tones) the second amendment is just 27 words!

Well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed the entire provision took up one line in the original Bill of Rights and the 230 years since its rat HKZ, however, that amendment has spurred million upon mill YNLZ of pages of social commentary, judicial opinion and legislation, local state ask federal.

I'm John, and over the next half hour we'll devote several thousand more words to an examination of how the second amendment is playing out in the general acceptably 2022 session, don't go away Indiana lawmakers from the state house to your house!

As I noted at the top of the show, the 27 words that make up the second amendment have yielded millions upon millions of pages of impassionate often conflicting prose, at the moment much of their ROBLG clash at the state house is focused on a 34-page bill, that would allow most adults to carry a handgun, without a permit.

Supporters call it constitutional lawful or permitless carry critics call it a formula for escalating violence, whether or not the measure becomes law this session the debate is sure to continue.

Joining me to discuss the issue are Republican representative Jim Lucas of Seymour, democratic representative RS of Indianapolis, attorney author, and firearms instructor Guy R. Founder of the progun 2A project and host of the gun guy on WIBC radio here in Indianapolis, and former mayor, who served as president and CEO of the Brady campaign to prevent handgun violence or gun violence, not handgun violence before joining the faculty of Indiana university where he is a professor of practice of O'Neill school of public and environmental affairs, thank you, all for being here for this discussion, Jim Lucas let me start with you, you're a coauthor of the bill in question, house Bill 1077, you say, second amendment simple concept.

Should be simple for everybody to grasp and enforce, and live and abide by, why, then, does it take 34 pages to explain what you're trying to do in the bill?

>> What a perfect segue John, thank you, I appreciate that.

That just simply shows how far away we've gotten from the constitutional protections, that every individual enjoys in America.

34 pages is basically deleting, existing code to get us back where we need to be, of the second amendment, and not just that, but Article I, section 32 of the Indiana state constitution, which is even more simpler than the -- the -- second amendment, which reads the people shall have a right to bear arms for defense of themselves and the state.

And, nowhere, in the Constitution do we license any other right.

This is unique, in the fact that somehow, we have tolerated, for this long, the licensing of a constitutional right.

And it's just -- you know, it's going to take, that much deletion of existing code to get us back to where we need to do.

>> And your bill, and, again, we'll try to condense 34 pages, basically, any adult, who is -- hasn't -- isn't a convicted felon or doesn't have some sort of mental health documented mental health issue, is, permitted to carry a gun without a license, is that pretty much the long and short of it.

>> Not permitted!

The government doesn't grant permission on existing -- on constitutional rights.

It recognizes.

>> Recognizes.

>> The constitution, the constitution prohibits government from infringing those rights, and that's basically, what we're going back to, people that are currently prohibited from carrying still will not be able to lawfully carry a -- a handgun, moving forward.

And, you know, there's been so much disinformation, put out against this one topic, not just this year, but, for decades, on end.

That we are finally at a point where, I think, we can write decades of wrong.

>> Robin, what do you think?

>> So I understand the constitutional amendment, but, unfortunately, we have about 10 exceptions of people in state law, that cannot carry a hand gun.

And because we have those exceptions, law enforcement needs to have a way to identify who should be able to carry a handgun, who should not be able to carry one, and we know that 90% of hoosiers are for background checks for someone to have a handgun, I think it just makes commonsense that we have some kind of process to know who those handguns should be in their hands, and who should not.

>> Now, wouldn't tpurchase thos still remain the same, still have to sign the forms with ATF, where there are background checks required, those would still take place, when it comes to purchase, this is more about carrying, or am I misund misunderstanding?

>> This is more for the license to carry, I will remind people last year we prevented about 10,000 people that should not have gotten a license through that process, from getting a license.

>> Would this be more palatable if there were more groups on that exemption list?

>> Well, I think if you've got one person on that list, whether if it's felonies or domestic violence or two people, you still need a way to identify who are those people, I say, it's the same as driver's license: We put people through predriving, we make them get a driver's license, and law enforcement you uses those licenses to identify if you have a suspended license, if you're current.

So it's the same kind of process, we need to have some kind of way to identify who should be carrying, or who should be driving or not driving.

>> Guy, do you -- I'm guessing you drive, and I know you're also a certified firearms instructor, you, obviously, are offering that as a service, I think you have your own chief instructor your own company.

Does not not suggest that people should have some kind of qualifications if you will, to carry a gun?

>> Guy: Oh, I don't believe in putting restrictions and conditions on the exercise of a constitutional freedom.

I mean, we don't make somebody take a civics course before they can vote.

So I think training is very important.

It's the reason I'm a professional trainer, in addition to being a lawyer; but, I think that's a matter of personal responsibility.

And every time we try to legislate personal responsibility it fails miserably.

Whether it's drugs or any other area.

So I think training is vital.

But I don't think it should be a condition, and our current licensing system doesn't have a training requirement.

So training, doesn't even really enter into the equation, when we're talking about constitutional carry.

What we're talking about is saying that if you would have passed the background check, to get a license, then you can pass the process, you can skip the process, we have to beg the Government for permission, to please allow you to exercise a constitutional freedom, that's a right you already have, and then for decades, I've been saying somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's absolutely true that a license is simply the process by which you buy back from the government a right you already had and here we're going to say no, if someone has that right, they don't have to go get permission to exercise it.

And -- and there are -- there are means today, there are existing criminal history databases, that have all the information, on who's approve possessor and who is not and that can be as simple as a radio call from a police car on the side of the road, back to Dispatchic back to the station to someone who has access to those databases and all that information is available, so if you would not get a license today, whether it's because you have a -- a felony conviction, or whether it's because you have a domestic battery condition even as a misdemeanor, you have a domestic battery, domestic violence order of protection against you -- you can't avail yourself of constitutional carry under this bill.

You get caught with a gun, you go to jail, just like you do now.

So this really only affects law-abiding citizens, because, by the way, criminals don't care about the licensing system anyway, ask any cop or any prosecutor, to do bad guys care whether they have a license or not?

Before they carry a handgun and they will laugh at you!

And say, of course, not.

>> Makes sense, if you've heard the argument here you've heard this in many states around the country.

Weigh in here, I mean, what should -- cut through this and tell us what -- hoosiers should make about this debate.

>> I mean, there's so many issues here, and so many concerns I have with some of the statements that have been made already.

First of all, I came to this issue when I was mayor of Fort Wayne, I came to this issue as a law and order issue, we were having an increase in crime in the late 80s early 90s, and Fort Wayne and many cities around the state and I wanted to do what I could to try to reduce the violence, and in addition to adding police officers, and working with the community -- neighborhood communities, faith-based communities, I realized how weak the laws were in our country, and, you know, what doesn't make sense to me, is why we want to do something that our law enforcement officers, law enforcement leaders for the most part oppose that they feel is going to make us more dangerous, why we want to do something that is going to allow more people and encourage more people, to carry loaded guns, in public, without any training?

Without any checks and balances on them, you know, if Guy is correct that bad guy, this isn't going to affect the bad guys, they're going to do and if this isn't going to affect the person who qualifies, currently, to -- to carry a gun, what is this doing?

Why do we need this, 34-page piece of legislation?

What it's going to do, it's going to encourage more people, that might have a gun at home, for self-defense.

And when it's a gun at home for self-defense, it's only basically, putting the family, at that home, and those who would try to enter that home at .

.

>> I was in that building that's in Guy's background 14 years ago, when Justin Scalia, announced in the Supreme Court, said the second amendment applied to an individual right, and not, a militia-related, not a communal right and justice scallia, when he spoke from the bench that day, and the late Justin Scalia, no screaming liberal by any means, said the most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited.

You know, we don't allow people to have protests anyplace anytime.

We have time manner, and place restrictions.

You can't just march down the middle of the street, with a protest, in the state house with your protest and not face consequences we do have one free speech, you can't yell fire in a public theatre.

From Blackstone through the 19th century cases commentators in courts routinely explain the right was not a right to keep and carry, any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose.

We have always had restrictions and other constitutional rights, we should have restrictions on this right, and in that case, the remedy, that dick Heller got was a license from the Washington, D.C.

I would feel a lot safer, I think our police would feel a lot safer, I think our public would feel a lot safer if they had some sense that not just everybody can carry a loaded gun, in public, anyplace anytime something that puts us at risk.

>> Let me ask you this, Paul says he came to this for practical reasons, this his views during his time as mayor because of a crime problem and pwe've seen recent data and I guess, it's from -- nonpartisan ostensibly nonpartisan group that say there is a correlation between a relaxation of gun control statutes, and crime, violent crime in particular -- this is just out -- in the past couple of weeks we've seen some of the data.

Even if that were the case, would that sway your opinion?

I mean, let me -- another way to phrase this: Is this philosophical, or, pragmatic or practical in your eyes?

Even if it were documented that this -- the current practice reduced crime vis-à-vis an easing of the restriction would that sway you online?

>> Absolutely not.

I mean, this isn't a philosophical or ideological conversation, this is a right or wrong.

Read the constitution!

You know, Scalia, while he was a brilliant legal mind, scalia was human he wasn't God, every elected official, every attorney every police officer is required, to swear an oath to uphold and support the constitution, the constitution is plainly-written for a reason.

Go back and read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and it breaks it down so crystal clear that to argue against it, just shows, a -- either an ignorance of what somebody is trying to argue against, or a -- a level of disingenuousness as to make their argument -- just laughable!

Right, on its face!

But, you know, per these rights, he brought up a very good point there, about licensing, several years ago, I did an experiment, where I took the exact same language, that the state of Indiana uses to license, our second amendment rights, and I applied it to professional journalist, exact same language, the nation went nuts!

They said, "You can't do that, that's one constitutional" and I said why not, they said journalist have First Amendment protections and this is the simplicity of the argument, John, when it came down, I used the exact same language that everybody accepts to license a second amendment right, how can it not be applicable to a First Amendment right?

Nobody could answer that.

So to say that, our rights have limits, tell me what these limits are on all the other rights and then we can have a conversation.

>> Robin, should this be, this debate, unfold over, you know, what the constitution says?

You know, where the commas are, and where they're not or is it just looking at the practical realities of the 21st century?

>> Robin: No, I think you can look at both.

I agree wjustice Scalia, this i not an unlimited right.

We are talking about public safety, we are talking about media and someone being able to have free speech, that does not create that imminent danger of someone carrying a gun.

So I think we can look at people's rights, but at the same time we've got to be practical about this.

We want to keep the nation safe.

We want to keep our communities safe.

So, the licensing process is one of those ways to make sure that our community is safe.

You can't have a -- this is not a Black-or-white discussion, where it's either one way or the other way, where we're following the constitution or we're not.

I think we're -- embracing the constitution, and, at the same time, we're looking at public safety and making sure that our neighbor is safe.

A child is safe.

If someone has a handgun, in their home, if they're carrying it in their car, we want to make sure that we know that the 10 criteria of people that we have listed are not carrying handguns.

How are we supposed to identify those people, then?

I think it would be very inefficient, for a law officer to have to call back, every time he pulls someone over, and figure out should this person have a gun?

Should the person not have a gun?

I think you start getting into those logical processes of would this actually work in the streets?

And what would that look like?

So, I think it's an argument that needs to be taken on both sides.

>> Guy, I mean, this notion of protecting law enforcement, you mentioned earlier, in the conversation that it's simply a radio call away.

Do you think that's -- it's really as simple as that?

This really would pose no danger to law enforcement officers in the field?

>> No.

I mean, you talk to any trained police officer, they tell you they approach every vehicle as if that person or person in the vehicle are armed.

It is an approach someone on the street and maybe a suspect, they treat them as a danger, until they confirm they're not a danger.

Any professional police officofficer, any trained police officer goes about their job exactly that way and a licensing system doesn't bear on that one way or the other.

So I -- I think as usual, what we have to do when we're fighting for constitutional carry is we have to spend half our time fighting disinformation on what the bill does and doesn't do.

We just heard, repeatedly that well, you know, we can have some limitations on a constitutional right.

Right.

That's exactly why constitutional carry doesn't apply to all those people who currently wouldn't get a license, to carry.

He said well, we shouldn't just allow anyone to carry a gun anywhere, anytime.

Is that what constittional carry does?

Absolutely not.

If you wouldn't get a license, today, you can't avail yourself of constitutional carry.

Has no effect, talking about any -- any gun, anywhere, any time -- has no effect on what guns are lawful or ununlawful, has no effect on where you can carry a gun and where you can't, so all the same limitations that exist today, who can carry a handgun those remain in place, where you can carry a gun, those remain in place, the types of guns that are illegal, and aren't allowed on the street, those remain in place, the process to buy a gun acquire the gun, pass the background check to buy a gun, that remains in place, so this ridiculous notion that this would allow anyone to carry a gun, anywhere, any place, any time, is complete fiction!

But that's what we continually have to fight against not just setting the facts straight but fighting against, I think disinformation, put on out on constitutional carry.

Because they can't fall back on more logic and fact so they create facts that are simply not true.

>> Paul, respond to that.

>>, first of all, I was quoting justice Scalia, I didn't realize you represented Lucas, Guy, we're in disagreement, representative Lucas apparently wants none of the limitations you're willing to accept.

I'm glad we're continuing to have some limitations.

>> Baby steps Paul!

>> And what kind of gun you can take place.

At least this session, this Bill doesn't loosen those.

My main concern, is that, you know, what is this doing?

If this isn't affecting the bad guys, and they'll still be out there -- and if this isn't affecting the good guys for all the reasons that, you just went through, Guy, what is this doing?

This is -- this is encouraging people who have a gun at the home, who don't know the responsibilities and risks of taking that gun out in public, they're going to the ATM, they're going to the store if they're scared because of the news stories of the increasing crime in their city.

They take their gun out.

All of a sudden we're going to have more loaded guns in public and that's why, you know, one of the reasons I think we've seen concerns with police um -- shootings over the last few years, is because, there are more and more and more guns out there.

And as we put more guns into more places, I think it puts not only our police officers at risk; it puts the rest of us at risk.

The world can't be divided easily into the good guys and the bad guys.

All of us have the potential to get drunk, to get high, angry depressed to have road reage, ad when we add a loaded gun in public to those situations it puts a lot of us at risk.

>> You pointed out this wouldn't change a lot of the requirements in terms of who can, and can't possess a gun, and buy a gun, et cetera.

Would this affect the carry -- the public's ability to carry a hand gun at the state house?

Now, under current administrative code and statute, the members of the general assembly and certain staffers can carry concealed weapons in the state house, the general public cannot.

>> It would not.

That requires a separate piece of legislation, which I have been and will continue to work on, for -- I've been working on it for years and will continue to work on that.

That is the people's house.

>> So is your concern, everybody should be able to carry at the state house, which I guess puts you at odds with some members of your fellow members of the general assembly.

>> I think everybody should be able to exercise their constitutional rights every e avenuewer, what we've gotten away from is holding people accountable for their actions we all share the same individual rights, we have to respect the right of an individual to protect themselves and, you know, it's ironic John we just had the four year anniversary of the Margaret Stoneman Douglas shooting a school where there was a breakdown on every level of government, to take away a person's ability to defend themselves puts the responsibility of that individual protection on the police department.

Well, we have the Democrat party, which has been pushing defund the police movement for years now.

We've seen cities that have been set on fire, businesses set on fire!

And looted!

As police departments are told to stand by, and watch them burn, while the individual citizen who -- you know, we have -- the left is wanting to require a license for those people to be able to defend themselves, and their property.

But Marge- -- the Stoneman Douglas shooting -- we had an armed and trained school resource officer, that was waiting outside, he intentionally stood outside, 14 students and three staff members were slaughtered inside.

Now, the -- the truly disgusting part of that is, is the -- there were a group of parents that sued the school, because of that action.

A federal judge ruled, as has the Supreme Court, that police do not have the duty to protect you.

You know, the United States Supreme Court has ruled, police do not have the duty to protect the individual; so, if the police don't have a duty to protect, as ruled by the Supreme Court, that duty falls upon the individual.

>> Robin, you know, as long as you've been around the stasehouse certainly as long as I've been around the State House which is even longer every session, people who favor some sort of gun control, are always on the defensive or seem to be, there might be the trigger lock bill here or there or something about storing guns safely but for the most part it's always, pushing further, the rights of gun owners, is that frustrating or is that just -- life in Indiana, in 2022?

>> It can be frustrating because I will say people in my District they're wanting more safety.

They don't want more access to guns, and have guns in public places.

I remember we had a piece of legislation, I believe it might have been representative Lucas, to allow for guns at churches, if they were holding school service there.

So -- when I went back to my Pastor because we have a school, at my church, he was, like, "That sounds like the craziest idea ever."

And you've got to think about this church is located in a ZIP code that has a high homicide rate, and a high crime rate.

Why would we, then, want people to be able to bring their guns into a school, into a church?

So it becomes just very frustrating that we're so focused on the right to carry, and not the right to save someone's life.

We are looking as we want to make sure that we're protecting someone's life.

And, as long as I've been here, I've never heard the democrats shout out defund the police, now protesters have, and specifically, when the Black caucus met with protesters, this past summer, and they were wanting to defund the police, we came out publicly.

>> Not this -- that's not this issue here, right?

That's -- you're saying.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, let me just ask, Guy, Guy, is permanentless carry the holy grail, or is this just a step in an ongoing process?

Describe a legislative nerve obA nirvana for youer what does it look like.

>> Well.

>> Paul, has a word or two, we're almost out of time.

>> Sure, I mean, it's a priority, but I think, you know, fighting against bills that get introduced every year that would restrict rights is always going to be a priority as well.

So, I -- I think Indiana generally has it right.

But we need to join the 21 other states that have already passed constitutional carry, so that is a priority.

>> Paul, this week we saw, at the risk of getting into another topic we saw the Sandy Hook settlement 73 million dollars for the survivors, and, relatives of those who died, in 2012 in the shooting 28 kids and 6 educators Remington will be paying that amount.

Is that given the gridlock not gridlock, but frustrations to legislate this is this going to move to the Court of well, the Court of courts?

>> I was happy to see that settlement.

Congress has given protection to the gun manufacturers and gun distributors, it's the only industry that you can't -- that's very almost impossible to have a lawsuit against.

Connecticut law allowed them to proceed.

I was glad to see that sort of a settlement.

People need to be responsible for their actions, we talk so much about gun rights, we never talk about gun risk, we never talk about gun responsibilities enough on PApanels like this an we need to be focused on those, a study done states that carry PURLTless carry gun, suffer-to-% increase in homicide within three years after that law passage, more than double what the country sees overall, how are we doing in Indiana, the more we loosen gun laws we're seeing more and more gun homicides more and more gun violence, I think people want to see less.

>> Because Jim Lucas is a fan of the First Amendment I know he will be a fan of you having the last word, we've run out of time, we appreciate your passion on the subject and sharing it with our listeners and viewers, again, my guests have been Republican representative, Robin of Indianapolis, attorney author Guy R., and Indiana university professor and longtime gun control advocate.

Time now for our weekly conversation with Indiana lawmakers analyst Ed, publishing of the newsletter Indiana legislative insight part of the news service we covered a lot of territory during the round Table 1 thing we didn't address is is whether this bill is going to become law this session, weigh in on that?

>> Is this an exercise or is this for real?

Yeah, last year the bill died in the Senate when Senator Liz brown, chair of the judiciary committee didn't give it a hearing and the big question is she going to give it a hearing this year or not?

We still don't know, and I think it's up to the Senate majority caucus that there's going to be a lot of pressure applied to senators, in particular by a group called Hoosier Gun Rights, which is probably the closest group to the position that representative Lucas takes, you know, the no-restrictions whatsoever, and they just coincidentally happened to be having a -- a political forum, a -- a workshop on how to elect and, unelect legislators, next week in Northern Indiana.

>> How influential are these kinds of groups?

You know, it used to be that the NRA legendary, you know, heavy heavy forbid in any legislator took a position opposed to NRA, they're going to be targeted and money will be spent helping opponents, do you see that only increasing or waning?

>> Hoosier gun rights has been very active providing 11,000 signatures to the Senate this past week and they're going to continue to be active and what's interesting about this is that, Liz Brown last year, I think, really failed to give this a hearing because of questions about the database that was in there, the police requested -- the police law enforcement really isn't totally on board, or totally against it this year, and, you know, en masse, you have for example in the House, the Hamilton County sheriff testify, for the Bill, but you also had the state police, which is led by Doug Carter, who is a former Hamilton County sheriff, testify against it, because it didn't offer enough protections for police and making sure that they had a built-in way to check if somebody could legally carry a bill.

[Sic] and it's not just the law-abiding people that go through the permit process, ISP pointed out last year they rejected about 5,000 applications for handguns and about half of them came from convicted felons.

>> So if -- if it got a hearing that's no guarantee there would be a vote, though, the chairman still has great latitude whether to have a vote or allow amendments, et cetera, et cetera, so, even a -- even a willingness to hear it, is not -- does not mean this is going to the governor's desk, is that a fair assessment?

>> Sure, and we're coming down crunchtime.

There's basically, only about a week or so left for committee hearings and there's going to be a lot of pressure on her, and on the Senate majority caucus on this.

>> All right.

Well, we will be waiting and watching, Ed thanks as always appreciate your insight.

Nuclear reactors and rooftop solar panels to wind turbines and car charging stations next week Indiana lawmakers promises to be electric, hope you can join us, until next week, take care!