[antsi]

I got an email alert from NRA-ILA about a bill with provisions to protect a person's right to keep a firearm locked in their car without fear of being searched and disciplined by their employer. Another provision of the bill was to clear up the "duty to retreat" nonsense. The bill was supposed to be in committee this morning. I did email my rep, who is apparently on the committee. Anyone know what happened? Does this thing have any chance of passing?

[El Tejon]

What duty to retreat?:confused:

[Gray Peterson]

That's the interesting thing.

They are introducing these bills stating "No Duty to Retreat" in statute where there's already no duty to retreat in case law.

[antsi]

What duty to retreat?:confused:

I don't know. I'm really not all that familiar with Indiana law as I just moved back here. However that is what the NRA-ILA email said.

Maybe it is a pre-emptive strike, to make sure that there never will be any case law with a duty to retreat?

The one I am really interested in is the "keep out of my trunk" law.

[El Tejon]

Where the heckydurn is this "duty to retreat" crap coming from? I will read this silly bill and report back. El Tejon, special counsel to the THR Agency for Legislative Services.:)

Why do the people in the NRA think that Florida is now the only state in the Union without a duty to retreat? LOOKS LIKE:

KIRK'S SECOND LAW OF THE INTERNET IS NOW IN FULL EFFECT here in Indiana. The law states: "if it just passed in Florida, Florida was the first state in the nation to have it as they have twice as many electoral votes as Indiana."

[El Tejon]

O.K., read it, just as I thought, Kirk's Second Law (if big states have it, then unenlightened, forestdwellers with fewer electoral votes and, besides, we're the NRA and you're not).

Now, if they wish to re-codify the law of no duty to retreat that Indiana has had since 1865, that's just dandy. However, I do find it perplexing why the NRA wishes to waste time on this.:confused: Maybe they believe the media's lies about Florida being the only state without a duty to retreat?

[El Tejon]

Here's the linky thing to the HB 1028 proposal, http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN1028.1.html

[txgho1911]

OK below is an update on a few bills in the house and senate I recieved this morning.

Many bills that have been introduced in this session have now died, but the measures that have been brought up to our benefit are still alive and in process.

Sen. Nugent's SB 054 now has a second author and three co-authors. Yesterday it got a committee report amend do pass, adopted.

Thursday Rep. Woodruff's HB 1176 got the same status and has Rep's Burton and Stutzman as co-authors.

HB 1028 that Rep.Woodruff referred to is authored by Rep. Koch, which is similar to Florida's castle doctrine also has the same status.

These are very,very good bills that would be of great benefit to every Indiana resident, especially those who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

When you study what kind of anti gun legislation is being proposed in other states at this very time and compare that to what we are experiencing in our legislation, it's a stark contrast.

There is simply no excuse that residents in this state should not be engaged in this effort or at least contact these particular legislators and thank them for their work. Unfortunately too many probably have their head in the sand and have not a clue what is being done to improve our rights in this state.


2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED

[El Tejon]

While I'm very happy that we may make some progress, I just don't understand the need for this legislation. Preemptive? Against what? For over 150 years the Indiana Supreme Court has held that there is no duty to retreat. Just where is this coming from?

As well, why is the castle doctrine being confused with the duty to retreat?:confused:

[ARperson]

The fact that there is no codification on "duty to retreat" one way or the other may be the very reason that this is on the table now. With the "interpretation" of laws already on the book, can we trust that the spirit of the law will count for as much as the letter of the law? I doubt it.

While I'm not a big fan of pointless legislation, I can't say that I'm all that upset if a law is passes that SPECIFICALLY states I have no duty to retreat. I certainly don't want some overzealous prosecutor trying to make a name for himself using the lack of such wording in the law.

Besides, there are other provisions in the bill that I find greater fault with. While I hate the fact that my husband can't carry in his car on employee property, it IS private property and it goes against everything I believe in to start regulating private property that way. If we want to change the employers' stands on car carry/storage in the parking lot, we should do it with our pocket books and our feet, not the legislatures.

[Herself]

Or you can just keep your sidearm concealed in your car anyway. The inside of your car is private property, too! Your employer has no right to search your car unless you have specifically agreed to it, at least as far as I know. But don't act based on my opinion: IANAL, so, El Tejon, what say?

--Herself