My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-17 Council Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2017
>
03-27-17 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 11:11:01 AM
Creation date
4/11/2017 11:49:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
3/27/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING <br />MARCH 27.2017 <br />ill people to not go through a background check. If they do, they need to be prosecuted — you're <br />exactly right, there. <br />Mr. Miller added, The resolution is clear regarding the fact that the problem is not licensed gun <br />dealers. They want to do what's right, they want to follow the law. It's that private sellers are not <br />required to do a background check. You can choose to buy a firearm from someone who does not <br />require a background check. You can go to a gun show where there will be licensed dealers, but <br />there will also have private sellers, and they are not required to do a background check. That's <br />the only distinction. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, That is the loophole that you are describing? <br />Mr. Miller responded, Yes. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, And that loophole exists? Is it illegal to transfer a firearm <br />through that method as it exists today? Is it illegal at a gun show for two (2) people to transact or <br />is it legal? <br />Mr. Miller responded, No, of course not. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, "Of course not" what? <br />Mr. Miller responded, But it is a problem if it is not required to do a background check as a <br />private seller. A federally licensed FLL must be give you a background check. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, But that transaction is not illegal currently? <br />Mr. Miller responded, Absolutely not. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner continued, Whether it's a handgun or longarm? <br />Mr. Miller responded, Absolutely not. <br />Councilmember Davis asked Dr. Ferlic to continue speaking on why he feels the loophole is <br />important. <br />Dr. Ferlic explained that those who have given data regarding gun show transactions over the <br />course of the evening have been focusing on legal dealers and legal transactions. He stated, <br />There has always been the loophole discussion, and the suggestion has been that there's a <br />loophole for gun shows, and it's not the people in the gun shows —it's the people outside of the <br />shows who may be carrying on transactions. At this point in time, that is a legal transaction. <br />There's nothing illegal about that happening at a gun show. So, the discussion that this centers <br />on, at this point, is some sort of required for a background check for those additional sales, <br />whether it's internet or peer -to -peer. <br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden made a motion to accept the amended text of the sixth paragraph <br />of the resolution. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a <br />voice vote of nine (9) ayes. <br />Councilmember Davis stated that the focus of the resolution is to help prevent unmonitored <br />internet and peer -to -peer firearm transactions, but that this focus was lost amid all the other text <br />in the resolution. Councilmember Davis suggested postponing adoption of the bill to refine the <br />text of the resolution more. He stated that he did not feel that it would get past the Republicans in <br />Indianapolis and suggested that more time be given to better craft the language of the bill. <br />Councilmember Ferlic stated, I apologize. I think that portions of the presentation might have <br />veered away from the resolution. I apologize for the presentation, because the resolution —and <br />Dr. Varner has reviewed it, the entire Council has reviewed it —is specifically about the items <br />you just mentioned. The resolution language is just about inviting dialogue between- <br />Councilmember Davis interjected, My thing is, if we could have that go straight from the top of <br />the resolution, go right into "There are loopholes in the State of Indiana." A, B, C. "We as a <br />Council believe these loopholes should be studied..." That way, all the other issues, the stories, <br />etc, we can put them aside. Councilmember Davis advocated for getting to the core of the matter <br />and keeping the language lean. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.