Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Bill of Rights]

I get that but NICS exempt purchases are really nice and should be included. I have a super common name and use to get delayed everytime and eventually got a upin number to avoid it but it was never an issue with that license.

Indiana used to be exempt, IIRC. We lost that when the background check that IN did was state-level only, rather than federal as well.

 

[gregr]

The supreme court has already ruled its illegal to charge a fee for someone to exercise a constitutional right.

Yet, there are states who require that citizens take training, at their expense, before they may concealed carry...right? THIS is the citizen being charged a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[trophyhunter]

If this manages to see a vote this year and passes, it would be nice to see the IN DL or State issued ID card put to use for reciprocity since just about everyone carries one or the other. The back of my DL clearly states both endorsements and restrictions why couldn't the state make use of it at the request of the card holder and do away with the separate LTCH and fee's for everyone going forward once we have constitutional carry?

 

[2A_Tom]

Because there is no duty to inform in Indiana. And I don't want to. They would not make it voluntary.

Edit: Just to be fair, I made a similar suggestion back in 2010. You are lucky that INGO is kinder and gentler.

 

[Bill of Rights]

With respect, why do you want to complicate things? The bill in question removes the need to identify as having been issued a license under that chapter of the law. As I read your suggestion, it seems that you're asking them to simply replace it with a card almost everyone already carries.

I might be on board with the idea of putting "Non-proper person" as a restriction, identifying people with felonies in their history, people with known alcohol and drug histories as noted in the law now, or people with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. I might even be OK with a hole being punched in someone's DL if they were under indictment/information for felony or DV charges, provided that if/when those charges were dismissed, a new DL was issued without charge to the individual, since they had been cleared of charges of wrongdoing. The idea of this would be similar to a DL that has a different orientation (vertical as opposed to horizontal) for drivers who had not yet reached legal drinking age. It clearly marks who is not allowed in a way that does not lend itself to forgery.

Note that I'd consider these only because those prohibitions are not currently subject to change, but I'd want those restrictions lifted automatically if the law changed regarding any of those groups, and again, a new DL issued without cost.

In short, identify the guilty, and leave everyone else the hell alone.

Is there some thought pattern I'm missing as to why this makes sense to you to add another level of regulation?

Blessings,
Bill

If this manages to see a vote this year and passes, it would be nice to see the IN DL or State issued ID card put to use for reciprocity since just about everyone carries one or the other. The back of my DL clearly states both endorsements and restrictions why couldn't the state make use of it at the request of the card holder and do away with the separate LTCH and fee's for everyone going forward once we have constitutional carry?

 

[lonehoosier]

If this manages to see a vote this year and passes, it would be nice to see the IN DL or State issued ID card put to use for reciprocity since just about everyone carries one or the other. The back of my DL clearly states both endorsements and restrictions why couldn't the state make use of it at the request of the card holder and do away with the separate LTCH and fee's for everyone going forward once we have constitutional carry?

Also do you want your employer to know you have a LTCH or anyone else that needs to see your license for checking into a hotel or to make a withdraw from the bank.

 

[Sonney]

With In. may go to Constitutional Carry what would happen to our ability to carry in other states? I think National Carry would be a lot better have a license and every state excepts.

 

[trophyhunter]

With respect, why do you want to complicate things? The bill in question removes the need to identify as having been issued a license under that chapter of the law. As I read your suggestion, it seems that you're asking them to simply replace it with a card almost everyone already carries.

I might be on board with the idea of putting "Non-proper person" as a restriction, identifying people with felonies in their history, people with known alcohol and drug histories as noted in the law now, or people with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. I might even be OK with a hole being punched in someone's DL if they were under indictment/information for felony or DV charges, provided that if/when those charges were dismissed, a new DL was issued without charge to the individual, since they had been cleared of charges of wrongdoing. The idea of this would be similar to a DL that has a different orientation (vertical as opposed to horizontal) for drivers who had not yet reached legal drinking age. It clearly marks who is not allowed in a way that does not lend itself to forgery.

Note that I'd consider these only because those prohibitions are not currently subject to change, but I'd want those restrictions lifted automatically if the law changed regarding any of those groups, and again, a new DL issued without cost.

In short, identify the guilty, and leave everyone else the hell alone.

Is there some thought pattern I'm missing as to why this makes sense to you to add another level of regulation?

Blessings,
Bill

I believe it would be a big step forward for future generations if the roughly 5 million or so proper adult person's in the state carried that credential automatically on their state issued id unless your rights have been adjudicated in a court of law in which case the license could carry an exemption code.


Think about it, over time when it becomes a norm rather than an exception that people have the right to carry it removes the stigmas in society and heavy handed oversight from govt / LE for those to come.


I see all the objections from people currently licensed yet it's water under the bridge for most of us this is all about what people inherit down the road. As a legacy constitutional carry is a darn good thing yet still a half measure at best when it has no integration for reciprocity sans purchasing the same LTCH, that's just business as usual.

 

[ATM]

With In. may go to Constitutional Carry what would happen to our ability to carry in other states? I think National Carry would be a lot better have a license and every state excepts.

National Carry should not require any license anywhere in that nation, carrying is a right.

In that nation, that right shall not be infringed.

Let's not complicate things.

 

[Excalibur]

National Carry should not require any license anywhere in that nation, carrying is a right.

In that nation, that right shall not be infringed.

Let's not complicate things.

Agree. A focused system that checks for criminal history would be better. Too many people with criminal backgrounds do pass a background check

 

[ATM]

Agree. A focused system that checks for criminal history would be better. Too many people with criminal backgrounds do pass a background check

I have a simplification for that as well:

When a person leaves prison, they can carry. Some rights of prisoners may be infringed via due process of law, but only while they are incarcerated.

So the check becomes this: Are they free? They may carry.

 

[seedubs1]

This. If the .gov has finished punishing the person through incarceration, that person has served his/her sentence, and the .gov has deemed them adequately rehabilitated for reintroduction to society. It is cruel and unusual to continue to punish someone after their sentence has been served. Barring someone who has already served their sentence from constitutional rights, such as the right to arms, and also barring them from gaining good jobs is the reason the majority end up right back in prison. It really is a stupid vicious cycle, and once you're in it.....good luck getting out. The prison industrial complex, and the money being made off of the incarceration of people is sickening. The current way we do things needs to be seriously reevaluated.

I have a simplification for that as well:

When a person leaves prison, they can carry. Some rights of prisoners may be infringed via due process of law, but only while they are incarcerated.

So the check becomes this: Are they free? They may carry.

 

[Trigger Time]

Everyone is overthinking this when all you have to do is read about the bill and your concerns about traveling and sick will be answered. The Patriot who wrote this bill is 100% on our side and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize our carry rights. Get behind this bill! It must happen this year

 

[ATM]

Everyone is overthinking this when all you have to do is read about the bill and your concerns about traveling and sick will be answered. The Patriot who wrote this bill is 100% on our side and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize our carry rights. Get behind this bill! It must happen this year

I don't have any concerns about traveling and sick to be answered, so I didn't read the bill.

 

[chipbennett]

With In. may go to Constitutional Carry what would happen to our ability to carry in other states? I think National Carry would be a lot better have a license and every state excepts.

The LTCH would remain; it would merely become optional. So, all reciprocity is maintained, through the optional LTCH.

National carry (i.e. a federally-issued carry license) is a terrible idea. NO WAY do I want the fed.gov involved in creating carry licensing standards/requirements.

 

[chipbennett]

I have a simplification for that as well:

When a person leaves prison, they can carry. Some rights of prisoners may be infringed via due process of law, but only while they are incarcerated.

So the check becomes this: Are they free? They may carry.

I concur - though I would be open to including any probation period following incarceration. However, once one's sentence is fully served, all rights (including carry and voting) should be restored.

 

[jamil]

I believe it would be a big step forward for future generations if the roughly 5 million or so proper adult person's in the state carried that credential automatically on their state issued id unless your rights have been adjudicated in a court of law in which case the license could carry an exemption code.


Think about it, over time when it becomes a norm rather than an exception that people have the right to carry it removes the stigmas in society and heavy handed oversight from govt / LE for those to come.


I see all the objections from people currently licensed yet it's water under the bridge for most of us this is all about what people inherit down the road. As a legacy constitutional carry is a darn good thing yet still a half measure at best when it has no integration for reciprocity sans purchasing the same LTCH, that's just business as usual.

Think about this. I don't need to be licensed to voice my opinion. I can say whatever I want. I'm still held liable for what I say in some situations. Why is the right to carry a firearm any different? Hold people responsible for how they use their rights. Requiring licensing is nothing more than a preemptive effort to determine who gets to exercise their rights and who doesn't. Preemptive laws infringe on everyone in the hopes of making a few people feel safer.

But about this bill, it necessarily includes language that perpetuates the current licensing process to maintain reciprocity with other states. Licensing is evil, but we have to interface with the rest of the national evil.

National Carry should not require any license anywhere in that nation, carrying is a right.

In that nation, that right shall not be infringed.

Let's not complicate things.

I have a simplification for that as well:

When a person leaves prison, they can carry. Some rights of prisoners may be infringed via due process of law, but only while they are incarcerated.

So the check becomes this: Are they free? They may carry.

I think we're pretty much eye-to-eye on this.

Everyone is overthinking this when all you have to do is read about the bill and your concerns about traveling and sick will be answered. The Patriot who wrote this bill is 100% on our side and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize our carry rights. Get behind this bill! It must happen this year

Yeah, pretty much this. It makes us conform to the constitution while maintaining the interface with the idiotic need for licensing in other states.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I sent an old fashioned letter thisAM. More to follow.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While I'm in agreement that free people should be able to carry, and if someone should not carry, s/he should not be free in society, I have a concern about having a gun store across the street from the prison, figuratively speaking.

The "easy solution" is "well, if Joe Wifebeater has been stewing about 'what that b***h did to get me locked up' for the year that he's been there", then don't let Joe out. Given that the law prescribes a given penalty for a given crime, with a maximum sentence, I'm not sure how that would happen. Further, if the law was changed to allow the COs/warden (who profit by keeping prisoners in) to extend or even to testify to extend Joe's sentence, we breed corruption. Plus, if Joe is incarcerated and has been stewing because he was falsely convicted (say, wife and her lover conspired, lover put some marks on her that she said Joe did,) suddenly, we're talking about incarcerating a falsely accused man for the rest of his life, because I'm pretty sure in that situation, he's not going to suddenly be OK with what happened and just accept it.

Obviously, this is not a common situation I've described, and could easily be called a straw man. I'm not saying it's common. I'm saying it's a situation that requires thought and awareness, because it or another like it has potential to be exploited, and God forbid any of us are ever put in that or a similar situation (wrongly accused and convicted) we should not lose our freedom for any longer than necessary.

I also would consider the idea that a person be "made whole" after a probationary period allowing for his reintegration into free society, for our protection as well as for his own and his sanity as well; going from almost no freedoms to almost no restrictions on his behavior would be a bit of a culture shock. (Think of Brooks, from Shawshank Redemption.)

Again, I support making a man whole once he is free. I think how that happens requires some diligent consideration.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

While I'm in agreement that free people should be able to carry, and if someone should not carry, s/he should not be free in society, I have a concern about having a gun store across the street from the prison, figuratively speaking.

(Pardon the aggressive cut job...)

One of the biggest problems that I have with this concern is that most (or, at least: FAR too many) felony convictions are for non-violent crimes. Thus, there are far too many people denied their right to self-defense as a result of having committed one of myriad non-violent crimes, that have no bearing on the likelihood of the person convicted of such crimes to misuse a firearm.

Do some bad people with ill intent sometimes get to do bad things in a free society, because individual liberty is held sacrosanct? Yes. But I will take that outcome to the alternative. Freedom is messy. Life is fraught with danger. As Thomas Jefferson said, Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787