2013 Legislative session

[dansgotguns]

Alright, everybody. Calm down. The guy comes in here making intelligent posts, is interested in our common interests, and everybody starts jumping down his throat. Lets actually be welcoming instead! No need to quibble over terminology like CCW versus LTCH just because you didn't agree with some of his comments about the proposed legislation.

Welcome to INGO, Van.

that's precisely what he did to thst poor couple needing help with their rifle

 

[jedi]

that's precisely what he did to thst poor couple needing help with their rifle

Now where is the negative rep button.

 

[dansgotguns]

Now where is the negative rep button.

 

[mk2ja]

Anybody have any news on the 2013 Legislation?

 

[reesez]

Anybody have any news on the 2013 Legislation?

Yes actually someone just posted thaet SB400 passed the senate!

 

[dansgotguns]

Yes actually someone just posted thaet SB400 passed the senate!

I meant to post that a couple of hours ago here's the list of unamericans who voted NO Arnold, Breaux, Broden, Charbonneau, Crider, Glick, Hershman, Hume, Kenley, Lanane, Landske, Mrvan, Rogers, Skinner, Stoops, Tallian, Taylor

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Welcome to INGO, Van. Glad you could join us!

Finally, Kirk Freeman - YES! There is evidence that a "lack of a training requirement" is preventing Indiana's LTCH from being more widely accepted.

Ok, great, can you post this evidence or send it to me. I have been asking for some time now from others, perhaps you can get it to me.

You may just change some minds if one of the proponents of SB555 shows us (ISRPA) evidence that this is preventing other states from recognizing Indiana (it certainly did not stop Texas--in fact when I was involved with it Texas never mentioned Indiana's lack of training).

Thanks much and welcome again!

~

 

[KW730]

Wasn't something supposed to happen with SB097 yesterday? Anyone have any news?

 

[Van Phillips]

Welcome to INGO, Van. Glad you could join us!



Ok, great, can you post this evidence or send it to me. I have been asking for some time now from others, perhaps you can get it to me.

You may just change some minds if one of the proponents of SB555 shows us (ISRPA) evidence that this is preventing other states from recognizing Indiana (it certainly did not stop Texas--in fact when I was involved with it Texas never mentioned Indiana's lack of training).

Thanks much and welcome again!


Kirk:

I'll see if I can get a copy of the choices Ohio made when they were debating their own "License to Carry a Handgun" permit. That was where I read the discussion they were having over choices of reciprocity. Their choice at the time was to only honor out of state permits who at minimum required the same things that they were requiring. That was 5 or 6 years ago and I'll have to dig around to find the piece I read.

However in the mean time here are the Ohio requirements (and I've shown in red the ones that we don't have on any current permit, that keeps our current Indiana license as not recognized with reciprocity.

1. 21 Years Of Age (Ours is 18)
2. Ohio residents for 45 days
3. Resident of the issuing county (or an adjacent county) for 30 days
4. Completed Application
5. Color photograph taken within the last 30 days (None in IN)
6. Set of fingerprints
7. Certification of competency with a firearm (Not required in IN)

See the whole requirement here - Ohio Concealed Carry Permit Information

Here is the reciprocity maps current as of today! (One reason people should check this map system online is that laws change at different times during the year based upon state - and this map changes the DAY that happens!) Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps - USA Carry

Pick Indiana as your permit state and look at Ohio. Then refresh and pick Kentucky as your permit state and look at Ohio and others like WV that were not illuminated as now having reciprocity.

Here are Kentucky's requirements - Kentucky Concealed Carry Permit Information

I put Ohio's #2 in pink because they do honor Utah's Non-Resident permit because all the other requirements match.

Again, I will try to dig through my files to find the old Ohio transcripts ( I was following the debate closely at the time for USA Carry), but the evidence is illustrated if you look at the main requirements for states whose permits they (Ohio) do recognize.

Finally, I know that there are many who are perfectly happy with their pink "lifetime" permit. That is why I asked Brandt to put in a provision for an optional type of permit for the purpose of inter-state reciprocity.

One feature I do like about what has been submitted is that it would not provide reciprocity to states who do not return reciprocity. You might note that we currently honor permits from Ohio and West Virgina - while they do not honor ours.

Van

~

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Texas has a training requirement, yet Texas recognizes Indiana's LTCH.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/legal/reciprocity/Indianaproclamation.pdf

When I say "what evidence do we have that Indiana's lack of training" is causing problems with reciprocity, I do not mean what we think the problem is. Is there an e-mail? A letter? Some official statement holding forth Indiana's lack of training as a roadblock to reciprocity.

I think such an e-mail, letter, statement, ukaze, or interpretative dance from an Attorney General or Lt. Gov. or even 1st Assistant to the Undersecretary of Public Safety and Apple Orchards would change a lot of minds here.

What evidence is there that Indiana's lack of training is causing issues with reciprocity?

I note that Ohio is near universal reciprocity, similar to Indiana's, in their General Assembly.

 

[mk2ja]

I note that Ohio is near universal reciprocity, similar to Indiana's, in their General Assembly.

Is there evidence of this?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is there evidence of this?

Other than the multiple threads on INGO with links and circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what it was?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/220393-carry_reciprocity_progress_ohio.html

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hi Van, and welcome to INGO.

I also must disagree with you here, primarily for the reasons I've stated, that we have 28 states in addition to our own who recognize our LTCH as is. Of the remaining 21, about half (10) will never recognize our LTCH any more than they will a NY or a CA. They simply don't recognize anyone else's. OK, so that leaves the other half of them, one fifth of the states. (Remember, we have ~3/5 of them already)
CA - Recognize none at all
CT - Recognize none at all
DE - possibly training, not sure.
HI - Recognize none at all
IL - Recognize none at all
KS - won't recognize UT, even with training requirement
ME - recognize only seven other than their own, and only resident permits at that.
MD - Recognize none at all
MA - Recognize none at all
MN - recognizes few, some with, some without training requirements.
NE - recognizes all but 13, among them NY, with it's very-strict laws
NV - fails to recognize others with training; not the only point stopping it.
NJ - Recognize none at all
NM - Not sure, but IIRC, requires live-fire.
NY - Recognize none at all
OH - Probably training.
OR - Recognize none at all
RI - Recognize none at all
SC - Requires laws substantially similar to their own.
WA - Requires that none be issued to anyone under 21, despite their own law overriding those even if they were.
WV - Several years ago when I was trying to gain their recognition, I noted that the issue was not training, as evidenced by their recognition of PA. The answer they gave me, finally, was the similarity and/or strictness in the totality of PA laws that allowed them and not us.

Of far more significance, though, is the fact that of all the states with "training requirements", none can show they are safer than we are here. Further, and I do realize that the reciprocity license you requested is not a requirement but an option, I've asked the question before of those who have the Lifetime LTCH, and none of them seem willing to answer what should happen to those who hold that card but don't meet the (new) training requirement? Should theirs be invalidated? Kinda puts the lie to the "Lifetime" thing there. Some say it should only apply to those who haven't gotten it yet, but that smacks of, "I got mine, so I don't care what you have to do to get yours."
Finally, if you DO have that training, (as you do, being an instructor) it means you got it without being required to do so. Imagine that! People doing something because they decided to do it, no law required!
Sir, I'm sure your intentions are noble, and not intended solely to thicken your own wallet. It's beyond question that getting training is a good idea, but there are lots of good ideas out there that shouldn't be the subject of laws. You want to make it desirable for people to be trained in the use of their guns. You want to give them a reason... in short, if you'll excuse the comparison, you want to make getting firearms training sexy.

Let's focus there. Let's let Ohio and others make their own laws (because they will anyway!) Let's let them come on board like the other 3/5 of the country has done, on their own. Lobby the hell out of them, sure, but changing our laws to appease them is, as someone put in a post a few days ago in re: gun "buy backs", like volunteering yourself to be castrated because your neighbor has too many kids.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 555 passed Second Reading in the Senate yesterday, with two amendments offered by its author, Sen. Hershman. The amendments look to me to be positive changes. They illustrate how easy it is for the slippery slope to be slid down, but overall, I see what Sen. Hershman is doing by making the required training for the IFRL (Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License) explicit in the IC.

Originally, he just said "training", meaning something ISP would devise, but that NRA would qualify. The training required is now spelled out to eight hours, specific topics that must be covered, live fire specified down to "at least 45 rounds fired". These changes happened "with the stroke of a pen", and extreme caution should be taken with such things. The good side is that by placing it in statute, it becomes difficult (at best) to change the requirements later.
Additionally in the same amendment, he required that another state or foreign government that currently recognizes our LTCH that later drops that recognition but continues to recognize the IFRL will lose our recognition of their state permission slips by doing so. I don't like the idea of making people helpless at all, let alone for political reasons, but I do see what he's doing: One concern that's been raised is that other gov'ts will drop recognition of the LTCH in favor of the IFRL, and he's just added a penalty if they do so.
In the other amendment, he makes an option for the IFRL to be issued as a Lifetime license, just like the LTCH is. Overall, I think this is a positive change. I'd like to see Constitutional Carry amended in as well, but I think that will have to happen on the House side, as the bill is already engrossed in the Senate.

Sen. Hershman, if you're silently reading this, you're convincing me. It can still use some work, but I like what I'm seeing so far.

Also, this bill will be up on Third Reading today... I'm guessing within an hour or two.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

SB 555 is still in committee correct? Or is it being voted by the full senate?
Need to make some calls for this bill also does the HOUSE have a similar bill?

 

[Bill of Rights]

SB 555 just passed Third Reading and now goes to the House. There are still some amendments ahead for it, without question. The vote was 33-17 to pass.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

SB 555 just passed Third Reading and now goes to the House. There are still some amendments ahead for it, without question. The vote was 33-17 to pass.

Are you aware of such amendments, Bill?

Based what you've described so far, I'm still not in favor of this one.

 

[jedi]

SB 555 just passed Third Reading and now goes to the House. There are still some amendments ahead for it, without question. The vote was 33-17 to pass.

Are you aware of such amendments, Bill?

Based what you've described so far, I'm still not in favor of this one.

^This I want this bill dead!

 

[GuyRelford]

I believe the content of the training will get tweaked in the House, and the provision making it a felony for an instructor to certify someone who didn't complete all of the training requirements will probably be lightened. (I mean, if a course takes 7 hours and 58 minutes, the instructor is a felon?)

With a few needed amendments, I am still strongly in favor of this bill (which is why I testified in favor of it at the committee hearing at the request of Sen. Hershman) - although as I've said, I certainly understand and respect the position of those who have concerns. I simply don't share those concerns.

Guy

 

[Rookie]

Why don't you share those concerns? Anything that makes you hesitant?