Good gun bills

[chipbennett]

Regarding reciprocity should 1144 pass...would the existing LTCH not still be valid? Going forward they wouldn't be required for carrying within the state but would this bill void them and cause those of us desirous of reciprocity to spend money to acquire some other piece of paper?

Good question. If 35-47-2-1 is repealed wholesale, what state authority would still undergird the little pink permission slips?

Kirk? Guy?

The proposed bill simply strikes all language from the IC regarding criminalizing the carry of firearms, and regarding issuance of the LTCH.

It's a "blank slate" approach.

 

[chipbennett]

It would be sufficient to make a parallel situation to US V Black (4th Cir.) applicable to the Hoosier state, but it would open the "how open is open/how concealed is concealed" can of worms. So, there would have to be clear guidance for LEOs to follow to prevent JBTs from claiming an untucked shirt tail qualifies as unlicenced concealed carry. As I said, wholesale repeal of 35-47-2-1 et seq. would be the simplest.

I prefer the Alaska approach (which is what I proposed to Rep. Lucas): all carry is constitutionally permitted (er, protected). The State issues a permit (which is actually more stringent than Indiana's current LTCH, since Alaska requires completion of a qualified handgun training course) to residents solely for the purpose of maintaining reciprocity.

For Indiana, that would simply require repeal of all references to criminalizing the carry of a firearm - and perhaps adding wording explaining that the LTCH exists for Indiana residents who wish to carry out-of-state.

I think that's preferable to a US v. Black arrangement (open carry constitutional, concealed carry by permit), because it protects more freedom, and requires less government oversight. But, even if we go that route, the statutes just need to follow those in other states, in which "concealed" requires intent to conceal (i.e. accidental reveal and/or printing do not render a concealed gun as open).

 

[singlestacksig]

HB1144 also prohibits carrying a loaded rifle in a car.. so I do not think it is such a good bill.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Good question. If 35-47-2-1 is repealed wholesale, what state authority would still undergird the little pink permission slips?

State authority?

Do not understand. Could you restate (just don't want to answer incorrectly).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I prefer the Alaska approach (which is what I proposed to Rep. Lucas): all carry is constitutionally permitted (er, protected). The State issues a permit (which is actually more stringent than Indiana's current LTCH, since Alaska requires completion of a qualified handgun training course) to residents solely for the purpose of maintaining reciprocity.

For Indiana, that would simply require repeal of all references to criminalizing the carry of a firearm - and perhaps adding wording explaining that the LTCH exists for Indiana residents who wish to carry out-of-state.

I think that's preferable to a US v. Black arrangement (open carry constitutional, concealed carry by permit), because it protects more freedom, and requires less government oversight. But, even if we go that route, the statutes just need to follow those in other states, in which "concealed" requires intent to conceal (i.e. accidental reveal and/or printing do not render a concealed gun as open).

I'm not sure about the legal implications or unintended consequences but I'm inclined to want to support language that effectively removes the requirement for a LTCH for carrying in Indiana but leaves or transfers those with the existing "pink slips" over to--whatever it would be called for people that want to reciprocity in other states--permit/license. I'd rather the cost impact for current possessers be minimized as the new law is adopted. New or future people that decide to carry outside Indiana will know what to expect in regards to cost and inconvenience as it could be similar to the existing regime.

 

[chipbennett]

HB1144 also prohibits carrying a loaded rifle in a car.. so I do not think it is such a good bill.

Can you cite where that is in the bill? I apparently missed it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

State authority?

Do not understand. Could you restate (just don't want to answer incorrectly).

If IC 35-4-2-1 was repealed wholesale and hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers (and others) still held "official" state documents in the form of their paper LTCHes, what legal import do those pieces of paper still hold?

Can you cite where that is in the bill? I apparently missed it.

Since authority to prohibit such a thing does not already exist, there would have to be new language to explicitly do so. No new language, no new prohibition.

 

[chipbennett]

Since authority to prohibit such a thing does not already exist, there would have to be new language to explicitly do so. No new language, no new prohibition.

Right. And when I read over the bill, it added no new language to the IC. It literally just struck out existing language.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If IC 35-4-2-1 was repealed wholesale and hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers (and others) still held "official" state documents in the form of their paper LTCHes, what legal import do those pieces of paper still hold?

Legal import? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Can you define your phrase "legal import"?

You wouldn't need it in Indiana, so it would mean as much as carrying around a photo of rhino. Whether other states still recognized it would be up to the other state.

My question is if the Larry requirement is repealed, what is the impact on Washington, Richardson, inter alia?

 

[singlestacksig]

Can you cite where that is in the bill? I apparently missed it.

Page 11 , starting at line 8 ...at line 38 "(9) While transporting on or in the vehicle a firearm, unless the
39 firearm is:
40 (A) unloaded; and
41 (B) securely encased or equipped with and made inoperative"

 

[chipbennett]

Page 11 , starting at line 8 ...at line 38 "(9) While transporting on or in the vehicle a firearm, unless the
39 firearm is:
40 (A) unloaded; and
41 (B) securely encased or equipped with and made inoperative"

That's the existing code. No change is being made in HB 1144 regarding transporting a loaded long gun in a vehicle.

The amendment to SECTION 6. IC 14-16-1-23 is in subsection (b)(1), to remove references to a license being required for the handgun exception to subs. (a)(9).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Page 11 , starting at line 8 ...at line 38 "(9) While transporting on or in the vehicle a firearm, unless the
39 firearm is:
40 (A) unloaded; and
41 (B) securely encased or equipped with and made inoperative"

That applies to off road vehicles, not all vehicles. Up until recently it was illegal to have any loaded firearms on one. They changed it a couple years ago to allow handguns if a person has a LTCH, this will remove the requirement for a LTCH.
Indiana Code 14-16-1

 

[Redhorse]

I know you guys are really excited about HB 1144 passing but Im not too fond of and am rather skeptical of because of reciprocity issues. Ohio just passed a bill recongizing our permits, I'm not ready to lose that. I'm more excited about HB 1143 allowing campus carry

 

[Viper1973]

HB1107 is NOT a good bill... All this bill does is jeopardize the current acceptance of our existing and lifetime permits when travelling out-of-state. For those on the reciprocity bandwagon all you have to do is have a valid Indiana permit and snag a Utah, Arizona or Florida non-resident. That get's you pretty much everywhere except the 'communist' states that are strongly anti-gun. Why screw with something that works well now?

 

[chipbennett]

Why screw with something that works well now?

Overall, as compared to the other States, Indiana does have quite excellent gun laws. But one of the biggest problems is that in Indiana, carrying a firearm is a criminal offense, and the LTCH is merely an affirmative defense to that criminal offense. Under current Statutes, by carrying a firearm, you're still breaking the law; the LTCH just acts as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. That leads to the opportunity for other rights violations, such as officers being able to detain law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing unlawful other than carrying a firearm.

So, yes: that is an egregious oversight, that needs to be addressed. But I think the easiest course of action is merely to strike the laws that criminalize the carrying of firearms, and to leave the LTCH statutes in place. Carry would be constitutional, and the LTCH would remain for those who need reciprocity (me included).

But that doesn't make HB 1144 a "bad" bill. It merely needs to be amended properly once it gets out of committee.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

carrying a firearm is a criminal offense

Handgun.

Carry would be constitutional, and the LTCH would remain for those who need reciprocity (me included).

Savings clause is the term I believe you need.

Not a big deal, easy to draft.

Let's hope repealing Larry has legs this year. Back in 1996 we got exactly nowhere.

 

[chipbennett]

Handgun.

Aye, handgun. Sometimes I type too fast, or before having enough coffee.

Savings clause is the term I believe you need.

Not a big deal, easy to draft.

Let's hope repealing Larry has legs this year. Back in 1996 we got exactly nowhere.

But I don't want Larry repealed. Like others, I actually *need* reciprocity. I travel, usually out of state, for work.

 

[bwframe]

HB1107 is NOT a good bill... All this bill does is jeopardize the current acceptance of our existing and lifetime permits when travelling out-of-state. For those on the reciprocity bandwagon all you have to do is have a valid Indiana permit and snag a Utah, Arizona or Florida non-resident. That get's you pretty much everywhere except the 'communist' states that are strongly anti-gun. Why screw with something that works well now?

Correct. We must be very careful what we wish for. Good intentions of those who don't have a full understanding of the repercussions could very well move us backward as opposed to forward.

Constitutional carry sounds good until you consider the high population/voting areas are overrun with those who would be happy to repeal the 2nd Amendment all together. The perfect example of our current administration playing the long game by opening our borders with simple paths to citizenship and entitlements is breeding a population that could very well do just this.

 

[Thor]

But I don't want Larry repealed. Like others, I actually *need* reciprocity. I travel, usually out of state, for work.

I understand the need to travel. But if the IN law to carry is you can if you are a legal person...will other states that already recognize the IN rights with a LTCH change their reciprocity? If the IN LTCH becomes the DL (without and endorsement) would that not be the same as an LTCH?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But I don't want Larry repealed. Like others, I actually *need* reciprocity. I travel, usually out of state, for work.

Perhaps you are thinking too broadly, or, better bet, I am not making myself clear. Just because Indiana abolishes the crime of Carrying Without Larry, does not mean the Larry goes away or the state stops issuing Larrys.