For purposes of full disclosure, I own guns and I enjoy shooting them. I strongly support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. That said, I am not against each and every bit of gun legislation ever proposed. I think there can be sensible restrictions. Following are several bills before the Indiana legislature dealing with guns. Senate Bill 48 requires a person who applies after Dec. 31, 2015, for a license to carry a handgun to first complete an eight-hour handgun safety and training program. (Ohio has a law similar to this one. I have a brother-in-law who went through the Ohio training.) So far in Indiana, the assumption has been that if you want to carry around a handgun you likely know which end the bullets come out of. I am not sure, however, that is always the case because I have seen people do some pretty dumb things with firearms – things that a minimal amount of training likely would have averted. While I am not against this type of legislation per se, I am pretty confident an appropriate amount of training could be accomplished in far fewer than eight hours. Perhaps something akin to the written driver’s test might be a good compromise. House bill No. 1107 address similar issues. Senate Bill 107 provides immunity for people who don’t prohibit firearms on their property. Basically, this means you can’t be sued for not having a no firearms allowed policy. Seems reasonable because how could you ever prove that a no firearms policy would have prevented anything in the first place? Senate bill No. 176 regulates the sale of Tannerite, an ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder-based explosive. It asks that retailers lock the stuff up and ask for IDs to be sure buyers are old enough. Seems fine. Senate bill No. 215 makes it against the law to possess a firearm modified to make it look like a toy. I’d support that. There is no good reason anyone would want to modify a real gun to make it look like a toy. Only a criminal would do that. Senate bill No. 279 provides that a juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over an individual: (1) at least 14 years of age who carries a handgun without a license; or (2) who uses a firearm in the commission of an offense. Makes communicating a threat with the intent to cause the evacuation of school property or a hospital a Level 6 felony. (Under current law, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.) Adds unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon to the definition of "crime of violence.” Provides that a person who uses a firearm to commit certain offenses may be sentenced to an additional term of 20 years. (Under current law, the person may be sentenced to an additional term of five to 20 years.) I’m good with all of that. People who commit crimes with guns or use them irresponsibly make law-abiding gun owners look bad. I support tougher penalties against people who misuse guns. Senate bill No. 433 repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun and provides for a 10-year sentence enhancement if a person possesses a sawed-off shotgun in violation of federal law while committing certain offenses. Makes conforming amendments. That’s really not as whacky as it may sound to you at first blush. It basically would bring Indiana in line with federal law. According to federal law, it’s legal to own a sawed-off shotgun. But to do so, you need a federal stamp and have to pay a transfer fee. The shotgun is then federally registered as an “any other weapon” gun under the firearms act. If you make, sell or posses one outside of the federal law, you’re facing 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. So nationwide, people can manufacture, sell and own them as long as they follow the federal law. Except if your state bans them, as Indiana does. If this law passes, I can assure you there won’t be sawed-off shotgun manufacturers popping up on every street corner. There won’t be a huge influx of people buying them because there simply isn’t much of a market for them. There won’t be people pulling out hacksaws and cutting down their old Mossberg either, unless they get a permission slip from the feds first, which will be virtually impossible. House bill No. 1029 provides that an individual must indicate on an application for or a renewal of a driver's license, permit, or identification card whether the individual possesses a handgun license. Requires the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) to verify whether the individual has a license by contacting the superintendent of the state police department. Requires the bureau to place a notation on the individual's driver's license, permit, or identification card that indicates that the individual possesses a license. Makes a technical correction. This is overkill. The state already knows who has a handgun license. It already shows up when the cops run your license plate. That’s all they need. They don’t need to be putting notches on drivers’ licences. House bill No. 1143 prohibits a state agency, including a state-supported college or university, from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or firearm accessories: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and other structures that are; owned or leased by the state. Provides for certain exceptions. Voids, as of July 1, 2015, any rules or policies enacted or undertaken by a state agency before, on, or after June 30, 2015, concerning possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the state. Allows a person to bring an action against a state agency if the person is adversely affected by a rule, a measure, an enactment, or a policy of the state agency that violates this law. This seems a little over the top. It seems like one of those all-or-nothing deals. On the one hand, if you’re driving through a college campus minding your own business and have a gun in your vehicle, I don’t think a cop should be able to pull you over and take you to jail. At the same time, I don’t think we want students walking around campus with AR-10s slung over their shoulders. Lawmakers need to find the middle ground here. House bill No. 1144 repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana. I know some people like to say, “The Second Amendment is my handgun license.” I get that a little bit, but I like the fact that people who have licences to carry handguns in Indiana must first prove they aren’t felons. I highly doubt this law would pass anyway. House bill No. 1244 permits a person to bring an action for damages against a business entity having a policy of barring possession of a firearm on the entity's property ... Basically, if I get hurt on your property because you wouldn’t allow me to carry a gun, I can sue you. That’s just silly for a couple of reasons. First, how in the world would you ever be able to prove that? Second, there’s nothing stopping me from suing you now if I believe my injury was caused by your gun-barring policies. There’s no civil immunity from that. There’s one more law that I want to write about, because it was proposed by our own District 22 lawmaker Curt Nisly, R-Goshen. I’ll touch on that one next week.
