A number of firearm related bills have been introduced in this session of the General Assembly. Oddly, where firearms are concerned, these lawmakers mostly seem to think we need to be softer on crime, need less local control, and more litigation. And, above all, we need guns in more places. I’d be interested to see a vote on a bill that requires guns to be included in every Happy Meal, just to see if anyone voted for it. Anyway:
SB 94 introduced by Sen. Holdman repeals a law permitting residents of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, and Michigan to purchase guns in Indiana and vice versa. It was something that was once required under federal gun laws to purchase weapons in contiguous states, but amendments to the federal law have made this one obsolete.
SB 131, introduced by Sen. Randolph allows an employer at property that contains an oil refinery to prohibit employee possession of a firearm.
SB 147 introduced by Sen. Steele allows possession of a handgun without a license at a shooting range or if it is unloaded and being transported between a residence or fixed place of business and a shooting range.
SB 154 introduced by Sen. Steele allows a person to carry a loaded and operational firearm while operating an off-road vehicle or snowmobile if: (1) the firearm is a handgun and the person has been issued an unlimited handgun license; (2) the firearm is a handgun and the person is not required to possess a license to carry a handgun; or (3) the person is operating the vehicle on property that the person owns, has a contractual interest in, legally possesses, or has permission from the owner to possess a firearm on.
SB 291, introduced by Sen. Tomes, provides that firearms manufactured in Indiana substantially without any materials imported from outside of the state are not subject to federal gun laws, including registration requirements, under the federal government’s commerce clause authority.
SB 292, also introduced by Sen. Tomes, and HB 1540, introduced by Rep. Speedy both prohibit local regulation of firearms and provides a cause of action against local governments that try to do so. (So, reading this in conjunction with SB 291, I gather Sen. Tomes thinks federal and local governments can’t be trusted with gun regulation. Somehow the middle ground of state government is ideal.)
SB 319, introduced by Sen. Banks, reduces the penalty for carrying a firearm on school property from a felony to a misdemeanor. Permits firearm possession on school property by non-students otherwise legally entitled to possess firearms if the weapon is locked in the person’s car.
SB 411, introduced by Sen. Nugent and HB 1355 introduced by Rep. Eberhart both allow individuals to sue employers or potential employers who condition employment on disclosure of whether the person owns firearms or ammunition or on an agreement to forgo a legal right to own a firearm or ammunition. Punitive damages would be permitted against the employer and, in the case of government employers, the normal tort claim immunities would not apply.
SB 434 introduced by Sen Hume provides that after June 30, 2011: (1) a retail handgun dealer’s license is valid for six years from the date the license is issued instead of two years; and (2) the fee to obtain the license is $60 instead of $20.
SB 506, introduced by Sen. Tomes and HB 1546, introduced by Rep. Van Natter, both allow a person to possess a handgun without a license if: (1) the person is on the person’s own property or vehicle (or legally controlled by the person); (2) the person is lawfully present on someone else’s property or in someone else’s vehicle; (3) the person is carrying the handgun at a shooting range, while attending a firearms instructional course, or while engaged in a legal hunting activity; or (4) the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped.
SB 567, introduced by Sen. Mrvan, provides that people serving sentences for crimes committed using a firearm do not earn credit time. (Typically an inmate will, with good behavior, get credit for 2 days on their sentence for every day actually spent incarcerated.)
My understanding is that SB 147 and parts of SB 506 are current law. For example, if I do not have a carry license, I can transport my gun to a range if it is unloaded in a case. I do not need a permit to have a gun on my premises.
SB 291 is brilliant. That’s the Tea Party at work, pushing back the edges of unconstitutional Federal overreach.
On SB 567, again, Mrvan is a backbencher from the minority party, and this thing ain’t goin’ anywhere.
Always overlooked by anti-gun advocates:
• When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. It’s no cliche. It’s a fact.
• Often ignored by the MSM are the recurring instances in which Americans successfully defend themselves with firearms. Examples:
http://www.kmjnow.com/pages/landing_news?Fresno-Burglar-Wounded-by-Homeowner=1&blockID=394858&feedID=806
http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20110123/COMMUNITY/110129985/1362?Title=Lawyer-officer-pulled-gun-in-defense
here. (Edited to embed link because the URL was screwing up the formatting. – Doug>)
Didn’t see any anti-gun advocacy in the list of introduced legislation – unless you count Sen. Mrvan’s enhanced sentencing for crimes using guns. (Which, in any case, seems to fit with the pro-gun movement’s stance that existing laws should be enforced.) So, these days – especially in Indiana, the power of the anti-gun movement seems to be akin to that of the Monster Under the Bed.
A few years ago, a bar owner and his bouncer — both licensed to carry and both drinking — were sitting in the tavern after hours along with a woman they were both attracted to.
Eventually, they got into an argument over the girl and the bouncer pulled his handgun and shot the owner dead.
I haven’t been to a bar since.
It does seem like the end-game with all this legislation is to make conceal carry available to all law abiding citizens in all places without the need to obtain a permit. This is how it is done in Vermont, I understand.
Why don’t we cut to the chase and just go there right now? The Vermont system is the one most in accordance with the 2nd Amendment, after all.
Manfred,
Have you ever heard of a man being stabbed to death over a woman? In a bar? I’m pretty sure that happened before the incident you described, yet you thought it was fine to go in a bar before.
Did you happen to drive to the bars before, taking on far more risk of a drunk driver hitting you than being shot?
When my unfettered right to carry a firearm includes the galleries of the Indiana House and Senate I’ll believe these guys mean what they say.
Jason,
Never heard of an innocent bystander dying in a hail of knives.
Gave up drinking and driving 25 years ago.
Manfred: Now you have.
Here. (Link embedded to help with formatting. – Doug)
Also, I believe Jason’s point was in regards to the other driver being drunk, not you. That is certainly a higher risk than someone with a gun in a bar.
OK, Hairsplitters,
No way are you going to convince me that the 2nd amendment is all about your right to “pack heat” ala the Old West.
My original story was merely to illustrate how dangerous it can be even when only those in authority are allowed to carry.
While I do not discount your concerns of danger on the streets, as there are plenty, my point is that giving virtually everybody unrestricted access and license to carry handguns into almost any situation is a dangerous practice.
Bars are hazardous enough without that threat.
Manfred, if you want to petition God to un-invent the firearm, I’m with you. Until then, though, as you pointed out, it is dangerous even when only “those in authority” have guns. I don’t want a situation where only criminals and police have guns. See this simple picture for my point.
my point is that giving virtually everybody unrestricted access and license to carry handguns into almost any situation is a dangerous practice.
It seems to me that there are varying levels of carry allowed in the US, from no carry whatsoever in Chicago to completely unregulated carry in Vermont. Where is it more dangerous?
We all live in Indiana, which is one of the more unregulated states when it comes to carry. Is Indiana dangerous?
Ha, ha, Jason. Very funny picture. I still think its wiser to walk away from trouble if possible. Violence begets violence.
I understand you to mean that sometimes there is no way out. I believe if our society was less angry there would be no reason to expand “packing” rights.
Good question, Buzzcut.
I’m not really familiar with locales other than Indiana on a first-person basis. What do you think?
I do NOT think it is a good idea to relax regulations as regards gun purchases. Simply because criminals can get them more easily doesn’t mean they should be available at large.
But they ARE available at large, in Indiana. In fact, if you have a carry license, which requires nothing more than a background check at your local police station, you can open carry in Indiana.
So, I’ll ask again, is Indiana dangerous? I would speculate that a great deal of the people that you meet on a daily basis are carrying. Are you having problems?
I had a problem with one guy (thought that a conceal carry license holder was trying to intimidate me with his gun). Other than that, I wouldn’t say that conceal carry makes Indiana dangerous. I even see open carry once in awhile.
All of the Indiana firearms laws are consolidated here, at least as well as I know: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf. Indiana’s handgun carry laws are at least tied with anyone else as the most lax, as Indiana accepts all other states handgun permits.
And Manfred, my point was that if more law-abiding people are armed, the first violence is less likely to happen. If I know that only police have guns, and I am a criminal, I am more empowered to use my gun on a regular citizen, since I have a very low chance of him (or more to the point, anyone else nearby) shooting back.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, I’ve been down w/the flu for a couple of days.
I understand that many people carry on an everyday basis, Buzz, including my Mom’s cleaning lady. Is Indiana dangerous? To some degree, yes. And according to the rising rate of violent crime, becoming more so. Personally I don’t have much trouble because I make an effort to stay out of troublesome areas. Of course, this is not always possible, but looking for trouble only adds to the likelihood of its occurance.
No offense intended, but may I ask how old you Buzz, and you Jason are? I inquire because my view on this issue has changed somewhat since I was younger: I will be 51 in May.
Sorry, Jason, I cannot agree that more armed law-abiding citizens equals less violence. The only way that could be justified is if the LAC pulled and fired his piece first. One should never pull a handgun unless one means to shoot somebody dead. Your argument that the POSSIBILITY of a LAC having a piece acts as a deterrent to crime falls as flat as any other dissuasion argument (threat of prison, the death penalty, etc.)
Hope you’re feeling better, MJ. I don’t know where you live, but the stats I am seeing show that crime is slowly dropping. And if you are like me, a white suburban dude, things are especially safe. The statistics for Lake County I would guess are similar across Indiana, the crime is really concentrated in the impoverished African American community. They are literally 100 times more likely to be murdered than a middle class white suburbanite.
The crime is not a function of conceal carry, as most of the murders are committed by people who would never pass a background check. They’re illegal guns.
FYI, I’m nearly 40, and I am becoming more pro-gun with age. ;)
Not being a stat geek I don’t follow these things closely year-to-year, but I know there have been more killings here in Marion County than there were, say, 10 years ago. Yes, most of them are by non-registered weapons, but how does that make it OK to put more of the legal kind on the street? Invariably, less oversight only gives everyone a greater chance to own and carry one — including the uninstructed, mentally and psyscologically impaired, substance addicted, etc.
Look, I am not anti-gun, per se, I’d just like to not see a situation such as “Mad Max” lite. It’d be great if only sane and sober individuals who used their weapons as a means of last resort were doing the packing, but you and I both know that isn’t the case and neither will it be if acquisition and carry/ conceal is made easier.
By the way, I live in a white working class area in the inner city that has been hit hard by the recession. It is very dangerous here at night. I know many people who have guns in their home for self-defense. Why carry an armory when leaving home? It just encourages a feeling of invincibility.
Yeah, I have the completely opposite perception, that knowledge that others are carrying makes people more civil.
There does appear to be a small uptick in murders of African Americans by other African Americans in our area. When Chicago knocked down its high rise public housing, the people that used to live there moved to the South Suburbs of Chicago, which includes Northwest Indiana, and there does seem to be a rise in murders over the last 2 years. However, that rise is coming off of a very low base that was achieved over a long period of time. And it is limited to certain areas of Hammond, East Chicago, and especially Gary.
I have read that the diaspora from the Chicago projects extends to other cities, including Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis.
“Not being a stat geek I don’t follow these things closely year-to-year, but I know there have been more killings here in Marion County than there were, say, 10 years ago.”
Actually, it appears that you don’t know what you think you know. The number of 2010 murders in Indy was 119 (not that I am recommending this website, but the data is found here). http://bartlies.com/homicide-list/2010/ 2006 (the farthest year back) had 150 murders according to the same site. and in 1998, Indy had 162 murders. http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2006/12/indys-murder-rate-increase-among-top.html
So, it appears there is somewhat of a downward murder trend, not an upward one. I believe this trend matches the nationwide one.
Paul,
Any slight reduction is due to dedicated police work, not the threat of vigilanteeism.
Again, I refuse to get into a pissing contest over stats. There are too many measuring sticks to choose from.
Manfred: Whether you meant it to be or not, your response is pretty disingenuous.
(1) If the reduction is due to “dedicated police work”, then today’s cops must be more dedicated than the cops of 10 years ago. Did you mean to insult the cops that were serving ten years ago?
(2) In what world is a 25% reduction in the murder rate (between 1998 and 2010) considered “slight”?
(3) You are the one who pointed to murders going up in Indy. Then, when you are confronted about that stat being inaccurate, you refuse to “get in a pissing match” about the statistic (that you brought up), and state “there are too many measuring sticks to choose from” (whatever that means) rather than participate in further discussion and recognize (or dispute that) the trend you cited was incorrect. Nice.
IPD slowed the hiring of officers in 2006, the State police cut 250 troopers last year.
So, the remaining police became MORE effective?
One more thing that really irks me about the discussion on police. Most people somehow think police are there to prevent crimes.
Now, really think about it, how often does this happen? Occasionally, they will stop a domestic dispute while in progress, or maybe stop a bank robbery, but those cases are far fewer to the ones where they react after the fact.
Police are good at punishing those that break the law, thereby working as a deterrent. If police help lower the crime rate at all, it must be because they are a deterrent, otherwise, the stats still go up. A crime that the police stop in progress is still reported as a crime.
Now, as a criminal, which is more threatening: That the police might catch you, and your case makes it to trial, and you are convicted, thereby serving jail time? Or that a citizen could be armed and kill you?
Very well, I give up.
We should all be allowed to purchase any weapon without restriction. No doubt the possible threat of somebody carrying a Sig-Sauer machine pistol under their coat is the way to both prevent and punish crime.
Quite honestly, I think this is a completely idiotic idea. Escalation of violence or it’s threat is not the way to go. But most people these days want to have the option of blowing people away. Shoot first and ask questions later.
Good luck to you. May you always shoot first, and may the target not be reaching for a smoke.
For what it’s worth:
Even I don’t agree with that. You lose some rights when convicted of a crime. I’m fine with barring felons from weapons, and for requiring training in order to have a carry permit (today, any non-felon can get one).
I wish you were correct, and we could not only get rid of personal arms, but disarm the police and the armed forces and that would stop violence. I really do wish that would work.
Hey do you know whether the senate will get to these bills with the walk-out happening and all?