They probably believe that was an accurate impression of an NRA member. FWIW, the only time I've worn a baseball cap backwards was when I had a mask (paintball or catchers) on. The more I read, the more I believe that liberalism truly is a mental illness.Wow and to think people voted and put this fool into office.
. The bill passed out of committee, moved on to the full House, and passed overwhelmingly. Once again, I will do all I can to ensure the bill is signed into law by the Governor.
This is the response I received this evening from my rep:
"Thank you for your thoughts concerning HB1065, HB1068, and SB25. All of the bills deal with our 2nd Amendment rights. SB25 is a Senate bill that addresses the same issue as one that is found in HB1065.
HB1068 restricts the public access of records concerning concealed carry permits. The bill was presented last week in the Natural Resources committee, of which I am a member, and passed unanimously. The media was the only group that spoke in opposition to the bill. The arguments presented by the newspaper association were weak and very unconvincing. In the end, the committee decided that the 1st Amendment does not minimize the 2nd Amendment. We, as citizens of this great nation, have the right to privacy for safety sake. The bill then moved on to the full House for consideration and passed overwhelmingly. I will now do all I can to ensure the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor.
HB1065 has two parts. The first part of the bill, called the "Emergency Powers" act, prohibits the state and any other person or group from restricting the lawful possession of firearms and ammunition during a declared disaster. We need to learn lessons from what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. During and after the disaster, weapons legally possessed by residents of the city were confiscated by the authorities. No person or group spoke in opposition to this part of the bill during the committee hearing. We certainly don't want that to happen here in Indiana.
The second part of the bill, called the "Parking Lot Protection" act, prohibits a person, including a company or governmental entity, from adopting or enforcing a policy that restricts a person from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's vehicle while the vehicle is in the parking lot. Once again, there are two constitutional rights that conflict - the rights of the property owner and the rights of the gun owner. The opposition during the committee hearing focused on this conflict. In the end, I believe the 2nd Amendment rights of the individual trumps the property rights of the individual or company. Especially since the gun must be locked in the individual's car, which is property belonging to the individual
Thank you again for your thoughts on this very important issue. I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right of our citizens to lawfully possess and bear arms. I will fight any and all movements to restrict those rights and I appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Sean R. Eberhart
State Representative, District 57"
SWEET
I am one of those who can currently be fired for having a gun locked in my car.
