U.S Indiana Senator Todd Young will be in Plainfield Tuesday June 28 and is interested in hearing from you.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    Todd Young is slimy.

    I asked what we got in the compromise, he said both the red flag law structure and mental health funding were wins for 2A. Basically calling an an ounce of prevention to avoid a pound of infringement.

    I asked why muzzle mufflers and 15" barrels were still on the NFA, why there's still a $200 tax stamp for NFA items. He said that they didn't discuss it because the 2A community aren't a special interest group.

    Two thumbs down.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    d0779c0e9f90fa85cc72ec8d12f13e16.jpg
    I see my leg and bald head in this picture...
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    Agreed. Do you think the restaurant owner said no videos... Sure- -yea-right... Unless Youngs people told him to say that so they would host it. That makes sense. A bit of quid-pro-quo... Sleaze balls are going to sleaze... Ol' Todd has a certain sheen about him.

    If he was a man of this convictions and word, he would have said, "sure- let them video, what are we afraid of?, we support our new gun control law and proud of it." Sleaze.

    I put Todd-sleaze-Young on the same list as Sleaze Holcomb who as we should never forget- tried to have his lacky Liz Brown kill their own legislation and then come out on how he supports the 2A rights of Hoosiers. Sleaze.
    Oh, Young is full-on politician. He knows how to say things to sound like they appease.
     

    cbhausen

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Feb 17, 2010
    6,379
    113
    Indianapolis, IN
    This is the guy who made me stop recording. And the same guy who began recording when Rob Kendall started grilling Senator Young about the Federal deficit. And yes, I called him on that. He said Rob was “trying to start something”.

    Cowards can’t take a little well-deserved heat from their constituents. Senator Young shows up 30 minutes late and only stays 45 minutes.

    I got audio of the whole thing and sent it to Rob.
     

    Attachments

    • image.jpg
      image.jpg
      266.8 KB · Views: 17

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    Todd Young is slimy.

    I asked what we got in the compromise, he said both the red flag law structure and mental health funding were wins for 2A. Basically calling an an ounce of prevention to avoid a pound of infringement.

    I asked why muzzle mufflers and 15" barrels were still on the NFA, why there's still a $200 tax stamp for NFA items. He said that they didn't discuss it because the 2A community aren't a special interest group.

    Two thumbs down.
    I finally got to ask him about my two, specific concerns with the Safer Communities Act - of course, in private, afterward, because there were too many people hogging the floor and enjoying the sounds of their own voices (looking at you, social worker lady).

    On the matter of more rigorous background checks for 18-20 year olds, Young claims that the only change is the introduction of certain juvenile records into NICS. (I need to verify.)

    On the matter of changing the "prohibited person" standard for domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged", he could not give me an answer, and asked me to follow up with him. (I will do so, with specific language from the bill - but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)
     

    Jaybird1980

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    11,929
    113
    North Central
    On the matter of changing the "prohibited person" standard for domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged", he could not give me an answer, and asked me to follow up with him. (I will do so, with specific language from the bill - but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)
    One would think, but I'm pretty sure you already know the answer.

    I would like to hear what comes from your follow up, as I have received zero response back and don't imagine I will.

    And also thank you for bringing that up.
     

    Refrigerator27

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Feb 18, 2022
    350
    43
    Noblesville
    I finally got to ask him about my two, specific concerns with the Safer Communities Act - of course, in private, afterward, because there were too many people hogging the floor and enjoying the sounds of their own voices (looking at you, social worker lady).

    On the matter of more rigorous background checks for 18-20 year olds, Young claims that the only change is the introduction of certain juvenile records into NICS. (I need to verify.)

    On the matter of changing the "prohibited person" standard for domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged", he could not give me an answer, and asked me to follow up with him. (I will do so, with specific language from the bill - but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)

    I would have asked him, according to Rand Paul, you guys were given the text to read 1 hour prior to voting. You voted yes for it without being able to read the complete text of the bill?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    Dear Mr. Smith,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding gun violence, mental health, and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

    As your Senator, I respect that Hoosiers have strong and diverse feelings on how to prevent violent crime while upholding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. I know we all share a common desire to prevent acts of gun violence, and I have deep empathy and sympathy for those affected by tragic shootings across our country. That’s why I have previously supported measures to increase school safety, improve mental health services, provide commonsense fixes to criminal background checks, and increase penalties for illegal possession of firearms.

    To address these significant challenges, on June 24, 2022, I voted to pass S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a bill supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups. The bill subsequently passed the House and was signed into law on June 25, 2022.

    As I reviewed this proposal, I consulted with law enforcement officials, gun owners, Second Amendment experts, educators, and mental health professionals. After careful consideration, I supported this targeted legislation because it takes prudent steps to address our mental health crisis and combat violent crime without compromising the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Hoosiers. Unless you have been convicted of a violent crime or adjudicated as mentally ill, your Second Amendment rights will not be affected in any way. It contains no new restrictions, bans, required waiting periods, or mandates for law-abiding citizens of any age.

    The centerpiece of this legislation is a major step to address our country’s mental health crisis, including the largest investment in community-based mental health care in our nation’s history. In addition to providing robust funding for federal mental health treatment and suicide prevention programs, this bill will also help states expand access to care by integrating telehealth services into their Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs. It will not be an overnight fix, but the investments made in mental health care by this bill will be transformational. Critically, this legislation will better ensure all children and teachers have the safe and welcoming environment they deserve by providing extensive resources for enhanced school safety, school hardening, and school-based mental health services, including through the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence program. This program was created by a bill I helped introduce in 2018 that was signed into law by then-President Trump.

    The legislation takes steps to keep firearms out of the hands of those adjudicated as mentally ill or with recent histories of criminal violence. It requires that certain juvenile records be included in a background check for prospective purchasers of firearms between the ages of 18 and 21 years old, while requiring that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), finalize this screening as quickly as possible. Additionally, the bill will address illicit gun sales by requiring highly active, unlicensed firearm dealers to register for a Federal Firearms License, and it creates a criminal penalty for those who knowingly purchase a firearm on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing one, also known as a straw purchase. For straw purchases supporting the activities of gangs, criminal cartels, and terrorists, the bill mandates longer sentences. This is an important and necessary step to reduce gun violence in America’s cities and on both sides of the U.S. border with Mexico.

    Additionally, S. 2938 makes a significant investment in crisis intervention programs, specifically $750 million over five years. Funds could be used by states to implement existing or new red flag laws, like Indiana’s Jake Laird Law, named after an Indianapolis police officer killed in the line of duty by a mentally ill person in 2004. Red flag laws provide law enforcement officers the authority to seize the firearms of a person who presents an imminent danger to themselves or others if a court agrees that sufficient evidence exists. These funds also will be available for states that choose to utilize other forms of crisis intervention, such as veterans’ courts, drug courts, mental health courts, or assistant outpatient treatment courts. For states that pursue a red flag law, this bill requires that they follow stringent due process protections to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. The bill does not mandate that states implement red flag laws, and it does not create a national red flag law.

    This legislation also addresses situations in which long-standing dating or intimate partners commit domestic violence against their partner and are charged with a misdemeanor. This bill would ensure that those convicted are unable to purchase or possess a firearm for at least five years, similar to current law treatment for spouses, parents or guardians, and individuals who live together. After five years, if the individual has not committed another violent crime, the individual’s rights are automatically restored. This legislation creates clear guidelines, which are actually narrower than what is currently state law in Indiana, for how judges classify these relationships.

    We do not have to choose between protecting Second Amendment rights and creating safer schools and communities by keeping guns away from those who might be a danger to themselves or others. We can and should do both. This legislation, supported by numerous law enforcement groups, will save lives without affecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.

    In addition to enacting S. 2938, we should continue to look for more ways to address school safety, improve mental health, and reduce violent crimes. I’ve sponsored or cosponsored bills to allow unused COVID relief funds to be used to harden schools, increase penalties for felons who illegally possess or use firearms, and address the shortage of mental health providers in schools.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

    Sincerely,

    Todd Young
    United States Senator


    My response from Senator Todd Young.
    Following up on this response email from Senator Young, and in particular, this paragraph:

    "This legislation also addresses situations in which long-standing dating or intimate partners commit domestic violence against their partner and are charged with a misdemeanor. This bill would ensure that those convicted are unable to purchase or possess a firearm for at least five years, similar to current law treatment for spouses, parents or guardians, and individuals who live together. After five years, if the individual has not committed another violent crime, the individual’s rights are automatically restored. This legislation creates clear guidelines, which are actually narrower than what is currently state law in Indiana, for how judges classify these relationships."

    I cannot find anything in the actual legislation that indicates mere charging, rather than conviction. Could this possibly be a case of a poorly worded description by Senator Young?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    I finally got to ask him about my two, specific concerns with the Safer Communities Act - of course, in private, afterward, because there were too many people hogging the floor and enjoying the sounds of their own voices (looking at you, social worker lady).

    On the matter of more rigorous background checks for 18-20 year olds, Young claims that the only change is the introduction of certain juvenile records into NICS. (I need to verify.)

    On the matter of changing the "prohibited person" standard for domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged", he could not give me an answer, and asked me to follow up with him. (I will do so, with specific language from the bill - but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)
    My email follow-up to Andrew Kossack:

    Andrew,

    Thank you again to Senator Young for his time today, and to you for providing your contact information for follow-up. As a reminder, I asked Senator Young about two, specific concerns I have with the Act:

    1. Creating more rigorous background checks for 18 - 20 year olds than are in place for those 21 and older, and,
    2. Changing the definition of "prohibited person" with respect to domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged"

    On the first concern, I reference the bill, Section 12001(a)(1)(C)(iii)(d), which appears to create a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", which is above the current, 3-day limit:

    "(iii) in the case of such a person with re-
    spect to whom the system notifies the licensee
    in accordance with clause (ii) that cause exists
    to further investigate a possibly disqualifying
    juvenile record under subsection (d), 10 busi-
    ness days (meaning a day on which State of-
    fices are open) have
    elapsed since the licensee
    contacted the system, and the system has not
    notified the licensee that..."

    Similarly, Section 12001(a)(2)(1):

    "REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO BACKGROUND
    CHECKS FOR PERSONS UNDER AGE 21"

    This section includes the juvenile records search that Senator Young mentioned. While I likely have no issue with certain juvenile records being included in a NICS search, why are they limited to those under 21? If the search is proper for a 20 year old, why is it not also proper for a 21 year old?

    This section also creates a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", again above the current, 3-day limit.

    On the second concern, I think the confusion stems from the response email Senator Young has sent to those inquiring about his support for the bill. Quoting from his response email:

    "This legislation also addresses situations in which long-standing dating or intimate partners commit domestic violence against their partner and are charged with a misdemeanor. This bill would ensure that those convicted are unable to purchase or possess a firearm for at least five years, similar to current law treatment for spouses, parents or guardians, and individuals who live together. After five years, if the individual has not committed another violent crime, the individual’s rights are automatically restored. This legislation creates clear guidelines, which are actually narrower than what is currently state law in Indiana, for how judges classify these relationships."

    The text of the bill does not appear to reflect charging, but rather only conviction. Is this simply the case of a poorly worded email, or is the Senator's description actually reflected in the bill, with respect to being "charged with a misdemeanor"?

    I also add a third concern, regarding Section 12002, that redefines a firearms dealer from "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominantly earn a profit", and clarified:

    "The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’
    means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition
    of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary
    gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or
    liquidating a personal firearms collection..."

    This definition is sufficiently vague as potentially to cover many hobbyists. It appears to be an attempt to close the non-existent "gun show loophole", and may greatly - and needlessly - restrict private firearms transfers.

    Again, I thank you for your time and consideration.

    Regards,
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    My email follow-up to Andrew Kossack:

    Andrew,

    Thank you again to Senator Young for his time today, and to you for providing your contact information for follow-up. As a reminder, I asked Senator Young about two, specific concerns I have with the Act:

    1. Creating more rigorous background checks for 18 - 20 year olds than are in place for those 21 and older, and,
    2. Changing the definition of "prohibited person" with respect to domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged"

    On the first concern, I reference the bill, Section 12001(a)(1)(C)(iii)(d), which appears to create a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", which is above the current, 3-day limit:

    "(iii) in the case of such a person with re-
    spect to whom the system notifies the licensee
    in accordance with clause (ii) that cause exists
    to further investigate a possibly disqualifying
    juvenile record under subsection (d), 10 busi-
    ness days (meaning a day on which State of-
    fices are open) have
    elapsed since the licensee
    contacted the system, and the system has not
    notified the licensee that..."

    Similarly, Section 12001(a)(2)(1):

    "REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO BACKGROUND
    CHECKS FOR PERSONS UNDER AGE 21"

    This section includes the juvenile records search that Senator Young mentioned. While I likely have no issue with certain juvenile records being included in a NICS search, why are they limited to those under 21? If the search is proper for a 20 year old, why is it not also proper for a 21 year old?

    This section also creates a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", again above the current, 3-day limit.

    On the second concern, I think the confusion stems from the response email Senator Young has sent to those inquiring about his support for the bill. Quoting from his response email:

    "This legislation also addresses situations in which long-standing dating or intimate partners commit domestic violence against their partner and are charged with a misdemeanor. This bill would ensure that those convicted are unable to purchase or possess a firearm for at least five years, similar to current law treatment for spouses, parents or guardians, and individuals who live together. After five years, if the individual has not committed another violent crime, the individual’s rights are automatically restored. This legislation creates clear guidelines, which are actually narrower than what is currently state law in Indiana, for how judges classify these relationships."

    The text of the bill does not appear to reflect charging, but rather only conviction. Is this simply the case of a poorly worded email, or is the Senator's description actually reflected in the bill, with respect to being "charged with a misdemeanor"?

    I also add a third concern, regarding Section 12002, that redefines a firearms dealer from "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominantly earn a profit", and clarified:

    "The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’
    means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition
    of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary
    gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or
    liquidating a personal firearms collection..."

    This definition is sufficiently vague as potentially to cover many hobbyists. It appears to be an attempt to close the non-existent "gun show loophole", and may greatly - and needlessly - restrict private firearms transfers.

    Again, I thank you for your time and consideration.

    Regards,
    You came off the top rope with the "charged" question concerning the friends with benefits/swiped right loophole.

    Great to finally meet you Chip.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    INGO was well represented today in Plainfield. @cbhausen ,@1nderbeard , @JEBland , and @chipbennett were in the (pancake) house. The INGO group... lowered the average age in the place. With that said Senator Young ran into some old folks who are PISSED!!

    Edit: more to follow when I get back on later.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    INGO was well represented today in Plainfield. @cbhausen ,@1nderbeard , @JEBland , and @chipbennett were in the (pancake) house. The INGO group... lowered the average age in the place. With that said Senator Young ran into some old folks who are PISSED!!

    Edit: more to follow when I get back on later.
    I got stuck sitting among the abortion proponent cadre. The things I do for my fellow INGOers...

    (One pro-abort guy starting complaining about how ACB was appointed to SCOTUS without "ever having tried a case before". He didn't respond when I interjected, "So was Elena Kagan.")

    Speaking of the pissed off old folks: when Young started his exchange with Robert (?) about government spending, and Young vigorously defended his spending record, and started going off about protecting Social Security, I so wanted to ask him if I could opt out of SS, since he was spending my (compelled) SS contributions to fund today's SS payouts.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    You came off the top rope with the "charged" question concerning the friends with benefits/swiped right loophole.

    Great to finally meet you Chip.
    Likewise!

    Note, I'm not quite as concerned about the language around the definition of domestic partner, having read what is in the legislation. Sure, it can probably be stretched, but it should be clear that it doesn't include a casual sexual relationship partner (in fact, it almost explicitly says as much).
     

    1nderbeard

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    38   0   0
    Apr 3, 2017
    2,529
    113
    Hendricks County
    I have more respect for the guy knowing that he was walking in to the hornets nest and coming anyway. I was not as angry as some of the folks sitting closer to the door that shouted out during his initial remarks, but I am still disappointed he was one of the handful of Republican's that voted for the bill.

    I'll have to look more in to the veracity of some of his comments on mental health, which was (per him) his primary reason for the bill.

    I felt like he gave a reasonable answer to my question about labeling conservative gun owners as "terrorists" and taking their guns via a bogus red flag claim. He basically said the red flag laws are state enforced laws, and Indiana's law makes it difficult to do that. He mentioned also federal funding was difficult to get unless the laws were very clearly written with an emphasis in due process. I'm not an attorney so I don't know the accuracy of those statements.

    I had to leave midway through his remarks for another appointment. I'm glad I was able to go for what time I was there.
     

    1nderbeard

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    38   0   0
    Apr 3, 2017
    2,529
    113
    Hendricks County
    INGO was well represented today in Plainfield. @cbhausen ,@1nderbeard , @JEBland , and @chipbennett were in the (pancake) house. The INGO group... lowered the average age in the place. With that said Senator Young ran into some old folks who are PISSED!!

    Edit: more to follow when I get back on later.
    I can confidently say my 2.5 year old and I were without a doubt the youngest pair in the place!
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    Todd Young is slimy.

    I asked what we got in the compromise, he said both the red flag law structure and mental health funding were wins for 2A. Basically calling an an ounce of prevention to avoid a pound of infringement.

    I asked why muzzle mufflers and 15" barrels were still on the NFA, why there's still a $200 tax stamp for NFA items. He said that they didn't discuss it because the 2A community aren't a special interest group.

    Two thumbs down.
    The hell we aren't. We are a special as any rainbow hair wearing group of whack jobs without as many whack jobs. Oh, we have some but not every one of us.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    This is the guy who made me stop recording. And the same guy who began recording when Rob Kendall started grilling Senator Young about the Federal deficit. And yes, I called him on that. He said Rob was “trying to start something”.

    Cowards can’t take a little well-deserved heat from their constituents. Senator Young shows up 30 minutes late and only stays 45 minutes.

    I got audio of the whole thing and sent it to Rob.
    He knew what was waiting for him. Spent as little time as possible under the heat lamp.
     
    Top Bottom