When was this?Few licenses were issued unless on had political muscle
When was this?Few licenses were issued unless on had political muscle
. . .
It wasn't that long ago that Indiana was not a shall issue state regarding handgun licenses. Few licenses were issued unless on had political muscle.
. . .
Tried looking this up. Online Indiana statutes don't go back further than 2009. I know that during the latter 1990's the sheriff in my county issued the LTCH. When he got into trouble over corruption, the ensuing investigation also revealed he was issuing them to family members, campaign donors, and social and political cronies, but few others When the ISP took over the LTCH process and Indiana became a "shall issue" state I don't know.When was this?
You're right but that didn't stop Trump from ordering the DOJ to find a way to make bump stocks illegal. They reinterpreted the law.Actually, I don't think you are correct. Agencies can "interpret" things, but they can't legally rewrite laws. A machinegun has a specific definition in the law, and they are ignoring that and making it what they want it to be.
Since the lawsuits were filed, the Supreme Court also ruled against the EPA which had been directed by the Biden Regime to begin regulating GHG emissions without being given the authority by congress to do so. That decision seems very relevant to what the ATF is trying to do here too.
Permits to carry a handgun were issued by the sheriff in each county. One had to demonstrate a need. The permit was restricted to carrying a specific handgun (verified by serial number). The discretion for the permit was solely on the sheriff. In the 1980's an attorney of the opposite political party of the sheriff was denied a permit and took it to court. The attorney won and the rest is history, as they say. And yes "not that long ago" is based on one's perspective.When was this?
Schubert v. DeBard was 1980. 42 years ago.Tried looking this up. Online Indiana statutes don't go back further than 2009. I know that during the latter 1990's the sheriff in my county issued the LTCH. When he got into trouble over corruption, the ensuing investigation also revealed he was issuing them to family members, campaign donors, and social and political cronies, but few others When the ISP took over the LTCH process and Indiana became a "shall issue" state I don't know.
John
So you think that the slobs who tear up stuff at ranges and leave litter are a good example?Spoken in true ad hominem fashion. This is an excellent example of it.
John
Personally, I think the best way to deal with issues like that are among ourselves and holding each other accountable. Not the ATF.So you think that the slobs who tear up stuff at ranges and leave litter are a good example?
Perhaps you're conflating two issues.Gun owners would be much better off without the slobs who take their semi-auto rifles and pistols out and tear up ranges and the woods, shooting as fast as they can and leaving their trash behind.
I remember in the 90's when I first applied there were still boxes to check for reason why. I think it was, Hunting, Target Practice, Self Defense and maybe another.Permits to carry a handgun were issued by the sheriff in each county. One had to demonstrate a need. The permit was restricted to carrying a specific handgun (verified by serial number). The discretion for the permit was solely on the sheriff. In the 1980's an attorney of the opposite political party of the sheriff was denied a permit and took it to court. The attorney won and the rest is history, as they say. And yes "not that long ago" is based on one's perspective.
up till the mid 1990's I still had to go in for a personal interview with Chief LEO to renew my permit.. I had a coworker get told he had to write an essay on why he should be allowed to carry.. and that was 2002 era..When was this?
They were doing as now in 1980. I have had residency in three counties and application and renewals and never encountered what you describe. I’m sure some areas were corrupt…Permits to carry a handgun were issued by the sheriff in each county. One had to demonstrate a need. The permit was restricted to carrying a specific handgun (verified by serial number). The discretion for the permit was solely on the sheriff. In the 1980's an attorney of the opposite political party of the sheriff was denied a permit and took it to court. The attorney won and the rest is history, as they say. And yes "not that long ago" is based on one's perspective.
Yep. I remember a time when there were different permits like you described. I also remember that you had to submit a letter explaining the need for a self-defense/carry permit. At the time I opted not to go that route and applied for a hunting/ target practice permit which didn't require a letter explanation of need.I remember in the 90's when I first applied there were still boxes to check for reason why. I think it was, Hunting, Target Practice, Self Defense and maybe another.
Maybe I checked a box but that was it, and that includes Marion county. I did know a police chief that said he did interviews, he knew he could not deny, but he just wanted to personally lay eyes on just who was asking for the permit…up till the mid 1990's I still had to go in for a personal interview with Chief LEO to renew my permit.. I had a coworker get told he had to write an essay on why he should be allowed to carry.. and that was 2002 era..
I also recall a time when there was a waiting period to take possession of a purchased firearm from an FFL but the waiting period was waved if you had a permit. That was one of the main reasons that prompted me to get one.Yep. I remember a time when there were different permits like you described. I also remember that you had to submit a letter explaining the need for a self-defense/carry permit. At the time I opted not to go that route and applied for a hunting/ target practice permit which didn't require a letter explanation of need.
I do what I can. My Marlin 60 remains my favorite rifle for just plain fun. I used to take a bunch of squirrel with it and sometimes my NEF Pardner .410, a single shot, so that averages out.Yeah, those Remington Model 24's and Marlin Model 60's ruined it for everyone. Nobody needs a semi-auto for squirrel hunting!
As I understand it, before the successful lawsuit, so ably researched by Mr. Freeman, the sheriff could deny a handgun license arbitrarily. After the lawsuit, the sheriff had to demonstrate good cause to deny. I'm sure that those trained in the law and smarter than I (not difficult) could elaborate.They were doing as now in 1980. I have had residency in three counties and application and renewals and never encountered what you describe. I’m sure some areas were corrupt…
True about shooters with any firearms, but semi-autos do dominate these days. I've been the victim of these kinds of slobs and have noted their impact on ranges where I'm a member. It does get my dander up and I admit it strays from the title of the topic. As long as a gun owner acts maturely and responsibly, I have no issue with his choice of firearms or accessories.Perhaps you're conflating two issues.
If any shooter, regardless of firearm, is shooting against range rules and causing damage or leaving trash behind then it's a problem but unrelated to semi-autos.
Gun owners would be much better off without the slobs who take their semi-auto rifles and pistols out and tear up ranges and the woods, shooting as fast as they can and leaving their trash behind.
. . .
The claim that all users of semi-auto rifles and pistols are "slobs that tear up ranges and woods with rapid-fire, and leave trash behind", casts aspersions on an entire class of people: all users of semi-auto firearms. It is a classic ad hominem attack.So you think that the slobs who tear up stuff at ranges and leave litter are a good example?