SB 130 – Indiana’s Firearm Freedom Act (now with 86% more Freedom than the Other States)

The digest for Sen. Kruse’s SB 130 is labeled “Indiana Firearms Freedom” act as is the title of the main chapter. I can pretty well guarantee you that “freedom” didn’t find its way into these parts of the document through the normal Legislative Service Agency drafting process. Someone likely insisted.

Anyway, it basically declares that firearms or firearm accessories manufactured entirely in the state are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations because, the legislation asserts, they are not part of interstate commerce.


  1. Freedom says

    Great idea. The essence of Freedom and thus America is guns. The feds don’t really have much of an enumerated power to meddle in gun laws, anyway, so laws like SB 130 are great reminders to the feds to keep to their own limited affairs, lest we decide that this union is less important to us than our guns.

    • Carlito Brigante says

      I guess you forgot about that pesky “neccessary and proper” clause. Such bills are laughably unconsitutional and reflect an antebellum view of the nation.

      If you believe that this union is less important to you than your guns, feel free to engage in armed revolt. But it likely won’t end well for you.

      • Freedom says

        The “necessary and proper” clause means nothing, really, absolutely nothing regarding guns.

        As for “armed revolt,” who’s going to come for my guns, Carlito? You? Do you really have the guts to go door-to-door in Indiana to round up guns? Speaking of things not ending well…

        • Carlito Brigante says

          The federal government may regulate commerce in firearms under the commerce clause. The personal right to self-defense has not effect on the nature of the regulated activity at all.

          I have no interest in armed revolt. You are the fantasizing about that.

            • Carlito Brigante says

              No, I would let the UN and North Korean troops descend in black helicopters and do it. And while they are disarming the US populous, they will do psychiatric evaluations of owners of large firearm collections and NRA members to determine the incidence of borderline personality disorder and parananoid personality disorders.

  2. says

    Given how many Indiana guns wind up being used for crimes in other states (more than any other state, if I recall the stats I saw correctly), it’s hard to argue that “Indiana gun” isn’t part of Indiana commerce.

  3. Kirk,Across the Hall says

    Do not think this will go anywhere. SCOTUS will have to overturn Wickard v. Filburn.

    Montana tried this and it was voided by the Court of Appeals a couple of years ago.

    More of a Kentucky Resolution at the state level. Only way this is serious is if the NFA is reformed some day (I can only hope soon).

  4. Carlito Brigante says

    varangianguard January 9, 2013 at 9:21 +00006

    Carlito. That just made me think of a funny, yet somewhat mean, April Fools gag for the internet.

    Go for it. You could millions ofInternet hits and thousands of death threats.

  5. HoosierOne says

    Look– I’d just like to know that my neighbors can’t blow up my house with their gas-laden microwaved bomb or mow down me and my students with chambers of 30-100 bullets. Is that too much to ask? That maybe we’ll stop talking in absolutes and realize that most of life is dickering over the margins of the gray space in between?

    I don’t want your guns – I just don’t think you need weapons that shoot quick repeated rounds— or rocket launchers, drones, tanks or nuclear bombs. We’ve already determined that the latter are off limits, why are your semi-automatic killing machines not included? Give me a LEGITIMATE Use for these?

      • Carlito Brigante says

        Diagnosis: Borderline Personality Disorder and Paranoid Personality Disorder.

        Not enough for SSDI, but this will get you into the American “Constitutional” party.

    • Brian says

      Ask the people in LA why they needed their AR-15’s and AK-47’s during the LA Riots. The police were to scared to move in and control the situation. Citizens were forced onto rooftops with their semi-auto rifles to defend themselves from Rioters.

      You never know when Anarchy will strike the streets of your city. Something as silly as a jury verdict, or even the outcome of a championship game can set off an entire community.

      Trust me when I say you will not be able to hold off an entire mob of rioters with a handgun or a rifle with crippled magazine capacities.

        • BlackhawkGuy says

          Personally, I know people that own tanks and drones, and I’ve never heard of a law prohibiting the possession of a disarmed nuke. I can see no reason why there should be as you’d have one hell of a time hiding the nuclear fuel needed to make it active.

          Getting back to the point, there is no reason a “law abiding citizen” should not be able to own any weapons allowed to our military. That is, after all, the intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to maintain the right to self defense or hunting, those liberties were implied with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 2nd Amendment was written to insure that the American people would be able to rise up and have a successful revolution against an oppressive government. Read the text people, “… being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          There is no text saying anything about small arms that common people own today or hunting or sports. It was intended to provide citizens the right to own weapons of war.

          I would never argue that someone wanting to purchase a rocket launcher or machine gun shouldn’t have to submit to a very thorough background check, but the fact is they already do. I even agree that they should submit to a psychological evaluation, but prohibiting all common citizens from owning these outright is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent. I have no desire for a revolution against my government, but neither did the founders of this great country. They were forced into it by a government which didn’t serve the interests of it’s subjects.

    • William says

      Apparently, Hoosier, you don’t value your right to free speech, or the right not to have soldiers quartered in your home, or any other of the rights protected by the Constitution. or maybe you just don’t understand the Constitution and rely on your friendly neighborhood politicians to tell you what it says and means. The 2nd Amendment is meant solely to protect those rights and it protects our right to be as well armed as our government.

      • says

        Well, maybe it protects those rights in conjunction with a well-regulated militia. Your comment does not speak to militias. What is your opinion on that part of the Second Amendment?

  6. varangianguard says

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who said anything about taking my tanks?

    That is going overboard. It’s not like the 75mm main gun is functional, or anything, on my M4A1 “Sherman”. Jeesh.

    • Stuart says

      I’m with varangianguard. After mortgaging my house to the max, and selling everything else of value, I’m here, sitting on my only furniture, my futon, because I was able to get that tank and some good ammo. Now it will be me against the military to protect my valued quality of life.

  7. says

    HoosierOne … You do not have the slightest clue. You want a “LEGITIMATE Use for these”. Ok … to protect ourselves AND you from tyranny. Regardless what you think … removal of what they call ‘military style’ firearms would be critical for their tactical advantage. If you don’t like it then move to NY, CA or another state. There was absolutely NO justification for the National Firearms Act and absolutely NO justification for banning high capacity magazines or ANY style of weapon today.

Leave a Reply