Any 2A advance...or setback...especially related to where we can carry and how, is relevant to Texas. I would suppose that's why we have a subforum devoted to Other States.montgomery wrote:Just curious, how is this relevant to Texas?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “IN: Legislature dodges Constitutional Carry”
- Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:20 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Legislature dodges Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 8
- Views: 4047
Re: IN: Legislature dodges Constitutional Carry
- Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:48 am
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Legislature dodges Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 8
- Views: 4047
IN: Legislature dodges Constitutional Carry
I've been following Indiana's efforts towards ConCarry via an Indiana forum, and it appears the ConCarry supporters just got blindsided.
The Indiana Legislature (meets yearly) established a "summer study" committee to evaluate ConCarry and make recommendations. As I understand it (large caveat) the main opposition (when testimony was taken) was from law enforcement. Several proConCarry/long time 2A advocates, including some lawyers, also testified. It appears the LE opposition was largely based on supposition that this provided cover for bad guys to carry and so forth, but without providing any actual examples. The pro ConCarry side testified that none of the states that already have Con Carry have a problem with this.
The summer study recommendations did not formally recommend ConCarry, just that restrictions be removed. (Keep in mind that Indiana has 4 year LTCH that does not qualify for a NICS check exemption when buying a firearm, and also has a lifetime LTCH. Fees for both are split between the State and local sheriffs). The Speaker of the House is believed to not be terribly 2A friendly, only allowing enough minimal pro-bills to pass to be able to say he did something. He has been quoted saying something like he doesn't see the point of ConCarry. There was a writing campaign to him about ConCarry going on since the summer study ended.
The chief proponent of ConCarry in the Indiana House introduced a bill to implement ConCarry. So did another representative who also happened to be the vice-chair of the public safety committee that would have to sign off on such a bill. On the face of it this looked promising, the bills were very similar. Probably not by chance the committee chair decided to consider his vice-chairman's bill, not the bill by the chief proponent, who was also on the public safety committee.
The vice-chair/author immediately introduced an amendment to his own bill that basically ripped out ConCarry and instead changed the 4-year LTCH to a 5 years, added NICS check to it so FFLs would have the option of accepting a LTCH in lieu of calling NICS, reduced the price of the LTCH (I think), and eventually makes the lifetime LTCH free. The vice-chair's amended bill was voted out of committee. The chief proponent's bill of course remains (dead) in committee and will not be considered.
So in retrospect it appears to observers that the Speaker and his committee chair and vice-chair arranged behind the scenes to kill ConCarry via the committee process. And succeeded. I believe the free lifetime LTCH and the 5-year LTCH with NICS exemption will pass, thus providing some 2A cred, but constitutional carry is dead for this legislature.
The Indiana Legislature (meets yearly) established a "summer study" committee to evaluate ConCarry and make recommendations. As I understand it (large caveat) the main opposition (when testimony was taken) was from law enforcement. Several proConCarry/long time 2A advocates, including some lawyers, also testified. It appears the LE opposition was largely based on supposition that this provided cover for bad guys to carry and so forth, but without providing any actual examples. The pro ConCarry side testified that none of the states that already have Con Carry have a problem with this.
The summer study recommendations did not formally recommend ConCarry, just that restrictions be removed. (Keep in mind that Indiana has 4 year LTCH that does not qualify for a NICS check exemption when buying a firearm, and also has a lifetime LTCH. Fees for both are split between the State and local sheriffs). The Speaker of the House is believed to not be terribly 2A friendly, only allowing enough minimal pro-bills to pass to be able to say he did something. He has been quoted saying something like he doesn't see the point of ConCarry. There was a writing campaign to him about ConCarry going on since the summer study ended.
The chief proponent of ConCarry in the Indiana House introduced a bill to implement ConCarry. So did another representative who also happened to be the vice-chair of the public safety committee that would have to sign off on such a bill. On the face of it this looked promising, the bills were very similar. Probably not by chance the committee chair decided to consider his vice-chairman's bill, not the bill by the chief proponent, who was also on the public safety committee.
The vice-chair/author immediately introduced an amendment to his own bill that basically ripped out ConCarry and instead changed the 4-year LTCH to a 5 years, added NICS check to it so FFLs would have the option of accepting a LTCH in lieu of calling NICS, reduced the price of the LTCH (I think), and eventually makes the lifetime LTCH free. The vice-chair's amended bill was voted out of committee. The chief proponent's bill of course remains (dead) in committee and will not be considered.
So in retrospect it appears to observers that the Speaker and his committee chair and vice-chair arranged behind the scenes to kill ConCarry via the committee process. And succeeded. I believe the free lifetime LTCH and the 5-year LTCH with NICS exemption will pass, thus providing some 2A cred, but constitutional carry is dead for this legislature.