NRA Constitutional Carry Update

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't today the final day to sign? It's been 7 days "High Tax Holcomb"...get to business and sign for the sake of your political future!!! Let it set and pass and we all remember when it's time to go vote!

No, today is not the final day.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As I wait for video conference, see if my flow chart helps:

Bill=>Enrolled Act=>chop by Speaker of the House=>chop by President of Senate=>Attorney General review=>Presented to Gov.

I remind INGO that this flow chart can take time. If you are nervous, call/e-mail/write Gov. Holcomb.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Isn't today the final day to sign? It's been 7 days "High Tax Holcomb"...get to business and sign for the sake of your political future!!! Let it set and pass and we all remember when it's time to go vote!

Watch this page. Assuming it’s reasonably timely, once you see the bill hit here, the clock starts. (I’m thinking).

2022 Bill Watch

www.in.gov

 

[Colts Ironman]

Watch this page. Assuming it’s reasonably timely, once you see the bill hit here, the clock starts. (I’m thinking).

2022 Bill Watch

www.in.gov

Thanks! Good info!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I wait for video conference, see if my flow chart helps:

Bill=>Enrolled Act=>chop by Speaker of the House=>chop by President of Senate=>Attorney General review=>Presented to Gov.

Looks like “signed by President of Senate” is complete now.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Governor, you’ve got some paperwork to do today. Let’s get on it, ok?

 

[BigRed]

You can email derilict doldrum here:

Contact Eric Holcomb | Email, Address & Office Phone Number

Contact Eric Holcomb via email, physical address, government & campaign websites, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram or call his office phone number

governmenty.com

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Looks like “signed by President of Senate” is complete now.

It is on Gov. Holcomb's desk and the clock is now running! Call/e-mail today, blah, blah, blah.

 

[raptrbreth]

For those in State Senate District 28, what follows is the response from Michael Crider on why he voted nay. "
Aaron,



Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on the 2022 permit-less carry bill. I had hopes that the bill could have been amended to create a more efficient communications process between the courts system and law enforcement agencies to help alleviate the concerns they expressed related to the lack of information they could experience during an interaction with a citizen if/when the mandatory permitting system goes away. As the bill moved from committee, it had changed in an attempt to create a more efficient permitting system instead. Normally the next step in the legislative process would be a second reading, where any legislator could attempt to amend it. In this case, however, leadership decided the amendment was too large, creating what is called a "strip and insert" which violated Senate rules. The bill was sent to the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure (on which I serve) for consideration.

Leadership decided that the original language that passed out of the House of Representatives would be reinserted into another Senate bill by using "strip and insert", and so a bill regarding drug schedules became a gun bill with this change. Subsequent to that, it was decided that a different House Bill, regarding insurance, would be stripped and the language of HB 1077 would be inserted into it. We now have a permit-less carry issue that has been "stripped and inserted" three times, of which one is not according to the Senate rules.

Myself and three other Republican members of the Rules Committee expressed concerns about the process as this makes it nearly impossible for people concerned about the bill either way to know what is happening. In my 10 years of serving, I have never seen this happen before. One of the members that shared my concerns didn’t show up and one voted against the bill in committee, only to be taken in a separate room and have her mind changed. I reluctantly helped vote the bill out of committee, but I was and still am upset about the process. In fact, if you look at the list of Republican senators that voted against the bill, you will see that Senator Bassler, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Glick and myself are all members of the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

In addition to the mess of a process, I spent 30 years in law enforcement, and as I spoke to law enforcement leaders and affiliated advocates, their message was the same. This bill could create more danger for the officers they represent. Based on these concerns and the process the bill took, my vote for the new/old House bill was no. I realized at the time that this vote would be viewed in a way that would cost me votes in a future election and I understand that. I have always done my work with integrity and let the chips fall where they may. This is no exception.

Thank you again for reaching out to me. Please always feel welcome to do so in the future.


Take care,

Mike"

 

[tbhausen]

That is certainly a reasonable and thoughtful response. My reply might be something along these lines, though:

“Not passing this bill could create more danger for the citizens you represent”.

 

[BigRed]

For those in State Senate District 28, what follows is the response from Michael Crider on why he voted nay. "
Aaron,



Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on the 2022 permit-less carry bill. I had hopes that the bill could have been amended to create a more efficient communications process between the courts system and law enforcement agencies to help alleviate the concerns they expressed related to the lack of information they could experience during an interaction with a citizen if/when the mandatory permitting system goes away. As the bill moved from committee, it had changed in an attempt to create a more efficient permitting system instead. Normally the next step in the legislative process would be a second reading, where any legislator could attempt to amend it. In this case, however, leadership decided the amendment was too large, creating what is called a "strip and insert" which violated Senate rules. The bill was sent to the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure (on which I serve) for consideration.

Leadership decided that the original language that passed out of the House of Representatives would be reinserted into another Senate bill by using "strip and insert", and so a bill regarding drug schedules became a gun bill with this change. Subsequent to that, it was decided that a different House Bill, regarding insurance, would be stripped and the language of HB 1077 would be inserted into it. We now have a permit-less carry issue that has been "stripped and inserted" three times, of which one is not according to the Senate rules.

Myself and three other Republican members of the Rules Committee expressed concerns about the process as this makes it nearly impossible for people concerned about the bill either way to know what is happening. In my 10 years of serving, I have never seen this happen before. One of the members that shared my concerns didn’t show up and one voted against the bill in committee, only to be taken in a separate room and have her mind changed. I reluctantly helped vote the bill out of committee, but I was and still am upset about the process. In fact, if you look at the list of Republican senators that voted against the bill, you will see that Senator Bassler, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Glick and myself are all members of the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

In addition to the mess of a process, I spent 30 years in law enforcement, and as I spoke to law enforcement leaders and affiliated advocates, their message was the same. This bill could create more danger for the officers they represent. Based on these concerns and the process the bill took, my vote for the new/old House bill was no. I realized at the time that this vote would be viewed in a way that would cost me votes in a future election and I understand that. I have always done my work with integrity and let the chips fall where they may. This is no exception.

Thank you again for reaching out to me. Please always feel welcome to do so in the future.


Take care,

Mike"

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-Jefferson

 

[manifest destiny]

For those in State Senate District 28, what follows is the response from Michael Crider on why he voted nay. "
Aaron,



Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on the 2022 permit-less carry bill. I had hopes that the bill could have been amended to create a more efficient communications process between the courts system and law enforcement agencies to help alleviate the concerns they expressed related to the lack of information they could experience during an interaction with a citizen if/when the mandatory permitting system goes away. As the bill moved from committee, it had changed in an attempt to create a more efficient permitting system instead. Normally the next step in the legislative process would be a second reading, where any legislator could attempt to amend it. In this case, however, leadership decided the amendment was too large, creating what is called a "strip and insert" which violated Senate rules. The bill was sent to the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure (on which I serve) for consideration.

Leadership decided that the original language that passed out of the House of Representatives would be reinserted into another Senate bill by using "strip and insert", and so a bill regarding drug schedules became a gun bill with this change. Subsequent to that, it was decided that a different House Bill, regarding insurance, would be stripped and the language of HB 1077 would be inserted into it. We now have a permit-less carry issue that has been "stripped and inserted" three times, of which one is not according to the Senate rules.

Myself and three other Republican members of the Rules Committee expressed concerns about the process as this makes it nearly impossible for people concerned about the bill either way to know what is happening. In my 10 years of serving, I have never seen this happen before. One of the members that shared my concerns didn’t show up and one voted against the bill in committee, only to be taken in a separate room and have her mind changed. I reluctantly helped vote the bill out of committee, but I was and still am upset about the process. In fact, if you look at the list of Republican senators that voted against the bill, you will see that Senator Bassler, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Glick and myself are all members of the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

In addition to the mess of a process, I spent 30 years in law enforcement, and as I spoke to law enforcement leaders and affiliated advocates, their message was the same. This bill could create more danger for the officers they represent. Based on these concerns and the process the bill took, my vote for the new/old House bill was no. I realized at the time that this vote would be viewed in a way that would cost me votes in a future election and I understand that. I have always done my work with integrity and let the chips fall where they may. This is no exception.

Thank you again for reaching out to me. Please always feel welcome to do so in the future.


Take care,

Mike"

He's right about the process. It's beyond absurd to vote on a bill about "bridge construction" that contains text addressing "allowed dimensions for portable toilets", as an example. One has nothing to do with the other. Amendments should be relatable to the subject matter of the bill. As to the claims of increased danger to police, I don't see the connection.

 

[tbhausen]

This kind of reminds me of the 1979 Indianapolis 500, when cheating was so rampant they allowed extra cars to qualify, fully knowing they would employ the same cheat others had already used to make the starting field. All playing by the rules was going to do was get your car put back on the trailer. When it came to getting this legislation to the Governor, we had to do what we had to do (and what others did to try to keep it from getting to the Governor). I personally offer no apologies from our side. The process does need to be changed, though.

 

[bwframe]

Will a no-permit carry law mean more crime? A national organization says no

A law that would no longer require a permit to carry a gun could soon become official in both Indiana and Ohio.

www.wane.com

 

[wtburnette]

Will a no-permit carry law mean more crime? A national organization says no

A law that would no longer require a permit to carry a gun could soon become official in both Indiana and Ohio.

www.wane.com

Too bad those darn Lefties can't be FACTS...

 

[raptrbreth]

Will a no-permit carry law mean more crime? A national organization says no

A law that would no longer require a permit to carry a gun could soon become official in both Indiana and Ohio.

www.wane.com

So I was wrong the other day in stating that media only reference Bloomberg and Giffords. Nice to see media actually asking people who actually know what they are talking about instead of emotional critters.

 

[chipbennett]

For those in State Senate District 28, what follows is the response from Michael Crider on why he voted nay. "
Aaron,



Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on the 2022 permit-less carry bill. I had hopes that the bill could have been amended to create a more efficient communications process between the courts system and law enforcement agencies to help alleviate the concerns they expressed related to the lack of information they could experience during an interaction with a citizen if/when the mandatory permitting system goes away. As the bill moved from committee, it had changed in an attempt to create a more efficient permitting system instead. Normally the next step in the legislative process would be a second reading, where any legislator could attempt to amend it. In this case, however, leadership decided the amendment was too large, creating what is called a "strip and insert" which violated Senate rules. The bill was sent to the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure (on which I serve) for consideration.

Leadership decided that the original language that passed out of the House of Representatives would be reinserted into another Senate bill by using "strip and insert", and so a bill regarding drug schedules became a gun bill with this change. Subsequent to that, it was decided that a different House Bill, regarding insurance, would be stripped and the language of HB 1077 would be inserted into it. We now have a permit-less carry issue that has been "stripped and inserted" three times, of which one is not according to the Senate rules.

Myself and three other Republican members of the Rules Committee expressed concerns about the process as this makes it nearly impossible for people concerned about the bill either way to know what is happening. In my 10 years of serving, I have never seen this happen before. One of the members that shared my concerns didn’t show up and one voted against the bill in committee, only to be taken in a separate room and have her mind changed. I reluctantly helped vote the bill out of committee, but I was and still am upset about the process. In fact, if you look at the list of Republican senators that voted against the bill, you will see that Senator Bassler, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Glick and myself are all members of the Senate committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

Why restore improperly infringed rights of Hoosiers, when Senate Rules are on the line?!? We must respect the process!

In addition to the mess of a process, I spent 30 years in law enforcement, and as I spoke to law enforcement leaders and affiliated advocates, their message was the same. This bill could create more danger for the officers they represent. Based on these concerns and the process the bill took, my vote for the new/old House bill was no. I realized at the time that this vote would be viewed in a way that would cost me votes in a future election and I understand that. I have always done my work with integrity and let the chips fall where they may. This is no exception.

Bovine excrement. Permitless carry does no such thing, especially in a post-Pinner world. With or without a permit requirement, dangerous people who desire to carry/use a firearm to cause harm will do so. Officers should act on the lawful/unlawful actions of the people with whom they interact. If someone is committing a crime, the person should be assumed to be dangerous. If someone is committing a felony, then by definition, that person is not a lawful possessor of a firearm. No LTCH database/communication is needed.

 

[wtburnette]

Bovine excrement. Permitless carry does no such thing, especially in a post-Pinner world. With or without a permit requirement, dangerous people who desire to carry/use a firearm to cause harm will do so. Officers should act on the lawful/unlawful actions of the people with whom they interact. If someone is committing a crime, the person should be assumed to be dangerous. If someone is committing a felony, then by definition, that person is not a lawful possessor of a firearm. No LTCH database/communication is needed.

Exactly. There is no real change from a law enforcement perspective. The garbage they're spewing is nothing but

This link had some nice information around this issue:

Concealed Carry Facts and Fiction | Gun Facts and Fiction | USCCA

The USCCA has compiled the top myths about concealed carry permit holders and sorted out the fact from the fiction. Our goal is to provide sound and objective information.

www.usconcealedcarry.com

 

[Gabriel]

Bovine excrement. Permitless carry does no such thing, especially in a post-Pinner world. With or without a permit requirement, dangerous people who desire to carry/use a firearm to cause harm will do so. Officers should act on the lawful/unlawful actions of the people with whom they interact. If someone is committing a crime, the person should be assumed to be dangerous. If someone is committing a felony, then by definition, that person is not a lawful possessor of a firearm. No LTCH database/communication is needed.

You're preaching to the choir. I've been getting the same "this law will make it more dangerous for police" crap from my coworkers and other local LE and it's a bunch of horse ****.

I sat in a class with our local prosecutor yesterday listening to his take on it, which is the same BS. I mostly bit my tongue other than telling him he was wrong. I didn't need to get into a long pointless argument with him.

 

[Expat]

I went to the governor's website and sent my request for him to sign it. I had previously used the NRA site to send an email. But after reading that the legislature has filters in place to limit the number of emails that are received from the same place, I wondered if that would apply to the Governor as well.