Indiana laws, 2008 session

[Bill of Rights]

The text of these bills just posted today, and I read them.

There is only one word for this: WOW!

SENATE BILL No. 65
_____

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Citations Affected: IC 35-47.

Synopsis: Possession of handguns. Provides that a person who possesses a valid Indiana license to carry a handgun may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun on land or in buildings and other structures owned or leased by: (1) the state or a political subdivision of the state; or (2) a nonpublic elementary school, nonpublic secondary school, or nonpublic postsecondary educational institution. Provides exceptions for airports and penal facilities.

Effective: July 1, 2008.

SENATE BILL No. 66
_____

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Citations Affected: IC 34-6-2; IC 34-28-7.

Synopsis: Firearms in locked vehicles. Prohibits a person from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the person's property. Excepts possession of a firearm: (1) on school property or a school bus; (2) on certain child care and shelter facility property; (3) on penal facility property; and (4) in violation of federal law. Provides that a person who, in compliance with the prohibition, does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule is not liable for resulting injury or damage. Authorizes a civil action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to remedy a violation.

Effective: July 1, 2008.

Hoosiers, write your reps, call your reps, go VISIT your reps ASAP. Anyone from outside of Indiana who wants to offer their support, especially if you live in a place like Utah that already recognizes the RKBA in schools and has few to no problems, PLEASE feel free to write and call our legislators as well. The more they hear for this, the more likely it will pass.

Thanks for everyone's help!

Blessings,
B

[Lady Di]

We have the Republicans in place to get these bills passed, so if we're ever going to do it, now is the time. The Brady bunch types will be out in full force, so we must flood the statehouse with telephone calls. In fact, this calls for a personal visit to the statehouse.

This is great news for Hoosiers! :D

[Stubob]

Please keep us posted. This is great language. This legislation may save some lives.

[Bill of Rights]

We also have two more introduced bills awaiting discussion and hopefully, voting and passage- when these four pass the legislature, I have it on good authority that the governor will sign them.

The other two bills include:
SENATE BILL No. 29
Synopsis: Shooting ranges and discharging a firearm. Prohibits a local unit of government from imposing a minimum lot size on which a shooting range may be located. Prohibits a local unit of government from regulating the lawful discharge of a firearm, except for: (1) the discharge of a firearm on land, in a building, or on other real property owned or administered by a unit, including a highway or a public highway; or (2) using the unit's planning and zoning powers to regulate the discharge of a firearm within 200 feet of a school.

and

HOUSE BILL No. 1043
Synopsis: Regulation of firearms during an emergency. Prohibits the state, a political subdivision, or any other person from prohibiting or restricting the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during a declared disaster emergency, energy emergency, or local disaster emergency. Repeals provisions that allow certain political subdivisions to adopt emergency ordinances to regulate firearms if a local disaster emergency has been declared.


This is some REALLY great stuff! :)

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
B

[taking back sunday]

This is (i think) great news! laws are so wordy and backword flip flopped that i cant understand what it says half the time. does sb65 mean that those who are licensed to carry a handgun can legally do so on university campuses, both private and public, even if they are deemed as "gun-free zones" if so, this would be a great step in the quest to prevent future university massacres.

[Lady Di]

Yes, that's exactly what it means! This is the result of a few, and I mean very few, men and women who developed a relationship with a state senator and worked with him in getting this bill written and sponsored. Bill of Rights and I are meeting with our state senators this coming week to ask for their support. :D

[Stubob]

Please keep us posted on this !!!!!! This would be great to take this to other states. Can you point me to a clean copy, so I can forward to some other States Representatives? -

Please let us know how lunch goes!!!!

[taking back sunday]

is this what you are looking for stubob?
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/IN/IN0065.1.pdf

[taking back sunday]

Yes, that's exactly what it means! This is the result of a few, and I mean very few, men and women who developed a relationship with a state senator and worked with him in getting this bill written and sponsored. Bill of Rights and I are meeting with our state senators this coming week to ask for their support. :D

oh, so its not exactly a done deal yet? when are they voting on this bill. i really would love for this bill to pass, because i think it is a great step in the right direction. i think i would be one of the few armed at my university, but one is better than none.

-sidenote: the university i attend is private (not funded by the state) if this bill passes will i still be able to carry on campus?

[Lady Di]

Yes, if this bill passes (as is), the university you attend will not be able to prevent you from carrying on campus if you have a permit.

Please send me a private message with your email address and I'll add you to our emailing list so you can help lobby state legislators. We need to make sure that every voice is heard because there will certainly be opposition to this from Brady bunch types.

Have a great day! :oops:

[Bill of Rights]

Welcome, Taking Back Sunday!

There are several bills before the legislature that need support and at least two that need opposed. You can help by contacting your representatives and by getting others at your college to do likewise.

The bills we want to support are:
SB 29, related to shooting ranges and discharge of a firearm
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&request=getBill&docno=29 (the summary is present at each link I post in this message)

SB 65, which will essentially allow carry by IN LTC holders, anywhere in the state subject only to "trespassing" charges, except on federal property which is outside their jurisdiction, airport secure areas, and penal facilities.
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&request=getBill&docno=65

SB 66, which will allow you, an IN LTC holder, to keep a firearm in your vehicle except on federal, child-care/shelter, school, and penal properties.
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&request=getBill&docno=66

SB 158, which specifically disallows universities from forbidding carry by IN LTC holders, but unlike SB 65, does not discuss other buildings (and I think it excludes private universities, not sure) This bill's summary is not yet online at the official site.

HB 1043, which will prohibit firearm confiscations such as occurred in New Orleans after Katrina. http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB&docno=1043


The bills we wish to oppose are HB 1029, which addresses the training of reserve police officers. We are opposing this bill partly because our local sheriff explained the effect it would have on the hiring of new officers, which is to slow it or eliminate it, or to cause the raising of taxes to pay for the additional training. While more training is always a good thing, the time constraint this bill places is not. http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB&docno=1029

and

HB 1072, which would put an endorsement on your driver license if you are the holder of a lifetime LTC. There is no reason for doing this, other than to build paranoia in the LEO community when they stop someone who holds a LTC (why worry about the most law-abiding citizens?)
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB&docno=1072

(EDIT: As of 8 Jan, 2008, we are no longer opposing HB 1072 due to some new information about it. We are also not supporting it.)

There are, to my knowledge, two grass-roots organizations in IN that are focused upon improving and returning to the people the ability to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense. If, as your membership here indicates, you want to make a difference, either or both would welcome your help. Contact Lady Di or me, and we'll keep you up to date on what's happening and what you can do.

Again, welcome!

Blessings,
B

[taking back sunday]

thanks for the thorough post, bill. wouldnt it be great if they all passed hahah :D

[Bill of Rights]

It would indeed be a great thing if all of those we want passed, and a move back toward that little thing we like to call the Constitution. Sadly, however, it was too good to expect that we would not have some brainlessness proposed. Our Senate bills remain all good things, if perhaps a bit...well, "compromise" is not the right word, since we're not exactly giving them any concessions, but SB 158 and SB 356 are an effort to get us back some of what we should not have had taken from us in the first place, in the event that SB 65 is too radical for some of the milktoasts. (for my taste, SB 65 doesn't quite go far enough, but patience, they say, is a virtue.)

Anyway, here's the email I sent to both the Lafayette-area and Evansville-area groups. Much of it rehashes what has already been written, but the House has a new wrinkle of which we all need to be aware.

Dear Patriots,

Our legislators are addressing numerous issues this session, many of which appear to be "feel good" and some which I'm sure make the liberals very happy that they're doing something- similar to a dog chasing his tail; they aren't doing anything of value, and they don't know what to do with it when they catch it, but man are they doing it in a hurry!

Some of the following bills have been mentioned in earlier emails. Please, if you have not acted upon these, do so now-as in RIGHT NOW! so you don't forget or put it off till later. That's too easy to do, and these issues are too important to forget!

SB 29 removes the ability for a governmental body to restrict a shooting range based on lot size and also prevents them from regulating where you can shoot, unless it's on their land or within 200 feet of a school.

SB 65 is a far-reaching bill that removes from government a power the Second Amendment supposedly removes, that of control of where a LTC holder may carry, limiting the prohibited areas to secure areas at airports, federal jurisdiction, and any penal facility. (I know, for the purists, the 2A says nothing about LTCs. One step at a time- we're getting there! This bill is very, VERY good.)

SB 66 provides that your private property (guns) contained within your private property (locked vehicle) is no less important than the private property (land) upon which it is parked, and is not subject to regulation or prohibition by that land owner.

SB 158 is a stopgap. In the event that SB 65 meets too much opposition or is over-amended in committees or in the House, public universities will still be specified as exempt from carry prohibitions.

SB 356 is another stopgap. It's identical to SB 65 with the exception that it allows to continue the prohibition on carry at non-public schools.

All of the Senate bills regarding firearms ownership and usage are very positive and deserve your unequivocal support.

On the House side, however, things are not so positive.

HB 1029 is a bill we voice opposition to on the basis that our law enforcement agencies do not need to have their hands tied by a bill forcing a certain level of training by a certain date. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, in other words. This is not a firearms bill, but we oppose it to assist our law enforcement agencies and hope for their support in our cause as well.

HB 1043 is the sole bill on the House side that we support without reservation. It will prevent firearm confiscations during emergencies, such as happened during Hurricane Katrina. Most of those guns have still not been returned.

HB 1072 was the bill we originally spoke against on the basis of privacy concerns. As the use of this information and emplacement on the license is voluntary, we now voice no objection and take no position for nor against this bill.

HB 1260 addresses the issue of "encoded ammunition". Boy, they snuck this one in under the radar! This bill would mandate that all ammo to be sold in Indiana by July 1, 2009 would have to be marked with a serial number on the bullet and on the casing (how they plan to mark shotgun pellets is anyone's guess), would mandate that the buyer's name, birthdate, and driver license number be recorded at the point of sale, and would impose a five cent per round fee. (For a "brick" of .22LR, which is 550 rounds, that's a "fee" of $27.50 over and above the increased price you'll pay for the manufacturer to have to stamp serial numbers.) Oh, and any rounds you have that aren't stamped? You have to get rid of those before the above date. This is all akin to California's recent "microstamping" bill and will do nothing to prevent crime, but will only price those who obey the law out of shooting sports or self-defense: When you can't afford to go practice because even a brick of .22 costs you $50 or more, who can safely carry?

Once again, as I wrote above, please do everything you can: Write, call, email, even pay a personal visit to your representative to support our Senate bills 29, 65, 66, 158, and 356(and HB 1043) and to oppose the useless and harmful House bills 1029 and 1260

Thank you all, and

STAY UNITED-IN Self Defense!

Blessings,
B

[taking back sunday]

it appears as though sb356 is going to pass. but one thing greatly bothers me. why would they allow students to carry at public schools but not private?!?! as if stepping across a magical private university line makes those who carry guns lose all sense of judgement? if anything, carrying at a private university is safer. this is such bs, and i guess they will eventually allow private universities to carry, but probably not before im already out.

[Bill of Rights]

My understanding is that the thinking was that a non-public entity has the right to decide what is and is not allowed on it's property, and some Senators were not willing to vote to restrict that. I'm of the opinion that life and the protection thereof takes precedence over property rights involving land, personally.

That's OK. When SB 356 passes and (hopefully) the courthouse restriction is removed, that will be just further proof. When carry laws are relaxed, crime goes down, or as Dr. John Lott put it in a book title: More Guns, Less Crime.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
B

[Bill of Rights]

Sadly, most of our good, pro-gun bills did not even make it into, much less out of committee. The one that did, SB 356, made it to the full senate, but despite a 25-23 vote on it, it did not pass for lack of a Constitutional majority. (two of our state senators are out of commission due to illness. I'm not certain, but I believe in both cases, it's cancer. My prayers are with them and their families.)

My own senator assured Lady Di and me personally, face to face, that he supported the 2A and our bills, but when it came time to vote, he reversed himself. I have sent an email to him to give him the opportunity to explain himself. I consider it rather important since his vote would have passed the bill to the House.

In sum, for our purposes, this session was unsuccessful with the exception of HB 1260, "Encoded Ammunition" being stopped cold, but that alone is a success, and we'll be moving forward from there.

Blessings,
B

[taking back sunday]

his vote would have passed it but he reversed? wow. he needs a swift kick in the ass from all of us here on this forum. :evil: sounds like some gun grabber probably bribed him. this is exactly why i hate politics

[Bill of Rights]

Matt, he said that he supported the bills we were then lobbying to favor, one of which was SB 65. SB 356 was not yet introduced, I don't think, but the only difference is that SB 356 did not include non-public schools. He did NOT give us a promise per se, just a general positive statement.

While on the surface, I agree that he deserves that swift kick, I'm going to give the man a chance to defend his actions. That doesn't mean I'll accept his explanation if he even offers one, but it also does not mean I won't. We instead have the thought to invite him to lunch sometime for a chat. My worry is that between now and the next chance we have to introduce a good bill like 65 again, there is a general election, a gubernatorial election, and a legislatorial election. I further worry that there are enough people still p!$$ed off about the stupid time change and the toll road that they'll vote out our good governor and give us some dingbat donkey. We had Bayh, O'Bannon, and Kernan, and we presently have a House controlled by the donkeys. With luck, we'll be able to save the Senate, win back the House, AND keep Daniels, but I'm apprehensive.

It's time to start spreading the word now. They're not God's gift to gun owners, but the GOP is a lot friendlier to us around here than the donkeys are.

Blessings,
B

[brotherbill3]

BoR

Can you clarify the status of the proposed legislation? I've been trying to keep an eye on it to keep up on the status of the various bills, but haven't accomplished much because I'll be moving in just over 2 weeks. ...

Also - what district is it that we had the reversal on? ... I'd like to know if it was either the one I'm in, or the one I'm moving to ... (if you would rather e-mail me this info that's fine too.) ...

Thanks for the continued vigilance on these issues.

"Brother" Bill ...

[Bill of Rights]

Bro. Bill,

This was state Senate Bill #356, which read:

SENATE BILL No. 356
_____

DIGEST OF SB 356 (Updated January 28, 2008 7:41 pm - DI 106)

Citations Affected: IC 35-47.

Synopsis: Possession of handguns on public property. Provides that a person who possesses a valid Indiana license to carry a handgun may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and other structures that are; owned or leased by the state or a political subdivision of the state. Provides exceptions for airports, county courthouses (including a building connected to a county courthouse), and penal facilities. Permits a court to adopt a court rule authorizing persons licensed to carry a handgun to carry a handgun in a county courthouse.

(ed. note: Text in red shows new additions to the law-B)

Effective: July 1, 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nugent, Jackman, Waltz, Delph, Steele, Drozda, Waterman, Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 14, 2008, read first time and referred to Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.
January 24, 2008, amended, reported favorably _ Do Pass.
January 28, 2008, read second time, amended, ordered engrossed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted
January 29, 2008
Second Regular Session 115th General Assembly (2008)
SENATE BILL No. 356
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 35-47-9-1; (08)SB0356.2.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-47-9-1 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008]: Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.
(4) A person who possesses a valid license to carry a handgun issued under IC 35-47-2.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-11-2; (08)SB0356.2.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 35-47-11-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008]: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding IC 36-1-3, a unit may not regulate in any manner the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, or transportation of firearms (as defined in IC 35-47-1-5) or ammunition except as follows:
(1) Subject to IC 35-47-16, this chapter does not apply to land, buildings, or other real property owned or administered by a unit, except highways (as defined in IC 8-23-1-23) or public highways (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-14).
(2) Notwithstanding the limitation in this section, a unit may use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
(3) Notwithstanding the limitation in this section, a legislative body of a unit other than a township may adopt an emergency ordinance or a unit other than a township may take other action allowed under section 6 of this chapter to regulate the sale of firearms anywhere within the unit for a period of not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the regulatory action takes effect.

SOURCE: IC 35-47-16; (08)SB0356.2.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 35-47-16 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008]:
Chapter 16. Possession of Handguns on Public Property
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A state prison, a correctional facility, a city or county jail, a penitentiary, or any other facility used to confine persons who:
(A) have been sentenced for committing crimes; or
(B) are awaiting trial or sentencing for committing crimes.
(2) IC 35-47-6 concerning weapons in airports and on aircraft.
(3) Unless otherwise provided by court rule, a county courthouse, including a building connected to the county courthouse.
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "political subdivision" means a:
(1) county;
(2) township;
(3) city;
(4) town; or
(5) municipal corporation (as defined in IC 36-1-2-10).
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "state" means Indiana or any agency of state government.
Sec. 4. A person who possesses a valid license to carry a handgun issued under IC 35-47-2 may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun:
(1) on land that is; or
(2) in buildings and other structures that are;
owned or leased by the state or a political subdivision of the state.

was the only one that made it even into, let alone out of, committee. There were 48 of the total 50 senators present to vote on it, and of those, the 16 Democrats voted against it en bloc and seven Republicans voted with them to keep us defenseless. Most of the concern was because the legislators can still carry in the State House, as can judges and police, but not LTC holders. There was some wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and wetting of panties over the idea of LTC holders doing so in K-12 schools, but this seemed to be a much lesser concern.

The votes of any one of those seven Republicans would have made the vote 26-22 and sent the bill on to the House.

The seven men and women in question were:
Ronnie J. Alting (Lafayette) s22@in.gov
Vaneta Becker (Evansville) s50@in.gov
Luke Kenley (Noblesville) s20@in.gov
Connie Lawson (Danville) s24@in.gov (Majority Floor Leader)
Teresa S. Lubbers (Indianapolis) s30@in.gov
James W. Merritt, Jr. (Indianapolis) s31@in.gov (Maj. Caucus Chairman)
Thomas J. Wyss (Fort Wayne) s15@in.gov

Of note, the first and loudest opposition came, predictably, from Wyss. His district covers Fort Wayne, the former feifdom of the Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke.

You'll notice I'm naming them all, because the blame is shared, but only my senator said anything about the bills to me. I will not name him at this point, as I'm giving him a chance to respond to my email, but barring an answer in a satisfactory period of time, I'll very happily publicize his actions with the terms I think appropriate to describe them.

Blessings,
B

[brotherbill3]

Thanks for the Info Bill of Rights,

Unfortunately, I loose on both ends ... My current state Sen is Donkey ... and where I'm moving is on your list of Elephants that are backwards on this issue. (I'll be sure to voice my opion to my new sen when I'm done moving and can do such things.) It also appears that 3 of the one's that went agains this are in a small block in an area that should go the other way ... or at least you would think they'd be more 'conservative' ...

And if I'm understanding your e-mail correctly, the rest of the measures are dead for the rest of this session? Its been 20 yrs since I really 'studied' any of this.

I thought I saw another ... SB 183 ... but this appears to be 'dead' too. (and this leads to another thread ... I'll have to post it later.)

Thanks for the update.
"Brother" Bill

[Bill of Rights]

I received an email today from my state senator in reply to my question about his vote. My original letter and his reply follow:


From: (me)
Sent: Wed 1/30/2008 9:08 PM
To: (senator)
Subject: Senate bill information



Dear Senator ________,



Good day. I was watching the proceedings of the Senate last night into that late session, and I was astounded when SB 356 came up and saw your vote. I was sure I'd seen wrongly, so I waited and looked again today, and there it was. Senator, I know that you told (Lady Di) and me when we met in the Senate chamber early this month that you supported the bills we support, and that you believe in the Second Amendment. I am at a loss to understand how, in light of that, you could reverse your position and vote against it. Yes, there were six other Republicans who voted against this bill, but none of them had said they would support it, at least to me. As disappointed as I am in the outcome and in the fact that that one vote made the pass/fail difference, I still think you have a right to explain your actions, and I ask, with all due respect, that you please do so. I have about 100 people on my email list, many of whom are your constituents, and I think they want to know also.

Thank you very much for your personal reply.

Sincerely,
(signed)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Senate bill information
From: (senator)
Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 10:56 am
To: (me)

Dear Bill,

I do support this bill and the second amendment. However SB 356 allowed 18 year-old high school kids to take a gun to school, which is a bad, bad, idea. I have a 14 and a 16 year-old, and I cannot believe that part of the bill. Perhaps if you had a 16 year-old son spending time with 18 year-old friends, and if you could sit in my seat and listen to all the testimony, then you would have a different opinion

Second, I have a problem with allowing Purdue and Ivy Tech students to carry guns on campus. I have no problem with other public areas: courthouses, statehouses, churches, etc. But I have great concern about schools. When we met earlier, I did not know that this wording was in the bill.

I am sorry that I let you down. I voted as a parent rather than as a politician.

Obviously, I've redacted both names and email addresses. I've also answered his letter, but I'm not posting my reply at this time. I'd like to see what others say in reply to his points as well.

Anyone? :)

Blessings,
B

[Jay]

He doesn't care if he let you down. He obviously feels that his views as a parent outweigh the views of his constituents. I doubt he was elected to represent his views, but he'll continue to do it until he's removed.

[taking back sunday]

incredible. absolutely incredible. does he think you're an idiot, bill? "When we met earlier, I did not know that this wording was in the bill." he knew damn well the wording of the bill, i guarantee that. what a joke, if he REALLY believes in the second amendment, then he would have no problem allowing 18 year old high school students, not 'kids' as he put it, to carry in schools. if he really does believe in the second amendment then what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" does he not comprehend?

he also needs a crash course in representative democracy. he was elected to represent THE PEOPLE and vote according to what THE PEOPLE want. he was NOT elected to vote according to what he THINKS will keep his kids safe. i think that 18 year old with a gun comment is cute, as if they are any more dangerous with a firearm than a 19, 21, 30 or 40 year old

[Bill of Rights]

I don't believe he thinks I'm an idiot, but in all honesty, I heard the author of the bill and even he didn't consider that possibility. I do know that that concern was among the largest ones expressed by the senators who read the bill, on both sides of the aisle, and I can understand the concerns-note that I did not say that I agree with them, just that I understand them. This is not an issue with Utah, which allows carry by CCW holders, because their CCW is not issued until age 21, so clearly, this is new territory.
One of the main concerns is that there are not a small number of 18 year olds who don't have records not because they have committed no unlawful acts but because they have not yet been caught. I'd counter this by saying that those who would break the law are probably already carrying, just without a LTC.

Of greater concern, however, is that while an adult faculty/staff member, administrator, or parent presents a bit of intimidation against the various low-lifes attempting to snatch the gun, a fellow student, especially if he or she happens to be small of stature, does not do so. I would want to have those students who would be able to lawfully carry receive some kind of training in weapon retention, NOT as a condition of the LTC, but as something made available and strongly encouraged for them if they were to carry. I do know that Senator Nugent had been advised of the concerns between the second and third readings of the bill and he was unable to change the Senate version of it at that time, but he gave his promise that he and his House co-signers would get that issue addressed or he would not bring the bill back to the Senate. His exact phrasing, delivered several times, was, "You have my word."

If this exception is emplaced into law such that any holder of a LTC may carry on public property except that a student in a K-12 school may not do so, I can live with that. We'll go one step at a time, the same way our ability to exercise our rights was stolen from us, and we will return to the lawful exercise of our rights.

Jay,

I can't fault him for thinking as a parent-His world-view is shaped by that experience, as it is for all of us who are, but I did remind him that while he represents their interests, he is there in the senate to represent the interests of the voters who put him there. My goal is to give him the facts and the data and ensure that he is able to discharge his duties to the voters and at the same time do right by his children as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Blessings,
B