With Indiana’s General Assembly session hitting high gear, legislators in The Hoosier State have introduced more than a dozen gun bills so far—some good, some bad.

Let’s hit a few highlights (or lowlights) in the Senate, starting with those proposals that are touted to be aimed at violent crime but are actually anti-gun measures. Senate Bill 27 requires that officers from a political subdivision’s law enforcement agency are present during a gun buyback program to dispose of guns, conduct serial number searches and record identifying information from gun sellers. As we’ve pointed out in the past, however, so-called “buybacks” have no effect on crime, so continuing them—with or without law enforcement present—is a waste of time and money.

“Given our estimated null findings, with 95 percent confidence, we can rule out decreases in firearm-related crime of greater than 1.3 percent during the year following a buyback,” a 2022 study concluded. “Using data from the National Vital Statistics System, we also find no evidence that GBPs reduce suicides or homicides where a firearm was involved.”   

Senate Bill 152 is another bad one that expands the places where lawful gun owners are banned from carrying a firearm for self-defense. Specifically, it would prohibit a person from carrying a firearm near a polling entrance, at the poll areas where voters congregate and the room where ballots are counted. 

Another anti-gun measure, Senate Bill 153, would outlaw possession of a privately made firearm. Of course, making firearms at home has been common since the founding of our nation, and laws that forbid it are targeting hobbyists, not violent criminals.

Yet another punitive measure, Senate Bill 247 is basically a “universal” background check bill that greatly restricts private sales of firearms. If passed, all firearm transfers would have to be made through a licensed gun dealer after a federal background check. That is, of course, all legal gun sales, as criminals would continue stealing guns and buying them from other criminals on the street and not be affected by the measure. That measure would also require a retail dealer to display a sign with language stating that failing to secure a firearm against unauthorized access poses a safety risk to children—a feel-good move that at least gives the bill’s author something to brag about.

On the positive side, Senate Bill 139 would create a path for some felons to have their right to keep and bear arms restored if their charge is on track to be expunged and if a court finds they are not a danger to the public. Too often, those convicted of crimes have their rights taken away for life, with no avenue for ever getting those rights restored.

Another positive measure, Senate Bill 204, would allow lobbyists to carry a handgun inside the state capitol and its property if they undergo training and licensing requirements. While that’s a good thing, it would have been better to allow lawful citizens to do so, since licensed concealed carriers are among the most law-abiding segments of society.

Lastly, Senate Bill 280 would permit deer hunting rifles to be used on public property during hunting season, removing the current rifle cartridge and case length limitations.