2022 Legislative Session Thread

[KellyinAvon]

Next step, IMHO, is to work on elimination of "gun free zones".

What I referred to as an armed victim zones. Definitely on my radar for 2023

 

[Jeepster48439]

Next step, IMHO, is to work on elimination of "gun free zones".

While it is a laudable goal, it will probably be a very hard fight. Not opposed to it. We just need a good game plan.

 

[chipbennett]

While it is a laudable goal, it will probably be a very hard fight. Not opposed to it. We just need a good game plan.

Can't be any harder than the 8+ years (or longer; that's just how long I've been involved) it took to get permitless carry passed, can it?

 

[littletommy]

I would not have expected that from K105 though. That's a country station.

Have you seen some of the modern country acts? Lots of soy bois and Instagram influencer type chicks. They sure don’t seem country to me.

 

[printcraft]

Well sure, the media would love to see a bunch of responsible gun owners get in trouble.

So... How many threads are we going to have even after July 1/22 with officer maxi, not being aware of the law change, tries to or actually arrests someone over it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What I referred to as an armed victim zones. Definitely on my radar for 2023

State-wise, what are those now? State capital building, schools, school buses, casinos, state fair...what else am I missing? School carry will be one huge hill to climb. That will probably be more difficult than getting constitutional carry passed...much more...and with more bipartisan resistance. Casinos? maybe. State fair? I don't know...

 

[Random_71]

So... How many threads are we going to have even after July 1/22 with officer maxi, not being aware of the law change, tries to or actually arrests someone over it?

Too many.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

So... How many threads are we going to have even after July 1/22 with officer maxi, not being aware of the law change, tries to or actually arrests someone over it?

I volunteer to be his test case. We'll see.

 

[Jeepster48439]

Can't be any harder than the 8+ years (or longer; that's just how long I've been involved) it took to get permitless carry passed, can it?

State-wise, what are those now? State capital building, schools, school buses, casinos, state fair...what else am I missing? School carry will be one huge hill to climb. That will probably be more difficult than getting constitutional carry passed...much more...and with more bipartisan resistance. Casinos? maybe. State fair? I don't know...

GFGT and I have the same thought regarding school zones.

It will take a well thought out approach.

 

[mmpsteve]

So... How many threads are we going to have even after July 1/22 with officer maxi, not being aware of the law change, tries to or actually arrests someone over it?

I don't believe lack of awareness will be the problem. Proper interpretation and implementation could certainly be a thing. Brings to mind the stories of LEO asking for and receiving a LTCH holder's sidearm for the safety of both parties during an otherwise unrelated interaction. Is that a legal necessity to hand over your sidearm in that situation? Just curious, not that I'd have the balls to refuse such a request, necessarily.

.

 

[KellyinAvon]

State-wise, what are those now? State capital building, schools, school buses, casinos, state fair...what else am I missing? School carry will be one huge hill to climb. That will probably be more difficult than getting constitutional carry passed...much more...and with more bipartisan resistance. Casinos? maybe. State fair? I don't know...

State Fair seems like a winnable one. Firearms training for teachers has come up before, crony capitalism killed it twice.

State Capitol… that could be a fun one.

 

[JEBland]

Specifically this is in response to an Indiana Court of Appeals case from 2002 IIRC. It would not apply to castle doctrine situations or other use of deadly force is authorized situation is currently on the books.

In a use of force, that does not rise to deadly force, currently pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony, because two judges decided the inference of the possibility of deadly force equal deadly force.

Another way to look at it is it applies to defending your business in a riot situation. In Indiana, what we refer to as rooftop Koreans would be committing felonies.

This was talk to text so I’m not sure how garbled it is.

The talk to text worked well.

That's absurd. So, they would rather the Rooftop Korean shoot the rioters?

I'm a little confused on what such a law would look like. My understanding of the American system of law is that laws prevent (dangerous) actions, not permit actions. Would such a law just seek to make definitions in the code?

 

[KellyinAvon]

While it is a laudable goal, it will probably be a very hard fight. Not opposed to it. We just need a good game plan.

Roger that! I think we have a good start with the State Fair, there was a ruling on the status of the State Fair board

 

[looper]

I don't know if it was mentioned but the 'mom's' that camped out at Holcombs office yesterday refused to leave at 5pm when asked. Police responded to arrest only to let them go when they promised to leave the building.

 

[JEBland]

Police responded to arrest only to let them go when they promised to leave the building.

This is relatively standard right? The police show up and tell them leave or get arrested. Of course, if they refused and got arrested, we'd never hear the end of the

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. It’s about what you think it will be—conflating gun purchases with carrying….

Editorial: Permitless carry? Indiana’s guns are already a big problem for Chicago.

Discuss Chicago’s gun problem with law enforcement professionals or any other smart person devoted to keeping the flow of lethal weapons off this city’s streets, and you’ll invari…

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[KellyinAvon]

The talk to text worked well.

That's absurd. So, they would rather the Rooftop Korean shoot the rioters?

I'm a little confused on what such a law would look like. My understanding of the American system of law is that laws prevent (dangerous) actions, not permit actions. Would such a law just seek to make definitions in the code?

It was SB 199 last year and SB 214 this year. MAYBE 4 and a half pages of text, that was it. In my testimony (last year, they went wonky with Tuesday hearings in that committee this year and I couldn't make the one following a holiday) I opened with, "I've read this bill several times. That's not bragging, it's a very short bill."

 

[JEBland]

It was SB 199 last year and SB 214 this year. MAYBE 4 and a half pages of text, that was it. In my testimony (last year, they went wonky with Tuesday hearings in that committee this year and I couldn't make the one following a holiday) I opened with, "I've read this bill several times. That's not bragging, it's a very short bill."

Ah. Excellent. Thanks. Also, nice joke.

@KellyinAvon Was this killed in committee without a hearing andcomittee vote? http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022/bills/senate/143#

 

[MCgrease08]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. It’s about what you think it will be—conflating gun purchases with carrying….

Editorial: Permitless carry? Indiana’s guns are already a big problem for Chicago.

Discuss Chicago’s gun problem with law enforcement professionals or any other smart person devoted to keeping the flow of lethal weapons off this city’s streets, and you’ll invari…

www.chicagotribune.com

I really wish I hadn't read that.

 

[jwamplerusa]

The talk to text worked well.

That's absurd. So, they would rather the Rooftop Korean shoot the rioters?

I'm a little confused on what such a law would look like. My understanding of the American system of law is that laws prevent (dangerous) actions, not permit actions. Would such a law just seek to make definitions in the code?

@JEBland

I pounded on my Representative (Schaibley) pretty hard regarding SB 143. Mostly as a result of her position on the Courts and Criminal Code committee in the House. It didn't do any good.

One of my last pieces of correspondence was this, and I think it describes the situation well and provides an example.

"Representative Schaibley,​

​

It is my expectation that your position on the Courts and Criminal Code committee in the Indiana State Legislature affords you influence as to the docket content. I truly expect you to press for SB143 to receive a hearing and to be voted upon!​

​

Why should I support you, or the other candidates of the Indiana State Republican Party when there is a refusal to act on such a basic piece of legislation with nothing but positive potential?​

​

It is Monday February 21st, and I see that SB 143, Self Defense is still not listed for public comment and a vote in the Courts and Criminal Code Committee. SB 143 was authored by Senators Doriot, Baldwin, Michael Young, and co-authored by Senators Garten, Koch, Bohacek, Freeman, Sandlin, Busch, Crane, and Tomes and deserves a vote.​

​

SB 143 corrects a longstanding problem that resulted from an Indiana Appeals Court decision.​

​

This bill does not change when reasonable use of force includes deadly force. Likewise, SB 143 does not make it legal to point a firearm at someone without the imminent threat of unlawful force. What SB 143 does do is accurately define deadly force.​

​

Over 20 years ago, the Indiana Appeals Court ruled in Nantz v State that the act of pointing a firearm was deadly force. Inference and possibility (the basis of the Nantz decision) are not the same as deadly force by any stretch of the imagination. SB 143 simply specifies that pointing a firearm is reasonable force in a self-defense or arrest situation, correcting over 20 years of judicial overreach.​

​

Please do not be swayed by those in law enforcement or prosecution who try to tell you they need the chargeable offense. That is the mentality of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria a one time Marshal of the Soviet Union and state security administrator, who once said "You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime.". Pointing a firearm at or near someone as a defensive measure should NOT be a crime. I would also like to remind you there is a fairly locally famous picture of a "protestor" with a drawn pistol impeding lawful citizens upon the public roads. IMPD nor the Marion County Prosecutor utilized the charge of "pointing a firearm" to charge the individual, evidence they are NOT committed to applying the standard of the law universally to this State's citizens.​

​

​

The above occurred in Indianapolis. The persons pointing the firearms while unlawfully blocking traffic and intimidating lawful motorist were not arrested or prosecuted. The individuals were known to IMPD. If Prosecutor Mears is unwilling to prosecute the above offensive and clearly aggressively unlawful use of a firearm, he has no standing to state that he "needs" the current statue and precedence to stand as is, to perform more prosecutorial abuse to pack on charges.​

​

It has now been reasonably well established that most defensive uses of firearms do not necessarily result in discharge of the weapon. Under Indiana's current judicial precedence and Indiana law, each non-discharge defensive use of a firearm carries a potential criminal charge. This is simply wrong and needs to be corrected by "the peoples house", the Indiana Legislature.​

​

I think most Hoosiers would agree that defensive use of a firearm, without resorting to discharge of the weapon is a good thing, and NOT worthy of punishment by the State. ​

​

SB 143 is a very short bill, changing very little in current Indiana Code. Better defining reasonable force will be of great help to Hoosiers in self-defense situations, and afterwards. I’m sure I can count on your support with this important legislation.​

​

Thank you,"​