 9:

Electronic monitoring standards. Establishes standards, including staffing minimums and notification time frames, for persons and entities responsible for monitoring individuals required to wear a monitoring device as a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or community corrections. Makes conforming amendments. Provides that a defendant commits escape if the defendant disables or interferes with the operation of an electronic monitoring device. (Under current law, the defendant commits the offense by removing an electronic monitoring device.) Requires a court to revoke the bail of a defendant who commits escape.

Yes!!

Bills for Session 2022

184.175.130.101

Kelly:
SB 6 may be referencing the activities of "Heels Up" Harris when she encouraged the posting of bail for those rioting for George Floyd and Jacob Blake.

Given that, I'm not sure much of anything is a bridge too far.... Though I'm not sure there exists a bridge that would span the distance between....... No, I better not finish that thought in writing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KellyinAvon]

I could be mistaken, but I think that that same provision is present in current law, that one may not be issued a LTCH if certain offenses were committed prior to attaining legal age of majority.

I think you are correct Bill. SB 14 kept a lot of the language of the current Indiana Code dealing with the LTCH.

Good to see you in these parts Bill.

 

[KLB]

I could be mistaken, but I think that that same provision is present in current law, that one may not be issued a LTCH if certain offenses were committed prior to attaining legal age of majority.

Didn't know that, and that is wrong. Being arrested for is far different than committing.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Didn't know that, and that is wrong. Being arrested for is far different than committing.

Sorry for not clarifying earlier:

IC 35-47-1-7"Proper person"

Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:

(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;

(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;

(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;

(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;

(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;

(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;

(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;

(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;

(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;

(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;

(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;

(12) has not been the subject of a:

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or

(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7;

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;

(B) guilty but mentally ill; or

(C) incompetent to stand trial; or

(14) is not currently designated as dangerous (as defined in IC 35-47-14-1) by a court following a hearing under IC 35-47-14-6.

As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34; P.L.127-2011, SEC.3; P.L.114-2012, SEC.139; P.L.126-2012, SEC.57; P.L.289-2019, SEC.3.

It looks to me like an "adjudication" is required, not just an arrest, under current law. The new bill seems to include that a charge has been filed, but not yet decided, so while a case is ongoing, the person is "not a proper person". That sounds like it's probably present in current law as well, but admittedly, I did not look that up.

Hope that helps!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[KLB]

Sorry for not clarifying earlier:


It looks to me like an "adjudication" is required, not just an arrest, under current law. The new bill seems to include that a charge has been filed, but not yet decided, so while a case is ongoing, the person is "not a proper person". That sounds like it's probably present in current law as well, but admittedly, I did not look that up.

Hope that helps!
Blessings,
Bill

That is much better.

I read the actual bill and that is what it says as well.

(13) has been arrested for:
(A) a Class A or Class B felony for an offense committed
before July 1, 2014;
(B) a Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 felony for an
offense committed after June 30, 2014; or
(C) any other felony that was committed while armed with
a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence;
if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person
committed the offense charged, unless the person has been
acquitted of the specific offense charged or the charges for the
specific offense are dismissed;

 

[KellyinAvon]

Alert!! Senate Bill 143 Self protection, looks a lot like Senate Bill 199 from last year. It would make pointing a firearm not equal to deadly force. Glad this is back, it didn’t get a hearing after passing the Senate last year. Even more happy, I haven’t read the bill yet, but, I should just be able to use my notes from last year on this one.

 

[Bill of Rights]

HB 1077 "Firearms Matters" Seems to be a revocation of the requirement for a LTCH, if one would otherwise qualify for it. Rep. Ben Smaltz with Rep. Lehman co-authoring.

 

[KellyinAvon]

HB 1077 "Firearms Matters" Seems to be a revocation of the requirement for a LTCH, if one would otherwise qualify for it. Rep. Ben Smaltz with Rep. Lehman co-authoring.

The House has Bills up!!! I know what I'll be doing after supper.

 

[KellyinAvon]

(2A Legislation Alert Sounder)

HB 1077 Firearms Matters is up for hearing in the Public Policy Committee on 5 January, Room 404 at 1330. Authored by Committee Chair Ben Smaltz (also authored HB 1369 last year.) More to follow/haven't read it yet, this could be the bill which will be conferenced with SB 14.

Hang on folks, this is going to happen fast.

 

[KellyinAvon]

To quote the late Keith Jackson, "WHOA NELLIE!!"

HB 1077, Firearms Matters, pretty much is SB 14 except for:

SECTION 12. IC 35-47-2-3, AS AMENDED BY P.L.165-2021, 26 SECTION 196, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022]: Sec. 3. (a) A person desiring a license to carry who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying or possessing a handgun shall apply: under state or federal law is not required to obtain or possess a license or permit from the state to carry a handgun in Indiana.



A resident of this state who wishes to carry a firearm in another state under a reciprocity agreement entered into by this state and another state may obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana under this chapter

Happy to glad change on what the Reciprocity License is called ("Optional License" under SB 14, formerly called a Reciprocity License in HB 1369 last year.)

Eliminates the "under 21 requirement for a LTCH" in SB 14.

I think this is the bill that may come out of conference committee and have the "21 and over" requirement in SB 14. Likewise SB 14 could come out of conference committee and drop the under 21/LTCH required for carry part.

This is happening fast. It is up for hearing on 5 January. It is the only bill currently up for hearing in the Public Policy Committee on that day.

Last year when HB 1369 came up for hearing, we were in the room for 4 HOURS! The Pro-2A contingent outnumbered the antis for the first time EVER! We won the battle (HB 1369 passed the House 65-31) but weren't allowed to win the war last year.

Chairman Smaltz knows this will be a long hearing once again and has set it up for a lot of testimony. He will not have the gavel since it's his bill. Vice Chair Peggy Mayfield (who ran the hearing for HB 1369) will have the gavel. She called witnesses anti/pro/anti/pro last year, I look for that again.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to bring the heat once again.