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

[Ingomike]

but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)

Got to pass it to know what is in it…

 

[KellyinAvon]

Thanks a lot for representing us well folks! Hopefully you made an impression, better than the abortion wacko's anyway?

Do we think Rob Kendal will be talking about this in the morning?


.

I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.

 

[churchmouse]

I got the BS email reply, too. He clearly doesn’t represent me. None of the funding for school safety needed the rest of the garbage in the bill.

That garbage is how it bought enough support to pass. Every loon in the room wants a piece of the money pie or no vote.

 

[chipbennett]

I wanted to break out Rush Limbaugh’s line: “The military’s job is to kill people and break things!”.

That was exactly what was going through my head, too.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.

Oh, that's who that was. I wondered why the senator seemed to know who he was.

 

[Bugzilla]

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.

Any funding from the Fed is a loss as it bribes the state. We need to get out of everything that has Fed funding to be a free state.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Oh, that's who that was. I wondered why the senator seemed to know who he was.

Senator Young now knows who we are too.

 

[gvbcraig]

I contacted Senator Young via his website and expressed my disappointment. Yesterday I got this two page form letter from him expressing his support of the legislation, and went on and on about Red Flag laws. ( attached as a PDF file, not sure if it will post )

I sent him the following response, have not heard back yet.

"Honorable Senator Young,

I see your vote was knee jerk reaction and not thought out for the long run, very heartbreaking for someone I considered a conservative. In your response you tout Red Flag laws and their benefits. Red Flag laws are a step closer to thought control and controlling the people buy the government, something that is not in the constitution.

How many government employees are “woke”? How many persons in government consider conservatism a mental disorder, and potentially a Red Flag condition? How are they going to define mental disorders when they cannot define what a “woman” is or how many genders there are? Red Flag laws are a way of chipping into our 2nd Amendment rights. What you did was give an inch to the liberal agenda, and they will use that to take a mile of our rights.

I grew up in a refugee family from the Ukraine, my grandfather used to tell me the stories on his life during Stalinist times.

He said “first they take away your guns and then they take away your land and finally they take away the food”. Holodomor 1932/1933. He eventually was labeled a subversive and sent to Siberia. (Similar to Red Flag laws). He was released from Siberia during WW2 to make room for the German prisoners of war.

I’m sure you are going to say that will not happen here, but it is happening, be it through government controls or pressure from social media, it is slowly happening.

I remember in the 6th Grade, we were allowed to bring .22 rifles to school so we could go squirrel hunting after school.

In High School we had a Trap and Skeet club and went shooting after school and on weekends. Were we more mature and responsible than today’s students? All of those things have gone away, our society has lost it’s moral compass, and if I were to suggest that we allow those events to happen again, I would be considered a mental case and subject to Red Flag rules.

Do you see how absurd this all is?

I personally think that violence in the media (TV/Movies) as well video games has contributed to desensitizing young people to violence and made violence a norm in their brain. Also these mass murder attacks usually take place in “Gun Free Zones”, making everyone an easy target.

Respectfully Submitted
George "

 

[two70]

I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.

That's pretty much an every day occurrence and what he's good at.

 

[chipbennett]

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,

Response from Andrew Kossack:

Hi Chip – Here’s some information in response to your questions from our policy team. Hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, just let me know.

Thanks again,
Andrew

1. On checks for under 21 buyers, the simplest explanation regarding changes to current law is that if you did something at 16 or 17 that would have prohibited you from purchasing if you had done it at 18-20, this bill will affect you. The waiting period is not a mandatory waiting period, but a limit on how much time agencies can take to run the more intensive background check. If no disqualifying information is found, the sale can proceed within 3 days if the check takes that long. We totally understand that this could be open to abuse, and this requires diligent oversight. Ideally, these checks will take place as quickly as possible. Many Democrats wanted a waiting period of up to 17 days where the purchaser had to actively keep petitioning to receive their firearm.

a. The bill stops at age 21 because the purpose is not to prohibit someone from purchasing a firearm for something they at 16 once they turn 21, but to only be assessed based on actions done as an adult. If you do repeat a prohibited activity after you turn 18, (per Sec. 922) you are barred for life.

b. Once the individual turns 21, if they were barred from purchasing before due to activities done as a 16 or 17 year old, they could seek to purchase a firearm again and their juvenile records would be inadmissible in their NICS check.

c. An assumption was made that if you did a prohibited activity at 16 or 17, then you are likely to repeat it after you turn 18, which would then disqualify you by current law.

2. Misdemeanor domestic violence: Current federal law is conviction under 18 USC. Sec. 921 (33), per the next sentence of the letter.

3. This was not an attempt to close the so-called “gun show loophole”, something we recognize is not actually a loophole, as anyone who has ever attended one can attest. This removes a shield that active vendors can currently use to not register as an FFL. Someone could sell tens of thousands of dollars of firearms, parts, and ammunition currently per year, but if they are working a job that is their registered income, they could potentially not register as an FFL. This is not seeking to target hobbyists, but to clarify that if you are an active seller whose business, but not necessarily your livelihood, is selling firearms, you must register as an FFL.

 

[bobzilla]

So at 21 your juvie record disappears anyway. What difference did that make again? ****ing morons.

 

[retsgt]

I wish he would come to South East Indiana, I would gladly give him my opinion!

 

[thelefthand]

3. This was not an attempt to close the so-called “gun show loophole”, something we recognize is not actually a loophole, as anyone who has ever attended one can attest. This removes a shield that active vendors can currently use to not register as an FFL. Someone could sell tens of thousands of dollars of firearms, parts, and ammunition currently per year, but if they are working a job that is their registered income, they could potentially not register as an FFL. This is not seeking to target hobbyists, but to clarify that if you are an active seller whose business, but not necessarily your livelihood, is selling firearms, you must register as an FFL.

This is an opportunity to have the bill, and potentially the entire GCA declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the sale of legally acquired privately owned goods within the boarders of a State regardless of whether the sale of those goods is their registered income or not. There for the regulation of the purchase and sale of used firearms is outside the constructional authority of the federal government.

 

[Prowler1]

The Senator has already sunk his ship. He signed on with the rest of the RINOS for the Red Flag gun bill. What part of the
2nd Amendment does he not understand?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed.

Infringe – to ENCROACH upon in a way that violates the law or the rights of another.
Encroach – to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.

Ref. – Merriam Webster Dictionary

 

[chipbennett]

This is an opportunity to have the bill, and potentially the entire GCA declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the sale of legally acquired privately owned goods within the boarders of a State regardless of whether the sale of those goods is their registered income or not. There for the regulation of the purchase and sale of used firearms is outside the constructional authority of the federal government.

My follow-up to the Senator will be: why? To what end are these measures put in place? What harm does this law intend to address? What will a de facto 10-day waiting period for 18-20 year olds address? What will expansion of the definition of FFL address?

 

[thelefthand]

My follow-up to the Senator will be: why? To what end are these measures put in place? What harm does this law intend to address? What will a de facto 10-day waiting period for 18-20 year olds address? What will expansion of the definition of FFL address?

Totally agree. My comment is not intended to defend the senator's lousy character, or the fact that he GAVE away something that was not his to give, and for absolutely no reason. I'm just pointing out a way that this series of events could be utilized to make a few corrections.

 

[JEBland]

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.

I'm a bit delayed on this particular post.

For me, probably the most disappointing part is that he didn't even bring it to the table. Could've said,

Hey, if I'm going to back this bill, I need to give my people something. There's no reason by 15" rifles are on a special list, or any non-machine gun for that matter [I know, INGO, but he's got to sell it]. How about we remove them from that registry which won't take anything away from our joint effort to reduce crime, and I have a way to save face and convince my voters that it was a real compromise.

But he didn't even go to bat for us. No giving ground in another direction. Just chipping away and opening the door to abuse. The anti-gunners are is circling their wagons, we need someone to be an advocate for us while playing the political game.

Overall, I felt like he was "handling" us, and I really don't care for that.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm a bit delayed on this particular post.

For me, probably the most disappointing part is that he didn't even bring it to the table. Could've said,

But he didn't even go to bat for us. No giving ground in another direction. Just chipping away and opening the door to abuse. The anti-gunners are is circling their wagons, we need someone to be an advocate for us while playing the political game.

Overall, I felt like he was "handling" us, and I really don't care for that.

Of course he was. He is a proper forked tongue politico. He is slimy and worse.

 

[trader]

hmm todd, well an R after you name doesn't make you a republican conservative. todd is a 100% embarrassment. he's right up there with our democrat muslim rep.. we need better primary choices.

 

[Rebel Jack]

If he’s smart, he’ll crawl under a desk and hide until it’s time to announce he won’t be running for re-election.

Then again, recent decisions don’t inspire much confidence in the field of sound judgement.

I’m really not all that interested in hearing his excuses. Motives never alter facts.