How do we change that stupid SBS law?

[redpitbull44]

I am not sure that we've discussed this, and obviously there has not been a concerted effort to do so, but I for one would like the legal ability to own a Short Barreled Shotgun here in Indiana. I decided to post this here, rather than in General Firearms, because SBS's are an NFA item.

As most here know, Indiana is a very gun friendly state. It makes no sense to me that there is an NFA item we can't have. In my mind, an SBS would be idea for home defense. With a good choke, they could be nice for hunting also. The main reason for me NOT buying a S12 yet is because I want one with a short barrel. Even in AK format, they are unwieldy with that 18" barrel.

So, what would we have to do to get this law changed? I know it would involve petitioning our state government. It would probably be helpful if many many people got involved. It would be nice if manufacturers could show support, and obviously beneficial to them as well.

 

[revsaxon]

If someone can come up with a nicly worded letter, ill send one to every person in power in the state...

 

[shooter521]

So, what would we have to do to get this law changed? I know it would involve petitioning our state government. It would probably be helpful if many many people got involved. It would be nice if manufacturers could show support, and obviously beneficial to them as well.

The real crapper is that the actual change itself would be stone simple; just make the language in the IC read exactly the way it already does for machine guns - illegal unless registered in accordance with federal law (paraphrasing). Couch it in terms of "streamlining" the IC or something, and find a pro-gun state rep to ram it through. If we can get lifetime LTCH, the parking lot bill and transporting to the range w/o a permit done, this should be easy by comparison!

 

[jd4320t]

I'm willing to help.

Who are the pro-gun state reps?

 

[Jtgarner]

I'll make you all a deal, I will help with this, and after it goes through, you all can help me get carry on campus passed as a state law (well making it unlawful for colleges to make rules against it).

Deal?

 

[Britton]

carry on campus passed as a state law

If you want to support this then show up and support Jim Banks this Saturday at his fund raiser.

 

[MTC]

The real crapper is that the actual change itself would be stone simple; just make the language in the IC read exactly the way it already does for machine guns - illegal unless registered in accordance with federal law (paraphrasing). Couch it in terms of "streamlining" the IC or something, and find a pro-gun state rep to ram it through. If we can get lifetime LTCH, the parking lot bill and transporting to the range w/o a permit done, this should be easy by comparison!

Looks like they couldn't even get the wording right, since a shotgun manufactured with a short(er) barrel than a given length has not necessarily been "sawed-off".

IC 35-47-5-4.1
Sawed-off shotgun
Sec. 4.1. (a) A person who:
(1) manufactures;
(2) causes to be manufactured;
(3) imports into Indiana;
(4) keeps for sale;
(5) offers or exposes for sale; or
(6) gives, lends, or possesses;
any sawed-off shotgun commits dealing in a sawed-off shotgun, a Class D felony.
(b) The presence of a weapon referred to in subsection (a) in a motor vehicle (as defined under IC 9-13-2-105(a)) except for school buses and a vehicle operated in the transportation of passengers by a common carrier (as defined in IC 8-2.1-17-4) creates an inference that the weapon is in the possession of the persons occupying the motor vehicle. However, the inference does not apply to all the persons occupying the motor vehicle if the weapon is found upon, or under the control of, one (1) of the occupants. In addition, the inference does not apply to a duly licensed driver of a motor vehicle for hire who finds the weapon in the licensed driver's motor vehicle in the proper pursuit of the licensed driver's trade.
(c) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting in the course of the officer's official duties or to a person who manufactures or imports for sale or sells a sawed-off shotgun to a law enforcement agency.

Do you mean adding wording to Sec. 10(7) below to make it applicable to Sec. 4.1 above?

IC 35-47-5-10
Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns
Sec. 10. The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States, National Guard of Indiana, or Indiana State Guard, when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display, testing, or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing, assembling, conducting research on, or testing machine guns, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles, or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing, or having applied to possess, machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article.
(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.

reference: Indiana Code 35-47-5

 

[jeremy]

I know a quicker way....

How about we all chip in to a Fund for the Legal Defense of someone who is caught in possession of an SBS...

 

[MTC]

I know a quicker way....

How about we all chip in to a Fund for the Legal Defense of someone who is caught in possession of an SBS...

A court ca$e ... hmm.

1068, 1065, 292 and several others were accomplished within the time frame of one legislative session.

 

[jeremy]

A court ca$e ... hmm.

1068, 1065, 292 and several others were accomplished within the time frame of one legislative session.

How much and for how long had the maneuvering went before the Legislative Session though?!

 

[japartridge]

I'm all for it... someone get the wording down, and I'll send to everyone I can.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm in. I wanted a SBS for my wife to keep as a HD gun and was shocked that we couldn't have one here.

 

[ATM]

I'm all for it... someone get the wording down, and I'll send to everyone I can.

Here's a rather simple version that I like:

IC 35-47-5-4.1
Repealed

 

[CampingJosh]

I'd vote with ATM. I don't particularly want a SBS, but I might someday, and I'm a big fan of liberty.

 

[japartridge]

Here's a rather simple version that I like:

IC 35-47-5-4.1
Repealed

I like that one too, but for some reason I think it's going to take more than that!

 

[ATM]

I like that one too, but for some reason I think it's going to take more than that!

There have been many sections of that chapter already repealed through the years.

Let's repeal IC 35-47-5-12 while we're at it. It's just as silly.

 

[MTC]

How much and for how long had the maneuvering went before the Legislative Session though?!

In the case of 1068 (keeping our personal info that was stored in the LTCH database somewhat private and away from "journalists" and other miscreants) it came to everyone's attention (enough to enrage enough gun owners) around Nov. of 2009. A bill was immediately introduced and passed by an overwhelming margin within 3 months. 292 and 506 were introduced or co-sponsored by new State Senator Jim Tomes in the first session after his election in Nov. 2010. Unlike some past bills in D.C., very little, if any, prior maneuvering or delays. Then again, our Statehouse and Executive are currently not like those on the national level.

ETA: Not here to argue with you, especially when we are in agreement on almost every issue. Go that route if you want. I don't trust the courts. I'd just as soon strike, repeal or replace sections of the code through our elected representatives.

 

[japartridge]

There have been many sections of that chapter already repealed through the years.

Let's repeal IC 35-47-5-12 while we're at it. It's just as silly.

I'm good with that... lets get rid of IC 35-47-5-2.5 while we are shredding it... it makes no sense, and 90% of High School guys break that law! I know that I had a pocket knife all through high school!

Not to be flippant, I really do think it needs to be shredded!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd be good with repealing IC 35-47.

That said, though...

Dear Sen/Rep/Gov. _________,

There are presently some areas of Indiana State Statute that need additional modification, in my opinion. These sections make criminals of honest, law-abiding, peaceable people who only wish to possess certain items, usually for self-defense.

For example, IC 35-47-5-2 and 35-47-5-12 both reference types of knives. Why? We already have laws against battery that criminalize the use of a weapon against another person other than in defense. Must the law criminalize the mere possession of an object, even by someone who has no intent to do harm to anyone who poses no threat to him- or herself? These sections are from almost thirty years ago and protect no one from anyone or anything.

I propose those sections be repealed, and that IC 35-47-5-2.5 (d) be changed to also except those who hold valid licenses to carry handguns and are not enrolled as students in the school.

Additionally, IC 35-47-5-4.1 (c) should be amended to read, "This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting in the course of the officer's official duties, to a person who possesses the shotgun lawfully under applicable United States statutes, or to a person who manufactures or imports for sale or sells a sawed-off shotgun to a law enforcement agency."

Finally, I would like to see IC 35-47-9-1 amended to include (4) Persons who are licensed under this chapter to carry handguns and who are not students currently enrolled in the school on that property.

These laws at present only provide a method of punishing those who violate them, they do not prevent any injuries in and of themselves. Those with intent to do harm to others will still do so whether these laws exist or not. To criminalize the mere possession of these items is pointless and nonsensical. I realize that there is hesitation to change anything connected with schools. By tying the carry of a knife in that place to those who hold Licenses to Carry Handguns, it is my hope to begin by showing that these people who have voluntarily chosen to be fingerprinted and background-checked and who are among the most peaceable and law-abiding citizens in the country have demonstrated their trustworthiness. We as a society cannot prevent any and all harm from being done. Disarming the innocent will do nothing to protect the innocent, it will only empower those with criminal intent and arm them with the knowledge that their intended prey are unable to effectively resist them.

Thank you for your time and attention to these important matters. I look forward to seeing your support for their passage.

Very truly yours,
<signed>

Hope this helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Re: BoR post #19

Well, there ya go. Like the genie from the lamp, you call his name and he appears.