SB 229 being heard in committee today would prohibit the destruction of firearms by a law enforcement agency unless the serial number has been obliterated. It also creates a procedure for an individual determined by a court to be dangerous under IC 35-47-14-6 and whose firearm was ordered retained by a law enforcement agency to have the firearm sold and the proceeds returned to the individual less costs that may not exceed 8% of the sale.
It also prohibits local government, including law enforcement agencies, from conducting firearm buyback programs. It defines “firearm buyback program” as a program to buy firearms from individuals for the purpose of reducing the number of firearms owned by civilians or for permitting civilians to sell firearms to the government without fear of prosecution.
So, if a duly elected Sheriff decides that a buyback program to reduce the number of firearms on the street is the right thing for his community and if a duly elected County Council determines that such a program is the right thing for its community and appropriates money for that purpose, the General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, would be saying that they are not permitted to do so.
“So, if a duly elected Sheriff decides that a buyback program to reduce the number of firearms on the street is the right thing for his community…”
I know you think it’s fun to troll the right with provocations like this, but the record deserves an answer. It is never the “right thing” for a community to reduce the number of firearms held by the public.
It is not a permissible activity for government to consider, look at or think about the arms help by the public. We have not erected any government to go meddling in the rights of citizens.
Gun ownership is not a place for governments to direct any of their attentions.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Note that it doesn’t say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is hereby created, and this right shall not be infringed.”
Yes, you’re trolling. Participation in a buyback program is not mandatory and you know it.
This is just more government meddling in local government affairs. Plenty of screaming when the federal government does it to the states, but when states do it to counties or cities it’s OK?
“Freedom” left off the part about “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. Apparently the founders did think the government had some role in regulating things somehow.
I didn’t leave it off. The Founding Fathers left it off. That clause in no way binds, limits or modified the operative clause. Reference to that clause is deceptive. Further, “well-regulated” does not mean, imply or permit any “regulation.”
Are you high. So you even read the nonsense that you spew? You are so far beneath a response I throw up my mouth even challenging your idiocy in this limited post.
Amen.
An appropriate response
Carlito Brigante, the 2nd Amendment was created to backstop the existing right all people have to defend themselves. If there were no 2nd Amendment, people would still have the right to defend themselves wherever they go, with weapons similar to what an average cop would have. (I don’t even have a gun btw)
For goodness sake, gun nuts are absolutists. Carlito wasn’t attacking the Second Amendment, he was noting it has a dependent clause. Further, his opinion is also in line with the opinion of Justice Scalia, who wrote the abomination that is Heller, and indicated that “regulation of firearms is allowed” (just like there is common sense regulation of speech and assembly, etc).
Besides, your first point is silly. none of you brave concealed and carry guy are gonna protect anyone when the drones, helicopters, and tanks come to town. Your apocalyptic fantasies have a body count — now — and we, as a society, need to get as many of these things off the streets as possible
Gene, the Second Amendment was created to provide states the right to raise militias. When the nation was formed, the country had not standing army. States were concerned the should have militias if an over-reaching federal military were formed. In fact, the Consitution gives the right to Congress to raise an army, not automatically have an army. Only a Navy was provided for.
“Gene, the Second Amendment was created to provide states the right to raise militias.”
The Second Amendment says no such thing. Its only operative clause is that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms.
But what about our right to arm bears?
FREECUM,
Read the text before you open your dumpster,
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
Not that it matters. Weapons possession of any sort is wholly incompatible with a free society, and that’s reason enough to end it regardless of what a piece of paper says.
Doing the right thing trumps the tyranny of the past.
Glad you’ve changed your position, Carlito.
@Freedom
How does a buyback program infringe?
It is if you value freedom, which you plainly don’t.
Weapons possession of any sort is patently incompatible with a free society, as anyone who engages with these questions based on analysis of real-world dynamics (as opposed to treating things as a single isolated variable) already knows.
Silliest thing written on the internet today.
Every so often, every society goes off the rails. We’re doing that now. When “The right of the people to keep and bear arms….” trumps the right to “…Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” you know you’re dealing with a sick society. And so far, nobody has developed an inoculation against stupidity, so we’ll have to just be patient and watch the blood run.
Every once in a while, someone says something really important, as you have, Steve. Could it be that the Constitution was written by people, that it was not divinely inspired, and that they actually made a mistake? Like you say, every society goes off the rails, but at this point, we can only gather the data that shows this gun thing was a bad idea and watch the blood run. Every society carries the seeds of its own destruction.
It’s good to see the General Assembly is addressing the most pressing issues in our state, like the sanctity of gun life. On a related note, I do wonder when we amended the Second Amendment to get rid of that pesky first clause.
HEY MR. or MS. FREEDOM … The second amendment does NOT start with the “The right of the people …” This is the second amendment:
“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.”
Yep, Mr. or Ms. Freedom, I know that the FULL second amendment doesn’t mean anything to folks like you, especially the words “well regulated.” If you believe the Constitution is to be adhered to strictly, then shouldn’t the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the Constitution be the most important?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Here’s the thing–this “Freedom” (who is actually an authoritarian) is right about the grammatical function of “A well-regulated militia…”
But it doesn’t matter, because the Second Amendment is wrong. Weapons possession is in fact incompatible with a free society.
“trumps the right to “…Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” ” Just letting you know that the guy who runs this site expressly rejects the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. He may put them in the “nice idea” category, but he does not accept them as rights.
I’m generally a supporter of gun rights, and I think the research clearly shows that gun buy-back programs are a tremendous waste of money with no measurable effect on gun-related crime.
That said, it’s the height of hypocrisy for our “small government” Republican legislature to forbid local governments from doing what they think best and answering to their local voters. Gun crime reduction might not be the only reason behind such programs, and if the sheriff or other government agency thinks it’s worth the time and investment, that’s their call. If their constituents don’t think so, they can say so in a variety of ways.
Your last sentence is the heart of the issue in this bill, and it’s what really infuriates me.
State government and their belief they know better than local government is one of the reasons Indiana can’t get ahead.
But couldn’t the same be said for the Federal government making rules about the states; either explicitly (direct laws) or implicitly (via withholding funds). The back-and-forth pull between local government and a higher-level government is always an ongoing battle. Sometimes it makes sense to rule at a higher level (e.g., state or federal or even world) but so often it seems like “local law for local folk” is a better and more flexible option.
Agreed, but it’s hard to have much empathy for the state when folks like Delph are pushing laws like SB 141 when they’re also pushing laws like this one or SB 301.
The state can’t have it both ways – either stop complaining about the federal government, or stop telling localities how to run their towns, cities, or counties.
Joe, your position fails to consider that the State of Indiana might consider itself the supreme authority on all matters occurring within the state. In such a role, it will feel fully qualified to tell the feds and the municipalities precisely what to do.
Cities only exist because the state decided to allow them. There would be nothing constitutionally prohibiting Indiana from revoking all city charters and running all matters of the state centrally.
The same is true of the states vis-a-vis the federal government. Perhaps an argument could be made of the original thirteen, or the places that were already organized as independent polities before they were annexed, all of whom had an organic existence that was not created by the federal government.
But that only applies to a minority of the states. It certainly doesn’t apply to Indiana.
Again, you’ve demonstrated that thinking about things is not something that particularly interests you.
The nullification folks can consider that position all day long. That position has not stood up in the courts or on the battlefield.
You think someone shed blood for gun “buybacks”?
You’d have to ask the members of the Confederate Army if that’s another thing they fought for.
Members of the Indiana legislature are wrong that State laws trump federal laws. Their persistence on the matter makes me question their ability to “know better” when it comes to local regulations.
Joe, really, this is tiring pretending to have a “discussion” with you. Do you think any Union soldier fought so urban liberals could run government gun confiscation schemes in his name?
Don’t hide behind their guns or profane their sacrifice. Fight your own fight.
It’s not my fault that defending the intellectually bankrupt idea that is nullification on top of an expansion of government into local matters is wearing you out.
if it’s too much for you, admit your failure and quit. No skin off my back. I’ll be here when you come back in a few days, again, with another wacky idea that everyone here laughs at.
Joe, the other day, you were asked, just once, to be honest and to quit running away. Sadly, we’re all still waiting for you to, just once, do the right thing.
You’re hiding behind the guns of men who would have reviled you and every anti-American attack on this country you spew. That’s disgraceful. If you won’t be honest, just once, for your own integrity, at least think of the men you’re hiding behind and whom you claim fought for your crazy ideas.
There must be some decency in you somewhere.
That you quickly lost the argument on gun “buybacks” is predictable, given the quality of your opposition and the weakness of your argument, but to retreat behind brave men as your final line of defense is really too low. Come out from behind them and either try to fight with your own argument or simply admit that you’re coming from a different set of beliefs than those which founded the country.
Just once.
What’s amazing is that you think this thread, or any of what all the well-reasoned folks are saying here, is about guns. It’s really not. It’s about local control.
You’ve got pro-gun people who think gun buyback schemes are a waste of time/money who think this law is a bad idea because it restricts what local voters want their local officials to do.
You’ve got me talking about the hypocrisy of state officials wanting to nullify federal laws while dictating to local officials that they know better. They are no better than the federal officials they bemoan, and in some ways are worse because they don’t realize they’re hypocrites.
That’s a point which you’ve yet to respond to, because when I mentioned that state officials can’t be the sole arbiter of what goes on within the state, you’ve gone off the rails about me hiding behind soldiers or some other such nonsense.
Try to stay on point.
Federal government has supremacy over the states. It was settled at Appomattox on the battlefield and several times hence in Supreme Court cases. What’s Doug’s saying – “War of Southern Treason”? I don’t agree with everything he says, but I do agree on that one.
By the way, regarding buyback programs, you equated them with “government gun confiscation schemes.” If you’re going to make a claim like that one, show some work as to how people are being compelled against their will to sell guns.
You know, just once.
By the way, considering almost everyone who posts here disagrees with you, I’d recommend that you stop with the “we’re all still waiting for you to, just once, do the right thing”. Unless you’ve got the voices in your head thing going for you. If you honestly think you speak for this place, you read for comprehension even worse than I thought possible.
The Second Amendment is a non-issue in this case. If a person wants to sell a gun to the local government and the local government wants to buy the gun and destroy it, fine. No “right” is being infringed upon under that scenario. The gun doesn’t have any rights, it is only the gun owner that arguably has rights, and the only “right” that seems to be getting trampled on is the “right” of contract between the local government and the gun owner by SB22, which seeks to prevent these sales.
More big government infringing on my right of contract.
So this is probably another illegal law?
You know, it seems appropriate on a day an ex-husband blasts his ex-wife outside an Indianapolis day care center that the Indiana Senate kills preschool funding and gun buybacks.
You know, maybe a Second Amendment remedies person can answer this for me — how come it’s only invoked in relation to guns? If I have the right to bear arms, how come I can’t buy a tank? Or a surface-to-air missile? Or a nuclear weapon? (Wait — maybe I don’t want an answer. Maybe the Indiana General Assembly will pass a resolution stating we all have rights to mine our yards.)
Coach:
Small governments don’t purchase guns from the public. Keeping governments within narrowly drawn lines well serves the goal of small government.
We don’t have a small government Republican legislature in Indiana. We have an activist Republican supermajority that is very interested in more laws and more regulations.
The whole “small government = freedom, big government = tyranny” thing is incredibly simplistic (and intellectually meaningless), has no real-world-based bearing upon or relationship to the actual social dynamics that give rise to freedom or tyranny, and its only real purpose is to demonstrate the intellectual vapidity of those who attempt to use it.
Looks like the NRA is getting its money’s worth this year.
My favorite part is where Doug asserts it is the General Assembly which is making this law, rather than employees doing what they are told by their employers. The NRA, in its current form, is digusting.
The issue I have with “gun buybacks” are that they are usually “no questions asked.” The goal seems to be simple, voluntary confiscation, with the possibility of getting stolen guns, or guns used in crimes turned in. Is it better that one killer go free so that his stolen 9mm, that he used to gun down a rival drug dealer, is off the street? Do we really believe that by giving the killer this pass, at least with respect to what is likely the most damning piece of evident, really going to stop such a person from acquiring another handgun?
I don’t care if local units of government have gun buybacks, but such things should be paid for with proceeds of the guns either being sold at auction, the guns melted down and sold for scrape, and/or by donations from whoever. All guns turned in should be tested to see if they were used in any crimes and the serial number ran to see if it was stolen. If stolen, the owner should be offered the firearm back, after ballistic testing. In reality, people should be able to dispose of firearms anytime they want to their local law enforcement agency, and I believe this does happen from time to time. Fact is, every time I see a gun buyback program on the news, it is usually people giving away lower tier long guns, junk handguns, and maybe some quality pieces. It is never to just get rid of grandpas old rusted shotgun to rid the world of one more mass killing device, it is about the $50 cash, or free pizza gift card, or free grocery card.
fwiw: Freedom should note this: https://www.facebook.com/253645602134/photos/a.10151302476197135.457182.253645602134/10151948117487135/?type=1&theater
And you should read this: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/mags/crburger.htm