|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 14, 2007 7:42:59 GMT -5
Your post makes way too much sense Blackduck! Politicians will need to meet in closed chambers to discuss this new measure. Welcome to Hunting-Indiana!
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 14, 2007 7:52:24 GMT -5
I hear you Travis, just the same as Bosma and Cain supported taking hunting away from us there are some Democrats that support our hunting/shooting rights.
To me actions speak louder then words and they succeeded in taking hunting away. If I could vote for them I wouldn't. I would rather know a person is against me as opposed to have someone who claims to be for me then turn around and stab me in the back.
blackduck1 I agree. But I doubt it would make a bit of difference.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 14, 2007 8:22:22 GMT -5
Yep.......and Ginny Cain isn't on council anymore...... not sure if she didn't run, or was beaten out.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Apr 14, 2007 8:43:19 GMT -5
Just click, type and send.... Woody, always making short cuts...... ;D I copied the list of addys and pasted them to a single e-mail to save time, so who's the shortcut king now? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 14, 2007 13:33:03 GMT -5
As long as 451-3 is left in there wroded as it is, it would seem there is a blanket ban on any shooting of any weapon anywhere in the county, including peashooters slingshots, bows, or any other means of propelling any projectile other than throwing it. A baseball bat or a golf club might even be construed as a "device" used to impel an object and direct the force of it.
Way too vague language for any legal restriction, IMO, unless the object were indeed to outlaw baseball and golf in addition to scary guns and pointy things.
Of course I'm against the shooting ban, even if it were restricted to guns specififcally. I have bowhunted on a couple of occasions inside the Marion county lines, down in the southwestern part of the county. In the area I was in, houses were scarce enough to make it reasonable to use even midrange firearms like the PCR or modern sabot loaded shotgun or ML, and the fellows that were decoying geese into the adjacent cornfields could shoot in any direction without problems and wouldn't be heard by anyone inside their distant homes.
|
|
|
Post by snakeeye on Apr 14, 2007 15:53:00 GMT -5
Coupla' Marion County bucks at Geist: The resource needs to be managed.
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Apr 14, 2007 19:38:49 GMT -5
I plan to be there. One thing I thought it started at 5:30 instead of 5:00PM. The amended Proposal is better, I still believe this is solution without a problem. However I believe if we fight this too hard it may seem to the none shooting public that "We" don't care about safety. If the amended Proposal was made into law I could live with it. Ok reading this thread has conceived me. I am going to oppose this proposal. Why? I was reading the paper today and there was a story about another Rape of young girl. What is that now 3 rapes in this month alone? Crime is getting worst in this city and what is the council doing about it? Zero. No hunter related shooting incidents and what is the council going to do about that? Proposal a new law so some councilwoman gets some press before the elections. I will voice my opposition to this law calmly on Tuesday. I got on the slippery slope and was going downhill fast. Not anymore!
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 15, 2007 1:10:57 GMT -5
Great observation TTH! These folks have blinders on when it comes to where the problems really are in the city/county.
|
|
|
Post by snakeeye on Apr 15, 2007 9:06:24 GMT -5
TTH is spot on!
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Apr 15, 2007 9:29:00 GMT -5
A blanket exemption for all hunting related activities is a must, and not just at the county level.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Apr 16, 2007 6:15:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Woody.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 16, 2007 14:53:51 GMT -5
This goes down tomorrow at 530, room 260 in the Marion County City-County Bldng.. I just found out that I have another assignment for tomorrow, so I wont be the photographer with the Ch. 13 reporter, but I've talked to who I want to do the story because I know he is fair and also a firearms owner. I'm gonna do my best to be free at 530 so I can be there, I just wont be "working" the meeting.
Pack the place people! Councillor Mansfield wants Marion Co. to be a gun-free zone, and this is the first step in accomplishing that. We have to fight this!
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 16, 2007 15:41:03 GMT -5
UPDATE: I just heard rumor that the meeting for tomorrow might be pushed back. I'll post something as soon as I know for certain that it's canceled.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 17, 2007 7:43:26 GMT -5
I never heard anymore about the meeting being canceled, so it's on as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 18, 2007 7:54:52 GMT -5
Well..... if you weren't there last night you missed a good show. After Councilor Mansfield read her revised proposal, she was pounded by a few councilors that questioned the necessity of the proposal since what she was asking for, was already covered by state laws. The request to strike down the proposal was denied on a very close (probably party line) vote....so the public comments were heard. I've covered several committee meetings in room 260, and that was the biggest crowd I've seen with the exception of when Marion County was considering the Anti-smoking proposal. The room was packed, with as many folks standing as there were sitting, then the doorway and hallway was packed several yards beyond the room. Several people were grumbling about not moving the mtg into the Public Assembly room, but from my experience with the committee, they only move it over there if they feel that the majority of the people there are in FAVOR of what it is that they are trying to pass. The keep the room very cramped and hot, with the audio turned very low so it's hard to hear.....just hoping that people will get frustrated and leave early......which some do.
Anyway, right off the bat Mansfield stated that she did not want to vote on the proposal and that she requested a vote at a later committee meeting. Another tactic....they didn't want the vote in front of the big crowd, so they will move it hoping less people will show up at a later date. This moving of the vote was met by several "boo's" followed quickly by the Council's attorney repeatedly standing up and telling the crowd to not boo, nor clap. (The guy is a dead ringer for Johnny Cochran)
The citizen speakers were sometimes there for probably the wrong reason, with many merely making 2 minute statements that they were NRA members and want to keep their 2nd Amendment rights. Granted, we all want that....but it didn't do anything to speak to the issue at hand. A lot of folks did make some pointed comments and threw a lot of jabs at the proposal. Ms. Mansfield at one point was questioned by a councilman about data to support the need for this proposal......to which she replied that she hadn't "gathered" any numbers. What a joke.... first, wouldn't you do your homework on this if she was sponsoring this law??? Second, I'm certain she did TRY, but there are NO numbers to support the problem that she is claiming exists. Anyway....several holes were poked in her proposal, most of them centered around the fact that current laws already prohibit reckless discharge of a firearm. A retired IPD officer gave testimony that after the current law was in place, back in '75, rarely were people cited...and if they DID find someone recklessly shooting, they would prosecute them on the STATE law versus a municipal law since the State law would have more "teeth".
Kyle Hupfer brought his opposition, as well as officer Crider. I had to leave before the meeting ended, but it's my understanding that NOBODY spoke in favor of this ordinance. The committee will meet on this issue again on May 22nd, to vote......if it's voted Yes, than it will be heard in front of the entire City-County Council at a later date for final vote. Take a moment, make an e-mail, and email them with your opposition to this Proposal 174.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 18, 2007 8:18:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the update Travis.
Get those emails in, folks.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Apr 18, 2007 8:44:44 GMT -5
I heard they were all party line votes; what else can you expect from Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 18, 2007 9:23:10 GMT -5
I heard they were all party line votes; what else can you expect from Democrats. Yes.......they were pary line votes. That's why it's so important to voice opposition to this proposal to the Democrat members of council cause if this falls along party lines......we've lost. We've got to move a few Dems across the aisle on this issue, and nothing scares a politician more than the potential loss of votes!
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Apr 18, 2007 10:32:06 GMT -5
anyone got any email addresses for these people? h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 18, 2007 13:04:06 GMT -5
|
|