HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Bill of Rights]

...There is another point but I'll wait to make it after this is passed and final.

Two weeks ago, I said the above. Someone else mentioned it and the discussion went nowhere, thankfully, but it is to this point that I referred:

Chapter 7. Possession of Firearms and Ammunition in Locked Vehicles
Sec. 1. This chapter applies only to possession of a firearm or ammunition by an individual who may possess the firearm or ammunition legally. This chapter does not apply to the possession of a firearm, ammunition, or other device for which an individual must possess a valid federal firearms license issued under 18 U.S.C. 923 to possess the firearm, ammunition, or other device.

The only firearms, ammo, or devices for which one must be licensed, AFAIK, would be dealer samples of fully automatic firearms produced after 1986.

I think they may have been trying to cover NFA firearms here, but failed to do so. Fortunately, this was not caught, and now we'll have a year to show that no harm came of that typographical error; that is, having a suppressor is no more dangerous than having a pistol. I think this is a very good thing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Heh, I click over to it, and the most recent comment I see is from (presumably) our very own Bill_of_rights

You tell 'em, Bill!

 

[HICKMAN]

heh, they must have felt good sending out that email.

Even though they didn't understand I was asking him to change the bill to not include the pharm companies.

 

[pig957]

Just received the following e mail from the Governor's office;

"House Bill 1065, various provisions concerning firearms, passed the Indiana General Assembly and was signed by Governor Daniels. This bill will go into effect on July 1, 2010. "

 

[glockpatriot]

HOOO-AAHH!!!!!! July 1 2010!

 

[indianajoe]

Good comments following the Indystar.com article from Bill of Rights. For the most part, it seemed to me that comments from gun owners seemed calm and rational. The comments from the other side of the issue, however, seem a bit unhinged at points (one reader suggesting that physical harm should come to the governor).

I also appreciate the emergency powers component of this law. Last, I'm curious what the governor was referring to with his appended comment that "The law does contain ambiguities that the General Assembly may wish to refine at some future date...." I'd like to think that "ambiguities" referred to the exemptions granted to some businesses, which I'm sure leaves a fair number of members here about where they started.

 

[mk2ja]

They're going to talk about this on the news tonight in Terre Haute (WTWO is what I'm watching). The reporter said, "most Hoosiers will soon be able to take their guns to work. More later."

Sigh... yes, most Hoosiers are legally allowed to obtain an LTCH. And yes, LTCH holders will be allowed to keep their guns *in their locked cars* while at work. So I guess technically the guy is correct, but boy, leave it to the media to really paint it in a scary light.

 

[MTC]

... leave it to the media to really paint it in a scary light.

Especially if it has anything to do with guns or gun rights, they can nearly always be counted on for sensationalism and misrepresentation. In this case, it was easy enough through the deliberate misuse of prepositions, combined with their penchant for catch phrases.

"Guns locked in vehicles" becomes "Guns ____ vehicles ____ workplace" becomes "Guns ____ workplace" becomes "Bring your gun to work" becomes...

"Guns in the workplace!" "OMG! Run for your lives!!!"

 

[BloodEclipse]

Great news indeed!