2022 Legislative Session Thread

[Jaybird1980]

I know it's not 2a related, but I think the next push should be term limits for all state officials. That's including ISP Superintendent position.

 

[JEBland]

@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.​

​

View attachment 189969​

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,"​

Nicely written letter. Thanks.

I know it's not 2a related, but I think the next push should be term limits for all state officials. That's including ISP Superintendent position.

In terms of years? Number of elections? ISP SI by governors?
Can people return after a time off?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Nicely written letter. Thanks.



In terms of years? Number of elections? ISP SI by governors?
Can people return after a time off?

I say 8 years for all elected officials in Indiana and also for the SI of the State Police. I also don't think the Governor should be able to run again after setting out one term.

In reality I would like to see term limits for all elected officials, but for this discussion I will keep it to Indiana.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I know it's not 2a related, but I think the next push should be term limits for all state officials. That's including ISP Superintendent position.

I have been pressing my Representative to make ALL law enforcement head positions elected. Keep in mind Sheriffs are term limited in Indiana (two consecutive terms). Head Prosecutors are elected, and need term limited, and all but the Supreme Court Justices in the Courts need to be term limited.

The linkage between those who enforce the law, and the Executive head of a governmental organization needs to be severed, permanently. I am convinced Indianapolis would not have been looted and burned if the IMPD Police Chief was an elected and term limited position. An elected Chief would have told Hogs*** to go pound sand and protected his city. In my town, I don't think we would have experienced the shenanigans with an SRO if the Chief had been elected either.

If you look around this Nation, I believe it is reasonably clear there is a differentiation in behavior between Constitutional Sheriffs (as we have in Indiana) and non-elected (appointed) law enforcement organization heads. It appears to me that it is almost always the Sheriff which comes to the defense of the Second Amendment, only rarely do the local Police Chiefs provide significant support and protection of the Right to arms for the individual citizen.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I have been pressing my Representative to make ALL law enforcement head positions elected. Keep in mind Sheriffs are term limited in Indiana (two consecutive terms). Head Prosecutors are elected, and need term limited, and all but the Supreme Court Justices in the Courts need to be term limited.

The linkage between those who enforce the law, and the Executive head of a governmental organization needs to be severed, permanently. I am convinced Indianapolis would not have been looted and burned if the IMPD Police Chief was an elected and term limited position. An elected Chief would have told Hogs*** to go pound sand and protected his city. In my town, I don't think we would have experienced the shenanigans with an SRO if the Chief had been elected either.

If you look around this Nation, I believe it is reasonably clear there is a differentiation in behavior between Constitutional Sheriffs (as we have in Indiana) and non-elected (appointed) law enforcement organization heads. It appears to me that it is almost always the Sheriff which comes to the defense of the Second Amendment, only rarely do the local Police Chiefs provide significant support and protection of the Right to arms for the individual citizen.

I think all elected officials period need term limits and I do agree all LE head positions should be elected.

This nonsense of Senators serving 40 and 50 years is absurd. Term limits are badly needed.

 

[tbhausen]

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

You guys are on your own on the state fair. Since they ruined the race track, I’m not going to lift a finger to help them do anything. Especially something that’ll get them more business.

Edit: if allowing carry there would decrease their business, maybe I should get involved

 

[mlang2000]

So will there be any befit to having a lifetime LTCH in my wallet after July 1st or will it be worthless?

 

[tbhausen]

So will there be any befit to having a lifetime LTCH in my wallet after July 1st or will it be worthless?

Of course there will… Reciprocity with other states.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So will there be any befit to having a lifetime LTCH in my wallet after July 1st or will it be worthless?

If you want reciprocity with other states when you travel, yes.

 

[gregr]

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

If they`re media, they`re suspect.

 

[KellyinAvon]

So will there be any befit to having a lifetime LTCH in my wallet after July 1st or will it be worthless?

22.4% of Indiana adult have a LTCH, many advertising in the classies want to see the DL and LTCH.

Driving ACROSS Illinois, not getting out of the car with a holstered handgun? Need a LTCH. Go south or east and you are good (very soon for east) but north requires a LTCH.

 

[actaeon277]

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

Wouldn't it be "victim disarmament zone"?

 

[looper]

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

They really are on the same team it seems, so no consequences but still good to humiliate them a little

 

[BigRed]

I don't know if it was mentioned but the 'mom's' hat 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.

They are evil and self consumed.

What else would one expect?

 

[JEBland]

They really are on the same team it seems, so no consequences but still good to humiliate them a little

I don't want to give them the martyrdom, to be honest.

I do hope we all get treated the same under the law. Seemed like trespassing, cops came, they were told to git, then they got.

 

[BigRed]

I am sure some of the husbands were hoping they would be arrested.

We all know when they got home that night their fat psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wouldn't it be "victim disarmament zone"?

 

[cbhausen]

I am sure some of the husbands were hoping they would be arrested.

We all know when they got home that night their fat psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives.

+1 for the Pink Floyd reference.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Just checked the streets: that's rainwater, not blood running tonight.

 

[Hawkeye]

I have been pressing my Representative to make ALL law enforcement head positions elected. Keep in mind Sheriffs are term limited in Indiana (two consecutive terms). Head Prosecutors are elected, and need term limited, and all but the Supreme Court Justices in the Courts need to be term limited.

The linkage between those who enforce the law, and the Executive head of a governmental organization needs to be severed, permanently. I am convinced Indianapolis would not have been looted and burned if the IMPD Police Chief was an elected and term limited position. An elected Chief would have told Hogs*** to go pound sand and protected his city. In my town, I don't think we would have experienced the shenanigans with an SRO if the Chief had been elected either.

If you look around this Nation, I believe it is reasonably clear there is a differentiation in behavior between Constitutional Sheriffs (as we have in Indiana) and non-elected (appointed) law enforcement organization heads. It appears to me that it is almost always the Sheriff which comes to the defense of the Second Amendment, only rarely do the local Police Chiefs provide significant support and protection of the Right to arms for the individual citizen.

St Joe Sheriff and SB Police Chief are both anti 2A. WSBT news has had interviews with both of them decrying the new law. Its a shame as they get an unfettered opportunity to spread lies.