Bill would repeal law requiring license to carry

[Kirk Freeman]

Wanna guess "most"?

Well, some. Remember, I come from Tippecanoe County where pieces of concrete, knives, dog leashes, and pad locks on ropes are used.

They give society options on how to deal with people who do those things.

Great, but it is the harm from the offense that is the key.

The law against carrying handguns without a license was to prevent Blacks and Catholics from carrying handguns, not to prevent harm to others.

No harm will come to anyone if I have no license to carry a handgun or my current 7. There is not causation, direct or proximate, between a LTCH and harm to another.

No bridge, no crime. Time for repeal.

 

[chipbennett]

How would you know there was a valid one to revoke? If someone is arrested and convicted of robbery and doesn't volunteer the information, how would you know they had one that needed revoking?

I really should have worded that much more articulately. Obviously, the issuing agency (ISP?) needs to have such a database. Nobody else does, nor should that database information be shared with anyone else (other than LEO LTCH checks, which should be requested by license number, and not by the name of the license holder).

EDIT:

Should not reply to posts when so tired.

The holder is required to produce the LTCH, correct? Thus, you would have the license, with license number, to verify against the revocation database.

(Yes, this would require LTCH holders to have their LTCH on their person when carrying. I don't have a problem with that.)

 

[CathyInBlue]

I do, because the IGA repealed the LTCH possession requirement from IC 35-47-2-1 in 2011.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So wouldn't it make sense to enforce the gun laws more strictly when 'wrong people' are found to be in possession of weapons? How many of our murder suspects had a prior weapons conviction? Wanna guess "most"?

Laws don't keep all people from doing things, but that's not their use. They give society options on how to deal with people who do those things. People still rape, rob, and murder yet we don't just shrug and make them legal because some people violate the law. I don't really care one way or the other if Indiana issues a permit or allows carry without one, but let's not play "criminals violates the law so let's do away with the law."

It's not just about "criminals violate the law, so let's repeal the law", it's about the current law, to borrow a phrase from Rambone, "violating" people who are not criminals in any other way. That is, having a law requiring a LTCH for the lawful carry of arms is like wanting a law mandating castration of purple people (of which the person wanting it is one) because one's neighbors (who happen to be green) have horribly behaved children. Fill in the places where I used colors with any groups you wish.

If the LTCH actually does something to stop crime, I'm listening. Please, show me what good it does, other than provide a means by which government knows who is willing to jump through the hoops to lawfully carry (and by extension, not commit crimes with his lawfully owned guns.

I don't doubt you're right that most murderers have prior weapons convictions. How many of them got those convictions with their own, lawfully possessed handguns, which they were carrying with a valid LTCH? For even more fun, how many did so, reported as a percentage of LTCH holders in Indiana?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From IMAGC...Call to action:

IMAGC POST - for tonight (and tomorrow) -

LINK: https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/749796421778922

POST:
URGENT Update – 01-19-2015 AM – We need EVERYONE to PUSH if we are going to get the Legislation heard. ‪#‎ConstitutionalCarry‬ ‪#‎CampusCarry‬ ‪#‎SCC‬ ‪#‎2A‬
If the Pro 2A legislation is going to get to a hearing – we need you ALL involved NOW.

1st Priority is CALL and E-mail (or write) Rep. Dermody’s Office to support HB 1144 and HB 1143.
2nd Priority is to help someone else do the same; and then repeat it.
3rd priority is to spread the word – SHARE our post ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. It is about getting people involved; not about getting credit. We need to get this info to other gun forums, other groups on Facebook, or via e-mail. And People need to understand that Mr. Dermody is the key.

This is an update I was hoping would not be needed this session. We have it on good authority that Rep. Dermody (h20@iga.in.gov - 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9850) has stated his plans are:

“… that since this session we will be addressing the state's budget, he wants to focus on bills that have a fiscal impact … for any further questions relating to them being heard, you will have to ask the Chairman more about his decisions.” I am sure some of you have seen this statement.

Due to the limitations of Facebook’s formatting options, I cannot put as much emphasis on certain items in this post the way I would like. Reading between the lines, into the nature of politics, this is our understanding of what we know right now: Rep. Dermody has no intention of hearing the “Gun Legislation” (i.e. HB 1143, HB 1144, HB 1244, or HB 1494) this session because he does not think it is important enough or that enough people support the issue. Mr. Dermody (despite a high NRA rating) was also nearly the road block last session to several very positive step-stone legislative measures to restore and protect our rights.

What needs to be done? WE, each and every one of us, need to reach out and TELL Mr. Dermody how important these measures are to EVERY SINGLE gun owner, and 2nd Amendment supporter in the state. This MUST be done in POLITE, Factually Correct, non-intimidating, but FIRM manner. We need EVERYONE to help to send Letters (E-Mail, USPS snail mail), information via Social Media and via Telephone Calls to his office. We need to get EVERYONE on board. While repeated contacts from individuals show their commitment (keep calling!!!), we believe it would be more effective to get more people to contact him at least once (get more people involved!!!). You need to be the instrument to deliver the message to EVERYONE ELSE. Help a friend or neighbor. Help 2 or 3. Our role is to help each of you reach your neighbors, friends and family.

We have approximately 1 month until the final opportunity of this IGA Session (The last chance is probably Thursday Feb. 19) to get a hearing. The last day for a 3rd reading (last chance to pass the house) – is February 25. Until then or until we get other information, we URGE YOU to keep pushing; and we will keep you up to date. While each of you contacting YOUR representatives is good, it does not seem that they are going to be able to influence him on this. If you wish to write to Mr. Bosma, Speaker of the House, he might have more influence. It is therefore up to “WE THE PEOPLE” to accomplish this. I am sure Mr. Dermody’s staff keeps him informed of those volume of those who call and e-mail on issues – as well as how often; and this is why we need as many people to participate as possible. The more pressure we can bring to bear, the more likely it is that any of these 4 measures will heard (Especially HB 1144 and HB 1143) over the other 27 that are assigned to this committee.

To borrow from history – on the night of April 18, 1775 – 2 riders started out of Boston: Paul Revere, and William Dawes; Later that night, Dr. Prescott joined them. Between these 3 they managed to get the word out of Boston to Lexington and Concord. 79 men stood on Lexington Green at dawn on April 19. But by the following morning, riders that these men and others had sent out – had turned into a muster of about 14,000 patriots surrounding Boston. This is the kind of turnout we need to have to get this completed. BE INVOLVED!!!

We have been working on reviewing the other Pro-2A rights bills. I believe there is a good chance for some of these to be heard in the State Senate (and will have info shortly). However, these may run into the same road block in the house; if assigned to Mr. Dermody’s Committee. This is all the more reason to show him how important all of the bills are to all of us.

Thanks for the continued support. I hope to provide an updated sample letter as well.

--- BB3

Links:
HB 1143: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1143
HB 1144: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1144
House Public Policy Committee: https://iga.in.gov/legislat…/…/committees/public_policy_1600

------------------------------------

 

[Trigger Time]

You know what might change the mind of the Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the Indiana House of Representatives?

A new Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Exactly!! That's what I suggested the other day. He's a pos in my opinion. And no champion for Hoosier rights.
I play the states stupid little game of buying their ltch even though I do not recognize their authority to deprive me of my right to carry a gun (pistol). I would carry one no matter if I had an ltch or not. The constitution of the United States AND the state of Indiana actually protect my right to do so from the same state that would try to restrict me. Kinda funny.some may try and say " well trigger time then your no better than the criminals that carry a gun" and I will plainly state a fact and that is that's impossible or at least unjust to make someone a criminal for carrying a pistol when the highest law of the land protects that NATURAL right!!!! A judge, a policeman or a politician can chest thump all they want and say 'you can't do that', but they have no recognized power and authority on this matter! Only what scared little sheep grant them. So stop giving authorities false powers over is and stand up like men!

One day in Indiana we WILL get constitutional carry and do away with the ltch but first we need to vote out pieces of crap legislators like mr dormody and we also need to get all idiot gun owners on board to pick up a damn telephone or type an email. We can win if we actually give a ****.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So stop giving authorities false powers over is and stand up like men!

Well, good news for you and everyone else, because that time is now.

*Speaking as a Director of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association*

The chair was told to hold off on the gun bills because of budgetary matters. What to do?

1. Write Speaker of the House Brian Bosma. As Speaker, he can assign the bills to other committees or simply tell the chair of Public Policy to hold hearings and pass this out to the floor.

E-mails and calls are great but fade with a click of a mouse and time. Postcards. Sit down and politely write Speaker Bosma that you find this development unacceptable. Keep it polite, concise and clear.

Call your buddies, ask them to meet you for coffee, bring post cards and stamps, and pass them out.

Hon.. Brian Bosma
Speaker of the House
Indiana House Republicans
200 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
1.800.382.9841

2. Do you live in Dermody's district, Laporte? Call and write him.

Tom Dermody | State of Indiana House of Representatives

Tell him that you want him to hear the gun bills.

All is not lost for this session. We need to rally and get in the fight. Bring the heat and they will see the light.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't doubt you're right that most murderers have prior weapons convictions. How many of them got those convictions with their own, lawfully possessed handguns, which they were carrying with a valid LTCH? For even more fun, how many did so, reported as a percentage of LTCH holders in Indiana?

Blessings,
Bill

I have no idea as a percentage of all murders, but its extremely low. Like in the hovering around 1% low if I had to guess. However if you argue that people with a LTCH are extremely unlikely to murder people, it stands to reason that it does a good job of identifying a proper person in a quick and easy fashion, no? With a LTCH you are presumed to be legal. How's that look in states without one?

Let's look at Alaska:

Alaska Statutes Alaska Statutes 11.61.190 through 11.61.220 describe conduct with a weapon that is criminal. There is no prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon so long as the prohibited behaviors regarding the carry are respected:

• The person is 21 years or older.
• The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws
• The firearm is legal.
• Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
• The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances
• The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
  • In someone else's home without their specific knowledge and permission
  • In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages
  • In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school's administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
  • In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
  • In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies
  • In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.

So, trade off there. You're no longer assumed to be a proper person.

Like I said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but look at the gun laws in states that do have no-permit carry and there's always a trade off. It may be reduced reciprocity, it may be no longer having the presumption of lawfulness, etc. Just be aware of unintended consequences.

** on edit **

I can think of two recent examples where the murderer had been denied a renewal or was revoked on the LTCH status.

 

[Trigger Time]

Presumption of lawfulness? Hahahahahaha! That's funny. I'll trust the cops and prosecutors or care what they think when hell freezes over. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't trust or need anyone else to rate my lawfulness or intent based on my natural right to carry a gun. I have a strong opinion one way and that is protecting and defending my natural rights. I'll do anything necessary to accomplish this. For now we are playing the political game.

 

[Lex Concord]

I personally would like to see Indiana mirror Arizona.

Constitutional Carry by default with a permit issued for those who seek reciprocity from other states.

But with a huge loss of revenue at stake, this law is pretty much dead.

Yes, it's a shame they think that a $2-Billion "rainy day fund" isn't enough to consider shaving revenue.

 

[Lex Concord]

Only if everyone is stepping in that direction.

"All or nothing" much?

So you're against constitutional carry? You must realize that the likelihood of getting "everyone" to step in that direction is less likely than a Ron Paul presidency, right?

Let's learn to fight for and take incremental wins, like the socialists who have worked to make us submit have done for over a hundred years.

Play the long game; your children and grandchildren will thank you.

 

[Bill of Rights]

With respect, no one who has sought and received a LTCH is presumed legal at all... they've just gone to the trouble beforehand to prove they are. Like the "presumption" of truth you enjoy in a courtroom.... it's not YOU they trust, it's that chunk of metal on your shirt. Take it away and you're presumed just like everyone else to be a liar until proven otherwise. (I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty. Try this: You say I made a "furtive movement". I say I had my hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 without exception. Barring video evidence, who's the judge going to believe?)

Yes, the LTCH does do a good job of identifying a "proper person", but at what cost? How much liberty do we relinquish for convenience? ETA: By your own numbers, 98-99% of good citizens are limited and forced to prove innocence without any just cause. End edit.

As to the trade off you referenced, Opencarry dot org lists 30 states that do not require a permission slip to carry, at least openly. Arizona does not require a permission slip, and is one of the "go to" states for wide reciprocity... I hold one of theirs myself. They list six that do not allow open carry at all. We are one of 14 that don't forbid open carry, but do require licensure. So, considering what Kirk said, that the origin of the LTCH was to keep Catholics and Blacks from being armed, why are we still perpetuating the myth that it's to "reduce crime"?

Lastly, you mention two recent murderers who were denied or revoked LTCH holders. Evidently, that didn't stop them from murdering. Too, the exception proves the rule. Two of how many thousands?

Blessings,
Bill

I have no idea as a percentage of all murders, but its extremely low. Like in the hovering around 1% low if I had to guess. However if you argue that people with a LTCH are extremely unlikely to murder people, it stands to reason that it does a good job of identifying a proper person in a quick and easy fashion, no? With a LTCH you are presumed to be legal. How's that look in states without one?

Let's look at Alaska:

Alaska Statutes Alaska Statutes 11.61.190 through 11.61.220 describe conduct with a weapon that is criminal. There is no prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon so long as the prohibited behaviors regarding the carry are respected:

• The person is 21 years or older.
• The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws
• The firearm is legal.
• Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
• The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances
• The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
  • In someone else's home without their specific knowledge and permission
  • In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages
  • In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school's administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
  • In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
  • In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies
  • In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.

So, trade off there. You're no longer assumed to be a proper person.

Like I said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but look at the gun laws in states that do have no-permit carry and there's always a trade off. It may be reduced reciprocity, it may be no longer having the presumption of lawfulness, etc. Just be aware of unintended consequences.

** on edit **

I can think of two recent examples where the murderer had been denied a renewal or was revoked on the LTCH status.

 

[Double T]

I don't want them to get rid of it. I like the recipricocity, and I like that once I provide ID and my LTCH; all firearms questions are supposed to stop. IF we turn to constitutional carry, I imagine we are going to have to forfeit our right to carry while being more lengthily detained all for the sake of officer safety.

Not to mention, how many LEO don't know any other firearms but their issued sidearm? How many ND's will occur on the side of the road while securing said firearms?

I currently LIKE not having to inform here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IF we turn to constitutional carry, I imagine we are going to have to forfeit our right to carry while being more lengthily detained all for the sake of officer safety.

Where in the bill is this?

Let's be governed by the law, not our imaginations.

Write your post cards today!

 

[Bill of Rights]

IF we turn to constitutional carry, I imagine we are going to have to forfeit our right to carry while being more lengthily detained all for the sake of officer safety.

Where in the bill is this?

Let's be governed by the law, not our imaginations.

Write your post cards today!

Kirk, I agree with you, but I also see the point. It is the LTCH that stops questions as to one's carry of a handgun. Absent that license, officers are not bound by that restriction. There are certainly reasons to think some officers would capitalize on the "loophole", in what you've often called a heckler's veto. I don't think most would, but to say that it's not in the law, therefore it would not happen.... well, the most polite term I can think of is that it would be disingenuous to make that claim.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[AtTheMurph]

"Shall not be infringed"

 

[Double T]

Where in the bill is this?

Let's be governed by the law, not our imaginations.

Write your post cards today!

Anywhere there is constitutional carry, is there also not an duty to notify on a LEO interaction? As such, with "constitutional carry" I imagine that many officers would disarm a person until after the encounter. It doesn't have to be written in the law to see it, and I don't think it's a stretch at all.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Anywhere there is constitutional carry, is there also not an duty to notify on a LEO interaction? As such, with "constitutional carry" I imagine that many officers would disarm a person until after the encounter. It doesn't have to be written in the law to see it, and I don't think it's a stretch at all.

No, VT, AZ and WY(for residents only) have Constitutional carry and no duty to inform. How many states require a license/permit and do require a person to inform? So 75% of the states with Constitutional carry have no duty to inform. What percentage of the states that require a permit have no duty to inform? How many officers here in IN will disarm someone that they knew were carrying? Evidently a few from all the threads on here where people were disarmed, along with various comments in those threads.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anywhere there is constitutional carry, is there also not an duty to notify on a LEO interaction?

No.

Alaska has a duty to inform but this existed long before the license repeal.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We are acting upon misunderstandings of the law, let's not let Kirk's First Law of the Internet control our legislative efforts.

It is the LTCH that stops questions as to one's carry of a handgun.

Bill, see that forest, watch out, you hit that tree square on.

It is not the LTCH that stops the questions, it is the fact that someone who holds a LTCH is not committing a crime that stops the questions.

No license=no questions.

 

[Redhorse]

Spread the word. Urge him to reconsider.

I just want to know, was this our good friends in the C of C?

I just want to know why we elected a bunch of "guns rights" "liberty-minded" conservative republicans super majority who aren't concerned about our rights.