Indiana Lifetime bill on it's way to Gov.


PDA






txgho1911
March 9, 2006, 05:30 PM
Copied email from Jim T.


Here is the message I received from Rep. Woodruff at 4:28 PM CST: The first lifetime handgun license in the Country is on the way to the Governors office for signature! It passed the House with 78 votes

We're talking about HB 1176. Let me just give a short (I'll try) recap, for the benefit of the new members on the e-mail list, of what we've been doing for the last two months here in Indiana.

Out of frustration that some carry permit applicants have had with some local law enforcement agencies on applying or renewing their carry permits, the 2nd Amendment Patriots decided to do something about it.

We started last year by contacting Indiana State Senator Johnny Nugent about introducing a bill that would allow for on line hand gun carry permit renewal application. Writing the language collectively with Sen. Nugent, that bill passed the Senate on a 48 to 2 vote. However, when it went to the House the Chairman of the committee it wound up in caved under pressure from the State Police and it never got a hearing.

This session we tried it again, but this time besides Sen. Nugent (R) introducing it in the Senate under SB 054 our very good friend Indiana Representative Troy Woodruff (R) introduced the same language in the House under HB 1176. He met with the 2nd Amendment Patriots late last year to go over the wording of the bill. The strategy was to have two horses in the race. This has proven to be the most important decision in this entire effort.

Along about the 10th of December SB. 054 was scheduled a hearing in a committee Chaired by Sen. Long. Four members from the 2nd Amendment Patriots drove to Indianapolis to testify on behalf of the measure. This time even the Indiana State Police claimed to support it. But when they announced what they projected the cost of the web site would be it thru the brakes on the bill. Sen. Long would not allow for a committee vote and that put things in limbo.

A few days later Sen. Nugent called and told Margie that our bill was in trouble because of the "money" issue. That's when we decided to change up and go for a lifetime carry permit. That would eliminate all our problems and it would be the first in the Nation.

Rep. Woodruff immediately amended his bill with that language. But then the same chairman who caved in last year was not tripping over himself to give this bill a hearing and when he did he stripped all of the language out and put in his own. To say the least Rep. Woodruff was upset. Again, using strategy, he allowed the bill to proceed on and when it got to the floor he amended his language back in and it passed.

HB 1176 went to the Senate and SB 054 came to the House. Rep. Woodruff went to work on SB 054 to read just like 1176. At that point 54 became our lead dog, but Sen. Nugent kept things going with HB 1176 while it was in the Senate. You still with me?

Everything was looking good. Two strong bills with lots of support. SB 054 passed out of the Senate on a 49 to 1 vote and 1176 had passed out of the House with over 75% of the votes. But then things started to get crazy.

People started attaching things to these bills, some of which had nothing to do with carry permits. Much of it was money and fees and how they would be dispersed. Over these past 2 months there have been an enormous amount of phone calls and e-mails between these two fine legislators and those of us in the 2nd Amendment Patriots, taking things out and putting things in.

But then came a major addition. HB 1028, Firearms and Self Defense, that was introduced by Rep. Koch was amended into our bills. I'm told by some contacts in Indy that this bill was inspired by the NRA. It is a good bill, which is similar to the Florida Castle Doctrine, but it's controversial. It's a no retreat measure that allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

The problem was that when both SB 054 and HB 1176 got back to their prospective houses 1028 in our bill became an issue.

The President Pro Tempore Sen. Bob Garton was seeing 1028 as a self defensive issue and SB. 054 as a licensing issue. Here's where the Senate rules of germane come into play. According to my phone conversation with Sen. Nugent that sent it to the lawyers to make a determination. Time is now running short for the session will end in just about 3 or 4 days.

Sen. Nugent called Margie this morning to tell her that he and Rep. Woodruff have put HB 1176 back in front and stripped out the 1028 language. This evening I talked with Troy Woodruff and he told me that bill is now on it's way to the Governor and that it will be signed. The only piece that was missing from HB 1176 was that language about allowing folks to apply for their lifetime carry right away.

Troy told me that he felt if he would have made any changes at this late date we stood a good chance of not having the lifetime permit. I know he's right. He's hoping we can get the State Police to accommodate us on this point.

The Governor may sign it right away and then there will be a ceremonial signing at a later date. I'll keep you posted.

There was a lot more to this very ambitious adventure than what I've written here and a whole lot of hard work on the part of Rep. Troy Woodruff and Sen. Johnny Nugent and all you good Americans in the 2nd Amendment Patriots. Margie and I thank you all.

I am disappointed that the NRA/ILA news alert that went out this past Saturday made no mention of Indiana and what we've done here, especially after I asked them last week to consider putting out just a little notice.

Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America, on the other hand was quick to offer assistance in any way we needed it. I hope that if we do have a special signing that Larry Pratt and our two formidable legislators, Sen. Nugent and Rep. Woodruff and those in the 2nd Amendment Patriots will all be on hand for it.

So OK it wasn't a short letter. Thanks again to all of you,



Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED

If you enjoyed reading about "Indiana Lifetime bill on it's way to Gov." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bruss01
March 9, 2006, 06:07 PM
Very interesting. I went looking for the TEXT OF THE BILL THAT ACTUALLY PASSED. I didn't see it on the website listed... can you please post the copy of what will actually be on the Governor's desk? That would be great.

scout26
March 9, 2006, 06:19 PM
Boy, if that don't earn you an F- from the Brady's, nothing will !!!!


Hmmm, maybe I could talk Mrs Scout into moving to Indiana so that she can be closer to her Mother-in-Law. :rolleyes:

cordex
March 9, 2006, 06:23 PM
I think this is the final bill:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HB/HB1176.2.html

VorpalSpork
March 9, 2006, 07:11 PM
Boy, if that don't earn you an F- from the Brady's, nothing will !!!!
It would be better not to need a license at all.

Standing Wolf
March 9, 2006, 07:54 PM
I doubt I've ever seen government give up free money. Amazing!

El Tejon
March 10, 2006, 08:19 AM
Gee, what a surprise! The NRA ignored what we are doing here. Shocking. Well, it's our own fault for not having as many electoral votes as Florida or Texas where carrying guns was invented.:rolleyes: :D

I guess we poor dumb unenlightened rubes will have to drive on without the NRA. Oh, well, they'll catch up to us someday.:D

As an aside, AAAAHHHH! Quit calling it the "Castle Doctrine"! You guys are driving me batty.

1. "Castle Doctrine" refers to an exception to the duty to retreat in which one does not need to retreat if in one's residence.

2. Indiana does not have a duty to retreat.

3. Indiana eliminated the duty to retreat in 1865 in a Supreme Court decision. Note this was just before Florida (See Kirk's Second Law of the Internet) passed a statute amending their use of force to eliminate the duty to retreat in 2005.

4. The current attempt to codify the lack of Indiana's duty of retreat is feckless and being pushed by the NRA who has absolutely no idea what is going on in Indiana.

5. The duty to retreat is a minority position among the states.

ARperson
March 10, 2006, 10:26 PM
I disagree with the idea that castle doctrine is an exception to the duty to retreat mindset. :scrutiny: As I see it, castle doctrine is at the opposite end of the spectrum, but not merely limited to an "exception" of the duty to retreat.

However, legally, I realize that my own version of common sense and logic have no place. :cool:

El Tejon
March 11, 2006, 09:26 AM
AR, many moons ago in the Motherland, England, the general rule was that one had a duty to retreat if one was able to before you could apply deadly force. A recognize exception to the duty to retreat was a man's domicile. This principle is usually traced back to Coke but the same legal principle (retreat, unless in your crib) can be found in Wroman law.

The Amuricins, upon Independence, adopted the same legal principles. Over the years, many states have abandoned the duty to retreat requirement (Indiana did during the Civil War) as it became known that if one turns and runs one subjects himself to greater danger (as in the Civil War where the real killing did not start until one side broke and ran).

However, even in states that maintained a duty to retreat, e.g. Florida, the "Castle Doctrine" was an exception to the duty to retreat before deadly force could be applied. Recently our dear friends in the media have contorted the "Castle Doctrine" to equating to the lack of a duty to retreat.

The "Castle Doctrine" applies to an exception to a general duty to retreat. Modifying a state's law to abolish any duty to retreat is NOT the "Castle Doctrine".

Anywho, just a pet peeve of mine. Sort of like guys who keep saying "Class 3 weapons" (an aside: AAAAHHH!) instead of Title II, it is incorrect, but I know what they mean.:)

El Tejon
March 11, 2006, 09:28 AM
And since I have not said it, and I certainly should, GOOD JOB, SECOND AMENDMENT, PATRIOTS. You people are a wonder to our cause.

abc
March 11, 2006, 07:35 PM
I think you are overlooking the damage done by this bill.

1) The minimum price to exercise your rights(the 4 year unlimited license) is now $40, up from $25. The duplicate license fee has been raised to $20 from $5, boy that pink paper has gotten costly. So here we are forced to hand over more money for what we already had, and funds collected beyond 1.1mil per annum can pay for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine sales databases as well.

2) The backround check system has been changed to the federal NICS, which in theory is a non-issue. Given the state of the federal government and the constant issue of records destruction, it makes a lot more sense to have this run by our own state government, which we have a firmer grasp on.

3) Now we have a burdon of notifying the ISP anytime we experience an "event" that may disqualify ourselves from being a license holder.

And the issue that should have everyone calling for veto:
4) All dealers are required to forward copies of their completed 4473's to the state police. All of the previous language regarding ISP backround check data retention and records retention investigation assurances by the attorney general have been repealed. Thus the ISP is free to catalog your purchases and they'll even get the make, model, and serial number.

Now I know Jim of the 2nd Amendment Patriots is calling out how the governor can issue an executive order regarding the records retention prior/at/after the bill signing. He's even gone as far as to give some type of justification that we live in a "tracked" society so we should just expect this, and it was so laborous to get this lifetime bill passed. Honestly, I'm sick of the harping on the lifetime license. Clearly there are municipalities or CLEOs that attempt to make it inconvenient when applying for licenses, but this law has not fixed that. I've yet to hear that this has prevented someone from getting a license, or heard that it would have been too laborous to add language to the existing law to crack the whip on these obstructions. Of course all we are hearing is about how great this lifetime license is without any discussion of the fiscal burden to participate in the lifetime license, nor the fact that the less fortunate(those more likely to only afford a 4-year) have been sold out, and the ISP has been awarded an information fishing adventure.

Again nothing to see here, ignore the man behind the curtain. Am I the only not holding my breath to have Daniels unrectumfy this? Unless we have close to 150 people that can't read in Indianapolis and the people "on our side" don't know what information is put on a 4473; this forwarding of the 4473 behavior is intentional. Hooray, we've given up ground; nothing like moving backwards in the name of progress.

garrettwc
March 12, 2006, 11:51 AM
And the issue that should have everyone calling for veto:
4) All dealers are required to forward copies of their completed 4473's to the state police. All of the previous language regarding ISP backround check data retention and records retention investigation assurances by the attorney general have been repealed. Thus the ISP is free to catalog your purchases and they'll even get the make, model, and serial number.

This has been effective in Indiana since 1997. Below is the text of the existing law:

IC 35-47-2.5-3
Criminal history information; consent form
Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person purchasing a handgun from a dealer shall consent in writing, on a form to be provided by the superintendent, to have the dealer obtain criminal history information.
(b) The form shall include, in addition to the information required by section 4 of this chapter, the same information required to be included on the firearms transaction record required by federal regulations administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury. However, the form may not include any information related to the handgun.
(c) The copies of the forms shall be mailed or delivered to the state police department before the last day of the month following the sale.
As added by P.L.17-1997, SEC.8.

All they have done here is to change the wording to "define" the form.

abc
March 12, 2006, 04:44 PM
I believe you are mistaken, let me help you:

IC 35-47-2.5-3
(b) The form shall include, in addition to the information required by section 4 of this chapter, the same information required to be included on the firearms transaction record required by federal regulations administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury. However, the form may not include any information related to the handgun.
Note the, "However, the form may not include any information related to the handgun." (my emphasis added)

Here is what a 4473 looks like(special attention to section D on page 2): http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

IC 35-47-2.5-3 will now read:
(a) A person purchasing a handgun from a dealer shall complete and sign Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473.
(b) The dealer shall forward a copy of the Form 4473 signed by the purchaser to the state police department before the last day of the month following the sale.

Further the following sections related to records keeping and destruction have been repealed:

IC 4-6-3-12
Compliance inspections into destruction of handgun purchase records
Sec. 12. (a) Upon receipt of a complaint that records of handgun purchases are not being timely destroyed as required by IC 35-47-2.5-8, the attorney general shall conduct a compliance inspection to substantiate compliance.
(b) The attorney general shall report the findings of inspections made under this subsection to the governor and to the presiding officer of each house of the general assembly.
As added by P.L.17-1997, SEC.1.

IC 35-47-2.5-8
Maintenance of records by state police department; log of requests
Sec. 8. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the state police department may not maintain records in any form, including a computer data base, longer than thirty (30) days after a dealer's request for a criminal history check concerning a buyer or transferee who is not found to be prohibited from possessing and transporting a firearm under state or federal law.
(b) A log of requests made to the state police department may be maintained for not more than twelve (12) months, if the log consists only of:
(1) the name of the purchaser;
(2) the dealer identification number;
(3) the unique approval number;
(4) the transaction date; and
(5) a record indicating that the fee collected by the dealer under section 11 of this chapter has been transferred to the state police department.
As added by P.L.17-1997, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.68-1999, SEC.1.


As enacted by HB1176, starting July 1st, 2006 the Indiana State Police will receive copies of ATF 4473 forms for handgun sales, which contain the make, model, serial number, and caliber of the handgun(s) purchased, and there are no restrictions on the retention or use of this data.

garrettwc
March 12, 2006, 11:12 PM
abc, thank you for pointing out my oversight.

I now fully appreciate your concern. We are trading simplied administration tasks (license applications) for registration. And we all know what registration leads to. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Indiana Lifetime bill on it's way to Gov." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!