Opinion
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On March 20th, 2019, the Indiana state Senate Judiciary committee voted 7-3 to pass House Bill 1284 to enhance protections afforded to law-abiding citizens acting in defense of themselves and others.
Thank you to all NRA members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted the committee in support of this critical legislation.
HB 1284 now heads to the full state Senate, where it could be heard as early as next week.
House Bill 1284, sponsored by Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), would provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice. This bill would also require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney’s fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others.
Your NRA would also like to thank Rep. Lucas for authoring this bill, Representatives Christy Stutzman, Ben Smaltz, and Terry Goodin for co-authoring, and Senators Jim Tomes, Mark Messmer, Chris Garten, Blake Doriot, Jon Ford, Erin Houchin, and Aaron Freeman for sponsoring.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on this bill and other issues affecting our Second Amendment rights in Indiana.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
” voted 7-3 to pass House Bill 1284″
Let me guess. No, wait…
The three were DEMOCRATS, right?
RIGHT?
The problem I have with Negotiating Rights Away and their grandstanding articles here on Ammoland is the fact that they damn well know that there are just as many – if not more – gun owners who (at least in Indiana) are NOT NRA members and who routinely push for pro-gun legislation and fight (in Indiana, the very few attempts at) antigun bills. NRA acts as though they – and NRA members – are the only ones who work for pro-2A victories at the statehouse. It’s a lie, they know it’s a lie, and yet they can’t be bothered to… Read more »
I agree that all 2A groups should be more inclusive, but for me, the lack of inclusiveness is not a good reason to be even more divisive. While there are a lot of gun owners who are not NRA members, I can say that as a member of NRA, GOA and several other groups, NRA was the only one I ever heard from about this bill. I haven’t seen it in a single GOA mailing. Maybe I missed it, but I do know that the NRA was on the front lines on this one because they talked about it a… Read more »
There are two things you need to remember, William: 1. Ammoland, just like the rest of the firearms blog industry, relies 99% on simply publishing whatever press releases they receive. They generally don’t have the time or talent to write their own articles or even review and edit the press releases that they publish. They received this article from the NRA-ILA and automatically published it. You can’t expect Ammoland to use “more inclusive language” because no one at Ammoland wrote this article, and I doubt that anyone at Ammoland even bothered reading all of it. 2.. The NRA _needs_ to… Read more »
When might we be finding out good news on “Indiana Constitutional Carry” for Indiana?
I don’t know, but I’ve been watching for that myself. One shouldn’t need permission from the government to carry, any more than to keep (which is none).
Not likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. While Republicans have a strong super majority and they’ve done a lot of really great things for the great Hoosier state, there are enough that lean slightly left that constitutional carry is unlikely any time soon.
It’s been on the agenda multiple times in recent years. Never made it out of committee.
Truth is that there are a lot of gun owners who have, at best, mixed feelings about Constitutional Carry. Anyone who has spent much time on any public shooting range has met plenty of people who make you think twice about it.
I am a former CCDW Instructor. I supported constitutional carry in my state, but if anyone had presented an alternative that would have eliminated or sharply reduced the cost of the license while keeping the training requirement, I would have been a lot happier to support that alternative.
With all due respect, Tom, nobody’s rights are subject to your approval, and if you want to be honest, you will admit that constitutionally, placing tests and/or monetary barriers to the exercise of a fundamental right to ‘balance’ your misgivings is a no-no.
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. . . . The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)
And the biggest reason that it doesn’t proceed further is because that committee relies upon the input of appointed chiefs of police, some elected sheriffs, left leaning judges, prosecutors and many bureaucrats. These committees usually have a very limited time frame in which to hear interested parties input on proposed legislation assigned to their committee. I’m not trying to make excuses, simply trying to explain. BUT……now is the time to write your state Rep and Senator to make them acquainted with the proposed legislation introduced in the Missouri State legislature seen elsewhere on Ammoland. Those of us Hoosiers working for… Read more »