Domestic violence bill joined to study of ‘constitutional carry’ effort

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Supporters of a bill that would have allowed victims of domestic violence to carry handguns without a license say a broader effort to eliminate all carry permit requirements delayed needed protections for a vulnerable population and could muddle the issues.

“That bill was doing well on its own,” Tami Watson said of House Bill 1071, which would have permitted a person with a protection order against someone to carry a firearm without a license for 60 days. An 18-year Indiana State Police officer who now is a firearms instructor at Watson-Chambers Defense Institute in Columbus, Watson testified for the bill after it passed the House, and she was convinced it could easily pass the Senate.

She was disappointed a Senate committee amended the bill, steering it toward a study committee that also would look at “constitutional carry” — scrapping the legal requirement that any eligible person obtain a license to carry a firearm. She called it a “huge distraction” for the Legislature.

guns-watson-tami-fb-15col.jpg Former Indiana State Police officer Tami Watson, now a firearms instructor in Columbus, supports a proposal to allow domestic violence victims to carry handguns without a permit. (Photo submitted)

“This bill has been wrapped up with constitutional carry and has been poorly branded,” Watson said. “This is a victim’s rights bill, not a Second Amendment bill.” A bill that would have made constitutional carry Indiana law, House Bill 1159, failed to get a hearing in the General Assembly this session. The bill Watson lobbied for, HB 1071, was still in the reconciliation process between House and Senate versions at IL deadline.

But the bill Watson and others called a victim protection bill also has its detractors — domestic violence victim advocates who say introducing guns into violent situations can further risk victims’ safety. Meanwhile, opponents of wider gun rights generally are organizing to oppose both the domestic violence aspect of HB 1071 and constitutional carry. They see a summer study committee as an opportunity to press legislators on safeguards they want to become law.

“We are looking forward to having a robust conversation about all of these issues,” said Stephanie Grabow, Indiana chapter leader for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. About 50 members of the group met with lawmakers April 4 to advocate for a measure that didn’t get a hearing this session: House Bill 1534, which would have required removal of firearms in domestic violence situations where a protection order is issued. Whether guns are removed now is left to a judge’s discretion.

“We know a majority of Hoosiers, including a majority of gun owners, want better, stronger gun laws to keep our families safe, and we want our elected leaders to listen to their constituents,” she said.

Personal stories

Among the Moms Demand Action members who converged on the Capitol was Danyette Smith, who had been in a 12-year abusive relationship before she obtained a protection order. “When that gun was placed to my head and I was told if I leave I would be killed, that’s when the level changed,” she said.

In her case, though, guns weren’t removed from the perpetrator, so she remained fearful. A law requiring gun removal in situations like hers “would have given me a little more relief. When I took my kids to school, I wouldn’t have had to look over my shoulder,” she said.

guns-grabow-stephanie-15col.jpg Stephanie Grabow leads advocates who earlier this month urged lawmakers to support measures they say will reduce gun violence. (IL photo/Dave Stafford)

Grabow said it was important for members of her group to talk with lawmakers about the connections between guns and domestic violence and to raise their voices against measures they consider bad policy. “We understand that when guns are introduced into a domestic violence situation, a woman is five times more likely to be killed, so we’re here educating our lawmakers about this fact,” she said.

A gun, Grabow said, is “more likely to be taken away from the victim and used on her than she is to use it in her own defense.”

Dawn Hillyer of Fort Wayne owns Hiding Hilda, a business that makes and sells purses and accessories for women who carry. Like Watson, she was a stalking victim who supports allowing domestic violence victims to carry a weapon without a permit if they would otherwise qualify. Such a law would safeguard victims from fear they could be victimized again if they chose to protect themselves with a gun before the weeks it often takes to receive a carry permit.

hillyer-dawn-mug Hillyer

“To say that nobody should have that option is ridiculous to me,” Hillyer said. She’s offended by advocates who oppose the bill and say “women are too emotional to be responsible gun owners. … Honestly, I think it’s absolutely demeaning,” she said. “You can’t put us all in one box.”

Hillyer said she wishes senators had passed the bill and not mingled it with a broader gun-rights measure.

Constitutional carry

Second Amendment attorney Guy Relford testified in favor of HB 1071 and also supports constitutional carry. He said he was disappointed, too, that the domestic violence victim bill didn’t get a vote on its merits. “I looked at it as, hey, it’s a step in the right direction,” he said. “These kinds of bills only give freedom to law-abiding citizens.”

He agrees it’s possible the domestic violence legislation could be overshadowed by constitutional carry, which is opposed by Indiana State Police, the Indiana Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups that traditionally have significant clout at the Statehouse. Authorities fear they could be left to try to determine whether someone is legally able to carry a gun if the permit was no longer required.

Nevertheless, constitutional carry is now law in 12 states, according to the National Rifle Association.

Relford said it’s a misconception that constitutional carry would make it easier for criminals to carry. It’s likewise a misconception that all gun licensing would end. Licenses still would be issued for reciprocity when crossing state lines, for instance. He said people who would be barred from obtaining a permit don’t typically register anyway.

“When you think about it, what other constitutional right do you have to pay a fee to the state and bear the burden of establishing your eligibility to exercise that constitutional right?” he said. Fees range from $40 for a four-year permit to $125 for a lifetime permit, and the fees fund law enforcement firearm training.

Grabow wonders, though, what’s to gain from scrapping a requirement that people obtain a license to carry a gun.

“We know that the current system we have for permitting works, and it keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and we think we should not undermine the current permitting system that’s in place,” she said.

“We’re going to continue to show up at every hearing. We’re going to testify, and we’re going to work to keep our communities safe.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.