GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-15-2007, 11:59   #1
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
Indiana Legislation Jan 2007

Read em and bear in mind that some of this legislation is aimed at Indianapolis specifically and RKBA in general across the state.

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/b...=1&request=all

This listing includes all proposed legislation for this year. This is a new House with many new Dem Representatives with new leadership in the House and Senate. This means there will be some laws pushed much farther than they have been allowed to go in the past.

SB 0018 -- Handgun sales. "Corrects the law passed last year that included sending a copy of 4473 to Indiana SP"

HB 1200 does the same thing as SB 0018

HB 1011 -- Regulation of firearms during an emergency. "Would bar any and all gov state to local from imposing any added restrictions on the sale, use, possession of firearms."

HB 1089 -- Local regulation of firearms.
Authored by Representative Orentlicher
"Indianapolis/Marion county total and complete exemption from the current state pre-emption. This is one we should in all directions have various reps embrace with amendments to remove the grandfather date currently in statute and maybe give it some teeth. One such tooth would be to include all State Depts including the DNR in the pre-emption."

HB 1090 -- Sale of handguns.
Authored by Representative Orentlicher
"Muddies the water in relation to gunshow vendors. Mandates one handgun a month.

HB 1118 -- Possession of firearms on certain property. "Safe storage of firearms in POV at employers property and for visitors of such."

Also there are several measures concerning Illegal aliens.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 13:02   #2
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
As I understand how communications works when expressing views to legislators an email is worthless.
Faxes may be 100x the value in the email.
A hand written letter less than one page may be worth 100x a fax.
A personal visit to the legislators office may be worth as much or more than a handwritten letter.

The letter I am speaking of is not typed or a copy. Typed and copied may weigh somewhere between a fax and an email.

I mean this only as a guide for meaning full expression. I am sure I am not accurate in these ratings and those who know where to look them up can post them to correct me.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 20:33   #3
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
Thanks for the info, txgho1911!
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 15:03   #4
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
The only activity so far scheduled for firearms related bills are as follows. I will monitor the committee schedules for other events of interests.

AGENDA FOR: Commerce, Public Policy & Interstate Cooperation

MEETING: January 17, 130PM, Room #233

CHAIR: Senator Riegsecker

MEMBERS: Becker R.M., Jackman, Merritt, Steele, Walker, Weatherwax, Howard R.M.M., Breaux, Rogers, Simpson

AGENDA: SB 0018 SB 0180

NOTES: Note: Room change
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 17:59   #5
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
Do you want to make a difference?

If Marion County is allowed full discretion on personal firearms regulation outside of current state law; Indianapolis will be in worse shape crime wise than Washington DC. Currently there is a slight disparity for older regulation not affected by state law due to a grandfather date in 1994. I have discovered less than a year ago that my Indiana Liscence to Carry Handgun was null and void in city parks in Indianapolis. I understand that other localities within the state also maintain those older regulations on city books. Many of these jurisdictions local ordinances are not known statewide and leave the otherwise law abiding individuals in probable jeopardy with a legal system that is growing more confused and incompetent with every electioneering DA.
Instead of giving this or any other locality such breadth of discretion against the law abiding individuals who in many cases have passed numerous background checks in the past. Many careers and vocations as require background checks and not just for the Indiana Handgun Liscense.

Gerald OBrien
317-418-2487


Jim, Is that the kind of material that might sway him?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tomes [mailto:jmtomes@pngusa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:29 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Rep. Orentlicher's phone call

Just a few minutes ago I received a call from Indiana State Representative David Orentlicher (D). The conversation was about his two bills (HB 1089 and HB 1090) that would allow Marion County to circumvent Indiana's preemption law and limit handgun purchases to one per month respectively.

He listened to my argument that gun laws have no effect on crime and research has proven that to be the case. Also, he acknowledge my position that criminals don't buy guns, they steal them and it's only the good people that are burdened with restrictive gun laws.

Rep. Orentlicher asked me how one hand gun per month purchases would inconvenience gun owners. He asked if a person couldn't buy one gun and then wait until the next month a buy another one.

My examples I gave him were if the buyer was wanting to purchase a matched set of guns for his collection or perhaps wanted to get a pair of consecutive serial numbered guns for his kids. I told him that this purchase could be at a gun show where the dealer would not be available after the show. Or if someone from out of state was passing through and wanted to have the guns transfered to their home state it would pose a hardship.

He told me he had not thought about those circumstances. I could tell in the way he said that, that he had not thought along those lines.

I told him that our group the 2nd Amendment Patriots will support
anyone on crime control but we take a hard stand against gun control.
He asked me it I could send him some ideas on how to target the crime problems in our state.

I don't know what effect we can have on him, but we'll never know if we don't try. At least he called and that's a first step.

I have some ideas I'd like to share with him on going after crime and leaving the guns and good people alone. But before I do that I'd like for all of you to give me your personal perspective on what to send Rep. Orentlicher.

I hope that the Indiana state legislators who are on this e-mail list will lend their advice on this as well and that if they get time during the session they can pull Rep. Orentlicher over to the side and help stir him in the right direction, too.

One of our faithful defenders for gun owners, Indiana State Representative Jackie Walorski, who is a shooter herself with a clear understanding of gun rights,just called as I'm writing this letter. She is on the Public Policy Committee. She said she will be keeping a close watch on any anti gun legislation, including Rep. Vernon Smith's HB 1298 requiring a gun safety course before receiving a handgun license, waiting 7 days before a gun transfer can take place and prohibits more than two handguns per month.

I noticed that his HB 1298 is listed as being withdrawn prior to first reading. I don't know but I'd bet that was posted because I bet he meant that to read /one/ handgun per month instead of two.

Vernon Smith is a nut case that we have had to deal with for years and I'm told by a /very /reliable source that Orentlicher is cut from the same cloth.

Still if you want to hold your position as a gun owner and not be pushed back I suggest you jump on.

I'll wait a couple of days for any replies before I e-mail Rep.
Orentlicher with our suggestions. Send me what you have.

Thanks,

--
Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED
www.2ndamendmentpatriots.org
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 18:53   #6
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
That's some good work that's happening . . .
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 17:21   #7
MakeMineaP99
Got SIG?
 
MakeMineaP99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N. IN
Posts: 3,908
I mailed off some typed (because my handwriting is probably the worst of anyone on this forum) letters today, advising my State Rep. and Sen. to support the pro gun bills and vote against anti-gun/Orentlicher bills (sent two different letters, one for pro, one for anti, to each).

Federal go out soon. Make sure you write your US Rep. and US Sens. about the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 (the beginning of the end of FTF sales), revisions to the Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1994 (raise possession age of a handgun to 21), and an expansion of NICS (HB 297), among others.

We can make a difference, but not if we keep complaining about bills from our keyboards!

Dan
MakeMineaP99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 20:50   #8
eprn
defib jockey
 
eprn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SE Indiana
Posts: 152
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but are Indy parks really off limits for carrying?

I've never heard of this.

If true, this grandfathering garbage needs to be nipped in the bud--quickly.

C'mon--even Ohio took care of that!
eprn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 22:50   #9
toots shor
Amagi
 
toots shor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 403
i dont think any DNR property is off limits anymore.
__________________
-Toots

"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order."
Ed Howdershelt
toots shor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2007, 00:34   #10
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Indy Parks is not DNR and yes by Indianapolis ordinance they are. Also are Indy owned golf courses, green ways (Monon Trail) or any property administered by Indy department of parks and rec.

added - It is not the grandfathering but the IC that allows cities to restrict on their property. Indy has codeified (sp, it's late) it.

Sec. 631-108. Discharging firearms.
It shall be unlawful for any person, unless authorized by resolution of the board of parks and recreation, to discharge any firearms or have possession of any firearms or other explosive devices, or to endanger others by the use of any weapon, article or device, within any park, playground or on any property controlled or leased by the department of parks and recreation, or on which a concession has been granted by it.
(Code 1975, ß 22-8)
Cross references: Weapons, ch. 451.
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group

Last edited by R. Emmelman; 01-25-2007 at 00:43..
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 17:25   #11
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
DNR administrative rule changes.
This is from email most recently through Rhino.

Below is an excerpt from Chuck Bjork's announcement for the bowling pin shoot at MCFG (which some of you already received from me). I thought it was important enough to break it out and re-send it in case some of you do not read your e-mail to the bottom.

As you may know, the DNR made some significant and very positive changes to their regulations in 2006 that have dramatically reduced the state's infringements on our fundamental rights.

In addition to the hunting regulations mentioned below, don't forget that DNR director Kyle Hupfer and the Governor worked together to temporarily suspend DNR regulations that prevented you from carrying your pistol for personal defense while hunting or while on any DNR property like a state park. Those changes are temporary for now, so you should express your opinions about making them permanent to the Natural Resources Commission (as mentioned below).

Please read the excerpt below and act accordingly.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:24:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Chuck Bjork ***********
Subject: MCFG Bowling Pin Shooting 1.23.07
Finally, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing to receive comments on several proposed administrative rule changes.
Proposed rule changes include allowing rifles loaded with pistol cartridges during the deer firearm season. The hearing will be held Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 6 p.m. (EST) at the Garrison Conference Center at Ft. Harrison State Park in Indianapolis.
The proposed deer firearm season rule change language reads: - The rifle cartridge must: (A) have a bullet of three hundred fifty-seven thousandths of an inch (.357) diameter or larger; (B) have a minimum case length of one and sixteen hundredths (1.16) inches; and (C) have a maximum case length of one and six hundred twenty-five thousandths (1.625) inches. This proposed deer hunting rule change language would continue the DNR's long-time position of allowing only short-to-medium range equipment for taking deer. The DNR has often received requests from the public for a rule change allowing some rifles during deer firearm season.
The Natural Resources Commission preliminarily adopted these rule changes, along with several others, in July 2006. The preliminarily adopted rules are available online at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/about/ Click on "2006 Additional Wildlife Administrative Rule Changes".
Public comments can be submitted by e-mail, written letter, or at the public hearing. Written comments can be sent to: Hearing Officer Natural Resources Commission 402 W. Washington Street, W272 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Comments can also be e-mailed to: jkane@nrc.in.gov Written comments must be received no later than February 15. A copy of the public hearing report will be available at www.IN.gov/nrc prior to final consideration by the Natural Resources Commission. The NRC will likely consider these rule changes for final adoption in March. If approved by the NRC, attorney general and governor, the changes will become effective this summer. The Garrison Conference Center is in Ft. Harrison State Park on the east side of Indianapolis, near the intersection of Post Road and 59th St. Find a map at:
I would personally like to see this rule change, as it would allow hunters to use calibers that are already legal, in firearms that should help them be more accurate. Please take 2 minutes and send an email or letter to the DNR to let them know your feelings on the subject. If you have any questions, let me know.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 22:13   #12
eprn
defib jockey
 
eprn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SE Indiana
Posts: 152
I thought Indiana had total preemption, as Ohio does now.

I'm really surprised that cities are allowed to limit CCW, especially here.
eprn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 05:04   #13
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally posted by eprn
I thought Indiana had total preemption, as Ohio does now.

I'm really surprised that cities are allowed to limit CCW, especially here.
Cities can only restrict on their property (e.g. city parks, city buildings). The only other exception to this is if a city ordinance was adopted before, and in effect on, January 1, 1994 (Speedway has an ordinance that only allows for open carry enacted back in the 1960s )

IC 35-47-11
Chapter 11. Local Regulation of Firearms

IC 35-47-11-1
Applicability of chapter
35-47-11-1 Sec. 1. (a) Section 2 of this chapter applies to all units (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23). All other sections of this chapter apply to all units other than townships.
(b) This chapter applies only if a statute expressly grants a legislative body the authority to adopt an emergency ordinance under this chapter.
(c) This chapter does not affect the validity of an ordinance adopted before, and in effect on, January 1, 1994.

IC 35-47-11-2
Regulation of firearms by units other than townships
35-47-11-2 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) 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).
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 21:03   #14
eprn
defib jockey
 
eprn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SE Indiana
Posts: 152
Indy (and the surrounding area) seems to be one seriously screwed-up place.

I'm glad I'm in utterly boring (yet fiercely gun-friendly) SE Indiana. Compared to Cincy, this place is paradise.
eprn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 15:32   #15
usaf207cwf
Senior Member
 
usaf207cwf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
Cities can only restrict on their property (e.g. city parks, city buildings). The only other exception to this is if a city ordinance was adopted before, and in effect on, January 1, 1994 (Speedway has an ordinance that only allows for open carry enacted back in the 1960s )[/color]
I'm so proud

Also, no anvil cannons either...
__________________
When youíre racing, it...itís life. Anything that happens before or after...is just waiting. -Maurice Trintignant
usaf207cwf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 19:07   #16
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally posted by usaf207cwf
I'm so proud

Also, no anvil cannons either...
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Sir Bartis of Borg

__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 10:59   #17
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
Later arrivals in the house. My comments in the more recently submitted bills is After .

House Bill 1739
2007 Regular Session


DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Sale of handguns. Removes references concerning the federal national instant criminal background check system (NICS) from the law concerning the sale of handguns. Returns the law concerning the sale of handguns to the form it was in before changes concerning the NICS were made to that law during the 2006 session of the general assembly. Specifies that the form that a person purchasing a handgun must submit to a firearms dealer concerning consent to obtain the person's criminal history information may not include any information related to the handgun.


Current Status:


Representatives Murphy and Reske added as coauthors


This bill reverses ISP in the task of background checks. Adds confusion to the improvements we made last year. Jim T has commented on this earlier.

House Bill 1756
2007 Regular Session


DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Handgun license renewal. Establishes the criminal history data fund for the purpose of: (1) operating and maintaining the central repository for criminal history data; and (2) establishing, operating, and maintaining an electronic system for the processing of handgun license applications and renewals. Permits money in the fund to be used to establish, operate, and maintain an electronic log to record the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Provides that certain handgun license fees will be deposited in the criminal history data fund, and repeals a provision requiring that certain handgun licensing fees be deposited in the general fund.


Current Status:


Authored by Representative Tincher


I have not read this whole piece but it looks like it allows the License Fee to fund the Criminal History database. There may be parts of this that are objectionable but I do not have any problem with ISP firearms div getting the process paid for by the fees charged. The second purpose of this bill to include OTC drug sales records soundly invalidates this as legitimate legislation.

House Bill 1397
2007 Regular Session


DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL



Firearms in locked vehicles or secure locations. Prohibits the adoption or enforcement of a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual who has a valid state issued permit to possess a firearm for protection purposes from legally possessing a firearm that is: (1) locked in the individual's motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in or on the person's property; or (2) stored at a location in or on the person's property that is secure and allows the individual to check the firearm in and out when entering and leaving 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) when permitted under federal law. Provides immunity from liability to a person who does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule. Authorizes a civil action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to remedy a violation.


Current Status:


Authored by Representative Ruppel


This is similar to HB1118 and may have better language that includes onsite safe storage facility. Hard to trust with the author who saddle us with 4473 copies to ISP if memory serves correctly. Anyone feel free to correct me.

House Bill 1644
2007 Regular Session


DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Community corrections employees and firearms. Allows an employee of a community corrections program to carry a firearm or handgun while acting as an employee of a community corrections program if the employee: (1) may legally carry a handgun or firearm; and (2) has successfully completed a certified handgun safety course.


Current Status:


Authored by Representative Goodin


This does not look good as far as including quasi Court or LEO color of law carry without sufficient LEO training in law concerning itís use.
Other concerns is the shoehorning of a training requirement eventualy for everyone.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 09:59   #18
IPDBrad
Senior Member
 
IPDBrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Near a closed pea shake!
Posts: 2,108


Quote:
Originally posted by txgho1911
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Community corrections employees and firearms. Allows an employee of a community corrections program to carry a firearm or handgun while acting as an employee of a community corrections program if the employee: (1) may legally carry a handgun or firearm; and (2) has successfully completed a certified handgun safety course.


Current Status:


Authored by Representative Goodin


This does not look good as far as including quasi Court or LEO color of law carry without sufficient LEO training in law concerning itís use.
Other concerns is the shoehorning of a training requirement eventualy for everyone.
I think there is another way of looking at this Bill. Many City and County employees that work in hazardous environments aren't allowed to carry firearms. Examples, Zoning/Building/Right of Way Inspectors, Heath & Hospital Inspectors, etc. Those examples work all over the city, safer neighborhoods and high crime neighborhoods, yet the City/County prohibits them from legally carrying firearms.

It Community Correction employees are now allowed to carry firearms, that would be expansion of their rights.
__________________
If Darwinism is correct, then there must be some survival benefit in being stupid. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many idiots out there!
IPDBrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 10:36   #19
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally posted by IPDBrad
I think there is another way of looking at this Bill. Many City and County employees that work in hazardous environments aren't allowed to carry firearms. Examples, Zoning/Building/Right of Way Inspectors, Heath & Hospital Inspectors, etc. Those examples work all over the city, safer neighborhoods and high crime neighborhoods, yet the City/County prohibits them from legally carrying firearms.

It Community Correction employees are now allowed to carry firearms, that would be expansion of their rights.
Are they prohibited by employment policy?
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 20:50   #20
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
The allowance to do so can be done through administrative rules. The training provision is what I am against. Kirt has the best explanation of what mandated training is all about. If the county is going to do it for one group of people they should just drop restrictions for all employees who can legally obtain the States license to carry. Without a training requirement the dialog could be possible recommending a level of training for those who understand what carry is all about.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 00:03   #21
Ignition
Insanityville
 
Ignition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cherry Point NC
Posts: 5,125
Quote:
Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1994 (raise possession age of a handgun to 21)

where is this bill, for Indiana or federal?


even though i am no longer in the under 21 but over 18 age group. I remember what it was like, and no amount of Im sorry i had to wait my time your gonna have to wait yours too makes it correct

I believe in the rights of the people, not oh im sorry you see under the fine print here you no longer have a right to trial by jury because your havent reached the age of 24

or you can no longer express the freedom of speech because you are over 70





I spill my blood sweat and tears defending the freedoms of all americans and the piss ants some idiots vote in(with their right to do so as they are cosidered an adult) want to twist and bend liberty and the rights of a few




ok ill hand my soap box back now.... if someone wants it (oh i dont feel less strongly about the other parts that are discussed in this thread) but usually this is one of those "rights" that many are willing to trade away just so they can stay safer for one more session of congress
__________________
-Big Dawgs #5530 Young Glockers #5 OAF #1337 USMC- For Life  
-If they ban my guns, can i still use my sword? -a 9mm is really just a .45 set on stun
-Can we repeal Murphy's laws? Gotta Love These Laws
-the 2nd amendment doesnt say the right to keep and bear long-guns
posted by Eric on the OAF --> Yes, when I was created, I killed all other Erics and assimilated them into my neural net. I am ERIC. I am all Erics.

Last edited by Ignition; 02-17-2007 at 00:08..
Ignition is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 00:30   #22
rkba_net
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 296
The Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1994 was part of the Brady Bill... it DID NOT raise the mininium age of handgun ownership to 21... before Brady there was NO mininium age on handgun ownership... you just couldn't be less than 21 years old to purchase a handgun from a FFL... individual sales came under STATE law... which in SOME cases set the mininium age to 21 (in Indiana one can get a CCW at 18)... after Brady the age was set to 18 under Federal Law for possesion... with some exemptions... here is the statute.... BTW the definition of a juvenial for the purposes of the law is 18 years old...


(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to
knowingly possess-
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a
handgun.
(3) This subsection does not apply to-
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a
juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or
ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition
are possessed and used by the juvenile-
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of
ranching or farming related to activities at the
residence of the juvenile (or on property used for
ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the
permission of the property owner or lessee, is
performing activities related to the operation of
the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a
course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of
a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the
juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited
by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a
firearm, except-
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of
an unloaded handgun in a locked container
directly from the place of transfer to a place
at which an activity described in clause (i)
is to take place and transportation by the
juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a
locked container, directly from the place at
which such an activity took place to the
transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming
activities as described in clause (i), a
juvenile may possess and use a handgun or
ammunition with the prior written approval of
the juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at
the direction of an adult who is not
prohibited by Federal, State or local law from
possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in
the juvenile's possession at all times when a
handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States or the National Guard who possesses or is
armed with a handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not
possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a
juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other
persons against an intruder into the residence of the
juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an
invited guest.
(4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is
transferred to a juvenile in circumstances in which the
transferor is not in violation of this subsection shall not be
subject to permanent confiscation by the Government if its
possession by the juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful
because of the conduct of the juvenile, but shall be returned
to the lawful owner when such handgun or ammunition is no
longer required by the Government for the purposes of
investigation or prosecution.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "juvenile" means
a person who is less than 18 years of age.
(6)(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, the
court shall require the presence of a juvenile defendant's
parent or legal guardian at all proceedings.
(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce
subparagraph (A).
(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal
guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a
prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good
cause shown.
rkba_net is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 00:35   #23
Ignition
Insanityville
 
Ignition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cherry Point NC
Posts: 5,125
i know that part of it....thank you though


i was saying if there were provision on the table to "modify" the current bill as it sits now
__________________
-Big Dawgs #5530 Young Glockers #5 OAF #1337 USMC- For Life  
-If they ban my guns, can i still use my sword? -a 9mm is really just a .45 set on stun
-Can we repeal Murphy's laws? Gotta Love These Laws
-the 2nd amendment doesnt say the right to keep and bear long-guns
posted by Eric on the OAF --> Yes, when I was created, I killed all other Erics and assimilated them into my neural net. I am ERIC. I am all Erics.
Ignition is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 01:41   #24
IPDBrad
Senior Member
 
IPDBrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Near a closed pea shake!
Posts: 2,108


Quote:
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
Are they prohibited by employment policy?
Yes. A stupid policy.
__________________
If Darwinism is correct, then there must be some survival benefit in being stupid. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many idiots out there!
IPDBrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 13:24   #25
sonny27
Senior Member
 
sonny27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 131
the speaker is hijacking HB 1118 and HB 1397. They are both in Rules committee, were they will most likely die.
sonny27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:52.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 628
170 Members
458 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42