The Journal-Gazette has an article about Indiana Congressman Marlon Stutzman, and his “leadership” on “gun rights.”
So far this year, in his second term in the House, he has sponsored legislation that would require states to honor one another’s concealed-carry gun permits, and he has written letters inviting gun manufacturers Beretta USA and Magpul to move to Indiana from Maryland and Colorado, respectively, because of gun-control bills advancing in those states’ legislatures.
The article details Stutzman’s role as leader of a new Congressional committee formed to “protect” Second Amendment rights, and his ownership of a small arsenal of weapons of his own. It also notes the variance between his positions on gun-control issues and those of the public, as shown in numerous recent polls. Like all Indiana Republican Representatives, his candidacy was endorsed and supported financially by the NRA.
Interestingly, Stutzman was the only Indiana Congressperson to vote against the Violence Against Women Act.
Draw whatever conclusions you will.
13 thoughts on “Representing Indiana?”
Interesting but no surprise Stutzman would vote against the VAWA. Regarding Indiana gun laws; a few months ago I was having breakfast in Blueberry Hill Pancake House when I noticed a huge, fat, bearded man in low-hanging jeans (top of butt crack showing) and tee shirt tightly pulled over his belly with a very large handgun in holster on his hip. Took away my appetite because it instilled fear in me; not a feeling of safety that he would or could jump into action and save me from another gun slinger or protect the restaurant from an armed robber. Looks can be deceiving but…
I’m a resident of Indiana’s 3rd district. I’m not a Stutzman supporter by any means, nor a gun ‘rights’ activist. But I’d suspect, sadly, that Stutzman’s gun position does actually represent the views of the majority of the 3rd.
Stutzman is proff positive that in much of Indiana folks would vote for a Ham Sandwich as long is it has an “R” next to its name. Sad.
It’s quite sad when the sight of a gun can take someone’s appetite away. Our society is becoming much too sensitive to the wrong things and much to calloused to others.
Out of curiosity, why shouldn’t states honor each others’ conceal carry permits? We do that with driver’s licenses, marriage licenses (for the most part-we should do that with ALL marriage licences though), etc…Especially since our right to own arms is protected by the Constitution.
What constitutes a “small arsenal”? Let’s not forget that Joe Donnelly, who opposed Obama’s “gun violence prevention plan” was backed by the NRA, yet you only mention the NRA backing Republicans.
JoAnn, if somebody was going to rob a place, they wouldn’t eat breakfast there first. People with carry permits rarely commit crimes…they commit fewer violent crimes than police officers.
As for the Violence Against Women Act – opposing the act doesn’t mean one supports violence. VAWA is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state and local prosecution. Why not make everything a federal crime ?
The Democrats did get it passed, but then they also just gave Egypt a bunch of new fighter jets. Yet in Egypt, 91% of the women don’t have a clitoris because it was cut out (Source: UNFPA).
VAWA is political grandstanding by Democrats…when it came time to truly stand up for human rights, they failed by supporting Egypt.
John; for years I was licensed to carry, had a loaded Charter/Arms with me at all times. I worked at IPD so spent time on the job and socially with armed patrolmen and women and detectives I knew carried guns. My uncle is the best known gun dealer in this city and state; when we went out to dinner as a family, most of us were armed. We didn’t feel the need to advertise the fact. I am familiar with and used to the sight of guns; it was this particular armed person that made me concerned regarding the ease with which anyone can buy weapons and ammunition. As I said before; looks can be deceiving but…
Remember that you can get a license to carry a handgun in Indiana, even if you don’t know what end the bullet comes from. No training. No expertise. Just put the gun in that holster and you are ready to enter a restaurant or the local city council meeting and be the Lone Ranger. Yeehaw! In a state like this, JoAnn had no idea if they guy could even shoot what he wanted to hit or if he had even shot one round. If a bad guy happened to come on the scene, who knows how many people would die? That is a practical, not ideological, problem which arises out of an ideologically-driven legislature. It didn’t take too much imagination to appreciate the possible outcome. No wonder she lost her appetite. The thought of innocent and dying people tends to do that to you.
JoAnn and I would have either left our breakfast meals right there or asked for to-go boxes and split the scene. It was likely the view of the butt crack that was the ultimate turn-off! The current fad has Ruff-n-Reddy wanting to show everyone that he can and does carry a gun. JoAnn’s family was well trained and packin’ heat, but they didn’t feel the need to show off about it. The show-offs are having their little field day with their notion of ‘look what I have and you can’t stop me’. It’s both childish and deadly.
That one tiny little comma in the Second Amendment, meant to clarify that the militia would be the ones packin’ and protectin’, has created quite a stir. More innocents will likely die because the itchy-fingered are ‘way too eager to try out their deadly new toys. It’s beyond sad; it’s pathetic!
John’s question about recognition of other States’ carry laws is an interesting twist to the full faith and immunities clause of the Constitution. That is why we recognize other States’ vehicle license plates (or the basic concept). In the D.C. gun case (Heller), Justice Scalia wrote that states can impose restrictions on firearms. If one state imposes this specific restriction but the citizen of another state, when passing through, need not consider that restriction, then the maximum latitude becomes the law of the land. Conceivably, if one argues this should be the case with basic rights, this could apply to privacy (choice, legalization of marijuana) and not simply firearms. The unintended consequence for some would be rights extended to all. As to guns, my philosophy is: I am opposed to them. I do not own one and never have owned (sorry about the double negative) one. I would ask that guests in our house not carry. I pay taxes for police protection (and schools and—against my wishes—professional sports and local boondoggles). I also pay my monthly bill for a security system. I think my philosophy is one that does not infringe on others’ rights.
Sorry—make that full faith and credit clause. That was an early morning brain fart. But the privileges and immunities clause also could be implicated.
Sorry—make that full faith and credit clause. That was an early morning brain fart. But the privileges and immunities clause also could be implicated. Again—sorry.
Comments are closed.