HB 1369 constitutional carry bill introduced for Indiana

[BigRed]

Maybe we should write to Senile Joe suggesting an Executive Order banning evil?

It would be about as useful as anything else the SOB has ever done.

 

[d.kaufman]

It would be about as useful as anything else the SOB has ever done.

Sad but true

 

[jwamplerusa]

I'm still looking for the one restriction upon the natural rights documented in the second amendment to the constitution of the united States that prevented evil.

Stop, you're just going to get tired. There are none.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Is your daughter a felon? Or under age? If not what is the problem? Do you not want her to be able to provide for her own protection?

If she was a felon she'd carry a gun.

 

[chipbennett]

Her question was valid as she is very involved in the laws of our state. It is over my head as I don’t make the laws but have seen some pretty stupid ones get passed under the blanket of righteousness.

What, exactly, makes the question valid? That she asked it does not make it valid. That argument is, essentially, tautology.

HB 1369 removes existing state law regarding hindrances to the exercise of a natural, constitutionally protected right. It does not create new law or new hindrances/restrictions.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As many times as Kirk has taught me this lesson, it better be that way or I will petition to revoke his license to practice!

Which Prosecutor's office do you work for now?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Now I know why there are so many closet atheists in politics. If they can prove we have no Creator, we have no rights!

Da, chitay moi knigee, tovarish. (Yes, read my books, comrade)

 

[2A_Tom]

Are you bucking for a trip to the Aleutian Archipelago, Kirk?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Are you bucking for a trip to the Aleutian Archipelago, Kirk?

If I am lucky.

 

[2A_Tom]

Mass graves and political executions, maybe?

 

[Trapper Jim]

What, exactly, makes the question valid? That she asked it does not make it valid. That argument is, essentially, tautology.

HB 1369 removes existing state law regarding hindrances to the exercise of a natural, constitutionally protected right. It does not create new law or new hindrances/restrictions.

I hope this is the case but bills that become law have had unintended circumstances before. I remember the first bill forbiding gun rights to spouse beaters. Had to be fixed fast as many LEO were out of a job that July. Not sure if I am remembering this correctly but I am sure some one can chime in it?

Sometimes when you turn the nut too tight the bolt breaks....

 

[chipbennett]

I hope this is the case but bills that become law have had unintended circumstances before. I remember the first bill forbiding gun rights to spouse beaters. Had to be fixed fast as many LEO were out of a job that July. Not sure if I am remembering this correctly but I am sure some one can chime in it?

Sometimes when you turn the nut too tight the bolt breaks....

Again, I fail to see this as a problem, even if it was an unintended consequence? Why should police who are domestic abusers be exempted?

 

[2A_Tom]

I hope this is the case but bills that become law have had unintended circumstances before. I remember the first bill forbiding gun rights to spouse beaters. Had to be fixed fast as many LEO were out of a job that July. Not sure if I am remembering this correctly but I am sure some one can chime in it?

Sometimes when you turn the nut too tight the bolt breaks....

Again, I fail to see this as a problem, even if it was an unintended consequence? Why should police who are domestic abusers be exempted?

And, how does allowing proper persons to exercise their rights affect anyone adversely. Criminals gonna criminal.

As Kirk would say don't forget pinner.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And, how does allowing proper persons to exercise their rights affect anyone adversely. Criminals gonna criminal.

As Kirk would say don't forget pinner.

Even time you guys say Pinner, I see the inside of a bathroom, the Special Prosecutor's Office, an office in the Judicial Commission and a Court of Appeals decision in that order.

 

[2A_Tom]

Even time you guys say Pinner, I see the inside of a bathroom, the Special Prosecutor's Office, an office in the Judicial Commission and a Court of Appeals decision in that order.

A bit better than the gulag, though.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not on the same page as you; I see the question as a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits, but what are the costs? Simply as a thought experiment, I'm curious.

I just scoped out this South Bend Tribune article on the news from yesterday. Here's some negatives they discussed in the article:






And so as to make my stance on the matter crystal clear: I am not arguing against HB 1369 and am 100% in favor of it.

I see where Chip is coming from and I also see an honest question asked. I probably would have asked the attorney, “what kind of unintended consequences are you imagining?”

Once he defines where he’s coming from, as Chip said, the answers are known. At worst, you get to ask him, “of the almost-40% of states having passed Con Carry, which have had this problem occur?”

Lots of things *can* happen, I think we need to define which ones a reasonable prudent person would think likely. ;-)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I’m of two minds here: Make no mistake, I get that people have rights that must be respected.

I also see people whose mentation scares me. I hear things some say that make clear that armed, these people would be dangers to themselves and/or others.
Obviously, a little rectangle of pink plastic is not going to stop some people, I get that.

When I still worked on the ambulance, I often saw in nursing homes a bit of netting stretched across some doorways. It was flimsy and would not stop even a 2 yr old, but it apparently gave the senior in that room pause and kept them from wandering. A determined nut is not going to be dissuaded from doing violence by a law or a pink plastic card; I wonder if a not so determined person might be.
Just thoughts, and for the record, yes I do support passage of 1369.

ETA: don’t take any of the above to mean I think these are reasons to ACT to remove peoples’ rights. What I’m saying is that I can see the concerns. Ultimately, the point is that rights trump concerns or feelings. If someone can show just cause for a right to be infringed, which IMHO should be the highest of bars to exceed, then “tell it to da judge”...who should dismiss such cases unless they show evidence of unlawful, harmful action. We don’t have a division of pre-crime, to my knowledge.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[wtburnette]

In other words, to me at least, everyone gets to exercise their right when desired. If someone does something that abuses that right, they face the consequences, such as being incarcerated and/or having that right stripped. That's how it should be instead of blanket denial of a right unless someone meets certain, special requirements to get that right recognized.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I contacted my Sheriff (Boone County) to query on his position on 1369. I was not surprised, but I was pleased, by his response.

From Sheriff Nielsen: "...
The second amendment was crucial to our forefathers and will be forever embedded in me since my childhood growing up in Iowa on a farm.

I testified in front of the authors and coauthors of HB1369. I am in favor of this bill as long as there continues to be language about an unfit person being able to purchase a firearm. I can explain in person why this is so important. I again testified for this bill where the Chief of Police of Lafayette and the State Police Alliance were against it. There was no foundation for their arguments and I spoke openly about that.

The Indiana Sheriff’s Association is staying neutral but I could not do so after hearing the Police Chief speak. ..."

I understand why, but at the same time if there are going to be term limits on Sheriffs the limits need to apply to all office holders. I will lose Sheriff Nielsen in 2022. I have hopes of again having a solid 2nd Amendment supporting candidate.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In one of my classes last week, a new to shooting student who is also an attorney asked if there may be unintended circumstances or in general what unforeseen negatives there may be to this new carry bill. I can’t think of any offhand but maybe someone could weigh in ??

Did anyone ask this student to provide examples of potential, unintended consequences?

I can see at least one, and it's the same one I brought up when a similar bill was introduced before. This could possibly remove lawful carry from any state that currently recognizes our LTCH. At least for anyone who doesn't currently have one and gets the new "reciprocity license" under this bill. Per the bill

"A resident of this 20 state who wishes to carry a firearm in another state under a 21 reciprocity agreement entered into by this state and another state 22 may obtain an Indiana reciprocity license under this chapter by 23 applying:"

The text of the bill states that the new "reciprocity license" is for carrying in another state under a reciprocity agreement entered into by this state and another. One major problem, Indiana does not have a single reciprocity agreement with any state, nor is there any method to enter into one. And there is no method in this bill to enter one. Leave the name alone and wipe that section and I see no problem. Heck I see no reason to change the name anyway.

Yes Kirk I know about your efforts to get Texas to recognize our LTCH, but the Governor of Texas Proclamation does not equal a reciprocity agreement.

I'm not on the same page as you; I see the question as a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits, but what are the costs? Simply as a thought experiment, I'm curious.

I just scoped out this South Bend Tribune article on the news from yesterday. Here's some negatives they discussed in the article:


And so as to make my stance on the matter crystal clear: I am not arguing against HB 1369 and am 100% in favor of it.

Except for the money aspect, which is moot. How does an LEO check if someone who is carrying a long gun, black powder revolver, or antique pistol for instance isn't a prohibited person? None of those require a LTCH.