2022 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

OK INGO peeps, as Yogi said it ain't over til it's over.

1077 is not on the file list for 2nd reading today. No session Friday, starts again Monday.

1-800-382-9467, let your Senator know this is NOT acceptable, and to support amending the bill back to the House-version in 2nd reading.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I watched a lot of this disgusting dog and pony show, through the idiot Carter from ISP, what a tool. As most here know I moved here from Illinois at the age of 73 and living in the same house for 43 years. Guns were a big part of the move along with taxes and feeling the state is "done." I always had a republican state representative but usually a democrat senator, just the way the districts were gerrymandered.
Watching this **** show yesterday was like being back in Illinois. The democrats just open their mouth and stupid runs out like **** through a tin horn. Of course that is to be expected, the only question is "just how stupid are they?"
Liz Brown would fit in just fine with the Illinois RINOs, they would be proud to have her. You could see the hostility ooze out of her toward the "pro" speakers and then change to being helpfull to the anti's. She needs to be gone but I am nowhere near her district so can't vote against her.
I have said I will never vote for a democrat again as long as I live but would make an exceptian in her case. The primary is the time to cull the herd but there are some RINOs that are bad enough they should be gone even if it puts a democrat in office. Like someone said earlier in this thread get her out even if it means putting in a democrat for a term. Then make sure she and the other RINOs know why, these RINO's I think have become complacent thinking there is no way they will be voted out.
Election time advertising "We don't want the democrat but we will not tolerate a RINO any longer." Even if we don't get them out but they have a close primary and/or general election it will send a message. A close race means spending more campaign money while having less coming in, that hurts. Jim.

I’ve heard it speculated Holcomb wants a senate seat when he’s run his course as governor. It’d be better to suffer a democrat for 6 years than have a Republican like Holcomb ensconced in that seat for the rest of his life.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I can see any possibility that it gets amended back to anything that resembles the OG HB 1077.

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

We were just played.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I can see any possibility that it gets amended back to anything that resembles the OG HB 1077.

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

We were just played.

I hope you're wrong too JB. OG HB 1077... I like it!

 

[tbhausen]

I’ve heard it speculated Holcomb wants a senate seat when he’s run his course as governor. It’d be better to suffer a democrat for 6 years than have a Republican like Holcomb ensconced in that seat for the rest of his life.

I’d vote for a Democrat just to spite him unless they straighten this mess out.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

I can see any possibility that it gets amended back to anything that resembles the OG HB 1077.

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

We were just played.

Agreed. The way Brown was so hostile to the Pro2A testimony and her overall attitude that she did not want to be there at all was a huge tell.

The ProCC folks have to play the long-game. First get rid of/flush all the RINO's by either primaries or voting for their opponent. As much as I despise voting for a D, it is a shame we have these traitors in our midst. This cancer needs excised. This will send a direct message to potential RINOS. Then, refine the bill to make it harder to vote against in the future.

Learn from what happened, adjust-improve, build a stronger coalition and try again.

Holcomb will not get my vote for any future office run he considers.

Also, the feckless NRA needs to give these traitors an F rating to show who they really are.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Agreed. The way Brown was so hostile to the Pro2A testimony and her overall attitude that she did not want to be there at all was a huge tell.

The ProCC folks have to play the long-game. First get rid of/flush all the RINO's by either primaries or voting for their opponent. As much as I despise voting for a D, it is a shame we have these traitors in our midst. This cancer needs excised. This will send a direct message to potential RINOS. Then, refine the bill to make it harder to vote against in the future.

Learn from what happened, adjust-improve, build a stronger coalition and try again.

Holcomb will not get my vote for any future office run he considers.

Also, the feckless NRA needs to give these traitors an F rating to show who they really are.

It was already a 6-5 vote for getting rid of private sales, voting anymore D's in would be detrimental.

The bad R's have to go.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I think I would be wasting my time to message Bohacek about supporting permit less carry.

I will be sending messages explaining my disappointment and how I will spend my time explaining to anyone possible that he needs to be removed and replaced with a true republican.

Maybe even a billboard since he seems to be a fan of those.

 

[JEBland]

What I worked up this morning:

Senator,

Support HB 1077 Firearms Matters by returning the bill to its intended form!

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, Messmer, Byrne, Crane, Garten, and M. Young.

HB 1077 as passed by the Indiana House codifies the lawful carry of handguns, and comes at a time when the essential right of self-defense has never been more important. This bill affects the law-abiding citizens of Indiana, not the violent criminals who are overwhelmingly prohibited possessors of firearms, and don’t obey the law.

Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee made an 11th-hour change to the bill to strip it of its intended purpose, mostly based on emotionally manipulative testimony and junk data. One primary claim of the law enforcement officers who oppose this bill is that the removal of the licensing system will endanger officers. There is no data to support this. The data that does exist shows no conclusive trend across states and in fact no statistically significant difference for the states that have passed permitless carry. The answer is rather simple: Criminals don’t abide by licensing schemes. Murderers, rapists, and gang members do not concern themselves with the small penalty of carrying unlawfully (but the current scheme’s standards) compared to their actual crimes.

Even the law enforcement officers who objected to the bill in the Jan 5th house committee hearing admit that the current law doesn’t actually prevent criminals or endanger officers. Chief Pat Flannelly of Lafayette came to oppose the bill in the Jan 5th House discussion of this bill and during his discussion he also stated that he is unaware of any statistically significant data in either direction for the more than 40% of US states that have already passed this style of legislation. Sgt. Hensler of the Fort Wayne Gang & Violent Crime Unit stated that gangs use members with clean records to carry-out straw purchases and even encourage their members with clean backgrounds to get a license to carry a handgun under the current law in order to shift who is the owner of a firearm with current encounters with law enforcement. That is, the criminals have already determined how to game the current system – it only harms law abiding citizens who are forced to submit to biometric data collection and delays from the state. The same sergeant stated “They’re human beings. Having [a license to carry] doesn’t encourage or discourage crime.”

The second primary complaint from the law enforcement in the Senate hearing was that it shifts the burden from the individual to the state. The state has effectively unlimited resources compared to the typical civilian – the burden must be on the state. Opposing this is opposing the entire history and basis of law in the United States. To sample some of the egregious comments by Indiana State Police (ISP) superintendent Doug Carter, he attacked the legislative process in IN because a bill came forward that he dislikes and that we allow public comments that he disapproves of, attacked the republican party for being a super majority and claimed that the committee was stifling the minority despite Democrats asking question after question of those testifying and he also stated “We are all guilty until we prove our innocence.“ Doug Carter is not a person who is concerned with the welfare of the residents of Indiana or of your constituents like me. Carter and those opposed to this legislation as intended do no respect our civil rights like those affirmed in Pinner V. State (2017).

Last night in the Senate committee hearing, we heard over and over how this will harm our community, but the data simply doesn’t support that.

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. The licensing scheme requires submitting fingerprints to the state. Those of us eligible for the current license are not criminals, we should not need to be “booked” by the state in order to enjoy our rights to carry a firearm. The collection of biometric data and wait times at the convenience of how many fingerprinting appointments are available and how “busy” the state claims to be are an undue burden on your law-abiding constituents.

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), allowing firearms to be stored in vehicles on school property (2014), allowing an individual with an order of protection against an abuser carry a handgun without a license (2017), 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, and will not happen with the passage of HB 1077.

Of the 21 States with Constitutional Carry of handguns, 20 previously had handgun licensing requirements. Zero States have reinstated the licensing requirement. I urge you to amend the bill back to its intended form where there is no undue burden on your law-abiding constituents.

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

Thank you,
Name
Contact info

 

[tbhausen]

What I worked up this morning:

Senator,

Support HB 1077 Firearms Matters by returning the bill to its intended form!

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, Messmer, Byrne, Crane, Garten, and M. Young.

HB 1077 as passed by the Indiana House codifies the lawful carry of handguns, and comes at a time when the essential right of self-defense has never been more important. This bill affects the law-abiding citizens of Indiana, not the violent criminals who are overwhelmingly prohibited possessors of firearms, and don’t obey the law.

Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee made an 11th-hour change to the bill to strip it of its intended purpose, mostly based on emotionally manipulative testimony and junk data. One primary claim of the law enforcement officers who oppose this bill is that the removal of the licensing system will endanger officers. There is no data to support this. The data that does exist shows no conclusive trend across states and in fact no statistically significant difference for the states that have passed permitless carry. The answer is rather simple: Criminals don’t abide by licensing schemes. Murderers, rapists, and gang members do not concern themselves with the small penalty of carrying unlawfully (but the current scheme’s standards) compared to their actual crimes.

Even the law enforcement officers who objected to the bill in the Jan 5th house committee hearing admit that the current law doesn’t actually prevent criminals or endanger officers. Chief Pat Flannelly of Lafayette came to oppose the bill in the Jan 5th House discussion of this bill and during his discussion he also stated that he is unaware of any statistically significant data in either direction for the more than 40% of US states that have already passed this style of legislation. Sgt. Hensler of the Fort Wayne Gang & Violent Crime Unit stated that gangs use members with clean records to carry-out straw purchases and even encourage their members with clean backgrounds to get a license to carry a handgun under the current law in order to shift who is the owner of a firearm with current encounters with law enforcement. That is, the criminals have already determined how to game the current system – it only harms law abiding citizens who are forced to submit to biometric data collection and delays from the state. The same sergeant stated “They’re human beings. Having [a license to carry] doesn’t encourage or discourage crime.”

The second primary complaint from the law enforcement in the Senate hearing was that it shifts the burden from the individual to the state. The state has effectively unlimited resources compared to the typical civilian – the burden must be on the state. Opposing this is opposing the entire history and basis of law in the United States. To sample some of the egregious comments by Indiana State Police (ISP) superintendent Doug Carter, he attacked the legislative process in IN because a bill came forward that he dislikes and that we allow public comments that he disapproves of, attacked the republican party for being a super majority and claimed that the committee was stifling the minority despite Democrats asking question after question of those testifying and he also stated “We are all guilty until we prove our innocence.“ Doug Carter is not a person who is concerned with the welfare of the residents of Indiana or of your constituents like me. Carter and those opposed to this legislation as intended do no respect our civil rights like those affirmed in Pinner V. State (2017).

Last night in the Senate committee hearing, we heard over and over how this will harm our community, but the data simply doesn’t support that.

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. The licensing scheme requires submitting fingerprints to the state. Those of us eligible for the current license are not criminals, we should not need to be “booked” by the state in order to enjoy our rights to carry a firearm. The collection of biometric data and wait times at the convenience of how many fingerprinting appointments are available and how “busy” the state claims to be are an undue burden on your law-abiding constituents.

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), allowing firearms to be stored in vehicles on school property (2014), allowing an individual with an order of protection against an abuser carry a handgun without a license (2017), 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, and will not happen with the passage of HB 1077.

Of the 21 States with Constitutional Carry of handguns, 20 previously had handgun licensing requirements. Zero States have reinstated the licensing requirement. I urge you to amend the bill back to its intended form where there is no undue burden on your law-abiding constituents.

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

Thank you,
Name
Contact info

Nice… only suggestion I’d make is changing the first paragraph to:

“Support HB 1077 Firearms Matters by returning the bill to its original language!”

 

[tbhausen]

Nice add about biometric data. I hadn’t really thought about that until yesterday when I brought it up. I’d bet nearly all of us only have our fingerprints on file because we applied for handgun licenses. I’m not particularly fond of being in those databases. It’s a security risk I could do without. Highlighting this point might be a good way to “sell” Constitutional Carry to a gullible public easily influenced by smooth talking doomsday purveyors.

Maybe we should devote some thought to how a corrupt, tyrannical government could misuse a fingerprint database beyond only solving crimes.

 

[JEBland]

Nice… only suggestion I’d make is changing the first paragraph to:

“Support HB 1077 Firearms Matters by returning the bill to its original language!”

I like it, but I don't know if I'd call it just a change of language, they gutted the intention of the bill altogether.

Nice add about biometric data. I hadn’t really thought about that until yesterday when I brought it up. I’d bet nearly all of us only have our fingerprints on file because we applied for handgun licenses. I’m not particularly fond of being in those databases. It’s a security risk I could do without. Highlighting this point might be a good way to “sell” Constitutional Carry to a gullible public easily influenced by smooth talking doomsday purveyors.

Thanks. I'm glad you brought it up and it's the only way to convince the people who propose the temporary license for the waiting period. If that temp. license isn't automatic, then it's even worse. I haven't gotten a chance to read the amendment yet.

 

[tbhausen]

I like it, but I don't know if I'd call it just a change of language, they gutted the intention of the bill altogether.


Thanks. I'm glad you brought it up and it's the only way to convince the people who propose the temporary license for the waiting period. If that temp. license isn't automatic, then it's even worse. I haven't gotten a chance to read the amendment yet.

There’s a lot of concern about security and privacy issues these days, and rightfully so. It’s not much of a leap in logic to think that they have the password to our phones and laptops if we use fingerprint readers. That’s just a start.

 

[tbhausen]

Does anyone have a link to last night’s amendment? I’m poking around and can’t find it.

 

[looper]

Over yet? What rinos need to be voted out?

THAT is what is needed to get things done

 

[actaeon277]

YOU need to know the law.

Lawmakers... excuse me... "lawmakers" don't

I forgot to put the meme in here

"lawmakers"

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am... disgusted.
...

I was not able to watch Superintendent Carter's testimony. I may go back and watch it however; in an effort to understand on what basis he believes the current permitting system provides such value that it must be retained.

I am convinced though, that my position on direct election of ALL law enforcement heads, is a valid position. The stark contrast of our elected Constitutional Sheriffs, versus the appointed Police Chiefs is quite telling. Those who control the enforcement of the State's laws need to be directly accountable to we the people.

Don't bother going back to listen if the only thing you're looking for is why to retain the current system. I missed that part, too, but I can guarantee you sight unseen that he did not state the real reason. He will tell you it's for officer safety. He will tell you it's because of a compelling governmental necessity to do one thing or another. He will cite Scalia and say that no right is absolute (A position that I firmly believe Scalia was forced to state to obtain Kennedy's vote, and not have Heller be a case against us.)

The real reason, I think, is that they want to be able to red-flag anyone. No, not like the "Laird Law".... not that kind of red flag.

This kind:

And you are correct in your idea as well. It is telling that the ISP asks that the committee give more weight to the testimony of police officers....specifically NOT Sheriff's Deputies. The Sheriff is elected by the people. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ancjr]

Has anyone else noticed a change in the tenor of the ISP in the past couple of years, or am I just noticing it?

 

[looper]

I don't wish to flaunt my ignorance BUT seeing some of the PAC's supporting liz brown like ISP PAC, FOP PAC is there a way to see how much they have funded her, possibly compromising/swaying her vote on certain issues?

 

[DataGeek19]

Has anyone else noticed a change in the tenor of the ISP in the past couple of years, or am I just noticing it?

Several people in key positions have retired. One major who use to speak was an actual gun guy. Major Simon must be relatively new in his position.