Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[chipbennett]

Anyone have his twitter handle?

https://twitter.com/lucassemperfi

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Eh, I think we're mostly going by what last year's bill said. It's my understanding that it's essentially the same thing. It didn't fail last year because of what was in it. It failed because some ***** ass Republicans were gun shy--literally--because of the election. Apparently Desperate Moms Demand Some Action--ANY Action, makes some Republicans wee wee down their suit pants.

Yep, I heard that it will be the same/similar to last years. But I prefer to see it with my own eyes.

One could start with the six pages of discussion in this thread. Or follow any of Lucas' many forms of communication, including Facebook and Twitter.

Well I follow Rep Lucas on facebook and have seen what he has posted about it. I don't really do twitter though. But that isn't quite the same as reading the actual bill is it? Same with the 6 pgs in this thread.

 

[chipbennett]

Yep, I heard that it will be the same/similar to last years. But I prefer to see it with my own eyes.



Well I follow Rep Lucas on facebook and have seen what he has posted about it. I don't really do twitter though. But that isn't quite the same as reading the actual bill is it? Same with the 6 pgs in this thread.

Or, you could contact Jim Lucas and ask him directly. I've done so, and he has confirmed, multiple times, that the LTCH is retained, and merely made optional for reciprocity purposes.

I've been in direct contact with Lucas since the 2015 session, when he first introduced a Constitutional Carry bill. The original bill did not retain the LTCH, and I contacted him to ask about it. He actually called me to discuss, and based on considerable feedback (of which mine was a drop in the bucket), the bill was revised to retain the LTCH. It has been that way ever since.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Or, you could contact Jim Lucas and ask him directly. I've done so, and he has confirmed, multiple times, that the LTCH is retained, and merely made optional for reciprocity purposes.

I've been in direct contact with Lucas since the 2015 session, when he first introduced a Constitutional Carry bill. The original bill did not retain the LTCH, and I contacted him to ask about it. He actually called me to discuss, and based on considerable feedback (of which mine was a drop in the bucket), the bill was revised to retain the LTCH. It has been that way ever since.

That is still not the same as reading the actual bill he is/has introduced is it? I've seen the synopsis that he posted. I see mention of a reciprocity license, is there language in the bill that converts current LTCHs to this new reciprocity license? There wasn't last year that I recall. It also states that people can obtain a reciprocity license if they wish to carry in another state that IN has a reciprocity agreement with, to the best of my knowledge IN does not have a reciprocity agreement with any other state. Do you have knowledge of any?

I've been in contact with Rep Lucas. And nothing that you posted explains how INGO members can read a bill that hasn't been posted. Do you have an actual copy of said bill? If so do you care to share?

 

[chipbennett]

That is still not the same as reading the actual bill he is/has introduced is it? I've seen the synopsis that he posted.

True. But this isn't the 2,000-page ACA we're talking about here.

I see mention of a reciprocity license, is there language in the bill that converts current LTCHs to this new reciprocity license? There wasn't last year that I recall.

The statutory language requiring obtaining an LTCH does not change. The LTCH will be exactly as it is currently. It will not change. What changes is the removal of the requirement to have an LTCH in order to carry a handgun.

It also states that people can obtain a reciprocity license if they wish to carry in another state that IN has a reciprocity agreement with, to the best of my knowledge IN does not have a reciprocity agreement with any other state. Do you have knowledge of any?

I do not know whether Indiana formally enters into any reciprocity agreements with other States. Indiana simply honors the licenses issued by all other states (provided that the holder is not an Indiana resident). That said, at current count, 33 states honor the Indiana LTCH:

http://handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf

I've been in contact with Rep Lucas. And nothing that you posted explains how INGO members can read a bill that hasn't been posted. Do you have an actual copy of said bill? If so do you care to share?

You're really going to hang me on that, aren't you? My wording was admittedly poor. My intent was that there is plenty of information available to read regarding the proposed legislation, to sufficiently inform someone.

As soon as the text of the bill is available, I'll gladly post it (assuming someone doesn't beat me to the punch).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

True. But this isn't the 2,000-page ACA we're talking about here.


The statutory language requiring obtaining an LTCH does not change. The LTCH will be exactly as it is currently. It will not change. What changes is the removal of the requirement to have an LTCH in order to carry a handgun.

I do not know whether Indiana formally enters into any reciprocity agreements with other States. Indiana simply honors the licenses issued by all other states (provided that the holder is not an Indiana resident). That said, at current count, 33 states honor the Indiana LTCH:

You're really going to hang me on that, aren't you? My wording was admittedly poor. My intent was that there is plenty of information available to read regarding the proposed legislation, to sufficiently inform someone.

As soon as the text of the bill is available, I'll gladly post it (assuming someone doesn't beat me to the punch).

No it's not a 2,000 pg ACA, last year it was 28 pgs. I'm guessing it is the same bill as last year with a few date changes, so that is what I'm commenting on now. When the bill is posted, what I'm stating may be the same or it may change.

The statutory language does change. There is no LTCH, there is a reciprocity license. How to obtain a reciprocity license is very close to what is currently in force for a LTCH. But there is no reference in the bill to convert current LTCH to a reciprocity license. IANAL so I do not know if that will make a difference or not. But it concerns me to a degree. Also the text for the reciprocity license doesn't state what reciprocity it is for other than carry of a firearm, yes we know it is intended for handgun carry, but there is no mention of that. So while that may be the intention, it is not in the actual text. So I could see some of the current states (doubtful but possible) refusing to honor it. I could also see some states that do not honor it currently trying to use it as a "loophole" if national reciprocity passes.

Regarding the reciprocity agreement part. Yes the current LTCH is honored by 33 states, as I stated above it's doubtful that would change. But again the text of the bill specifies

A resident of this state who wishes to
35 carry a firearm in another state under a reciprocity agreement
36 entered into by this state and the other state may obtain an Indiana
37 firearms reciprocity license under this chapter by applying

We have no reciprocity agreement with any other state, and there is no provision under current law or in this bill to make one. So therefor according to this proposed bill no one could be issued one. And again another possible "loophole" under a national reciprocity law. Since it is codified to only apply to state that we have a reciprocity agreement with.

Personally IMO a better way would be to leave the language for the LTCH alone, and simply strike the law that requires one. Rather than change the language for the LTCH and strike the law that requires one. But until I have a chance to read the actual current bill, I'm not making any suggestions to change it.

 

[MCgrease08]

I called Bosma's office this afternoon and asked for this bill to be introduced in committee.

 

[2A_Tom]

Sho me da bil, sho me da bil, sho me da bil ...

The 2017 bill will be released when the 2017 legislative year begins. It will have a new HB number.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Sho me da bil, sho me da bil, sho me da bil ...

^^^THIS!!!^^^THIS!!^^^

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Sho me da bil, sho me da bil, sho me da bil ...

The 2017 bill will be released when the 2017 legislative year begins. It will have a new HB number.

Yep. Although the 2017 legislative year has begun. The HB number has been released, the bill itself just hasn't been posted yet.

 

[atvdave]

Seen this on my FB feed..

 

[KellyinAvon]

Two more loaded up for snail-mail tomorrow. It's really hard not to include a "You're killing me, Smaltz" to the Public Policy Committee Chair. His bio shows he's a 93 Ball State grad so he's the right age to get the reference.

 

[brotherbill3]

The Link is UP - BUT (yeah theres a but) -

Not on the Legislation Page (yet, probably later this AM) - but I went to the COMMITTEE Page and hit "Bills Assigned" - and there IT IS:

HB1159:
House Bill 1159 - Regulation of firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session

Have fun folks - PUSH.

 

[chipbennett]

The Link is UP - BUT (yeah theres a but) -

Not on the Legislation Page (yet, probably later this AM) - but I went to the COMMITTEE Page and hit "Bills Assigned" - and there IT IS:

HB1159:
House Bill 1159 - Regulation of firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session

Have fun folks - PUSH.

Direct link to the full text:

House Bill 1159 - Regulation of firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session

Here's one of the biggest reasons (to me) that this bill is so important:

23 SECTION 19. IC 35-47-2-24 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY
24 1, 2017]. Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the
25 enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to
26 negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the
27 absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof
28 is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this
29 chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

 

[87iroc]

Who says we can't have two fronts?

Napolean and Hitler come to mind.

 

[87iroc]

We need a list of 'talking points' for Constitutional Carry. I am starting to see things popping up on FB people 'shocked' by the thought of allowing knuckle dragging gun owners whose wet dream is to shoot a place up pop up on FB. I'm exaggerating...but suspect it will come. What are the main points against Constitutional Carry? How can we refute them?

I'll start...with the easy ones..

1) My god, it will turn in to the wild west. Response: 17 states(or is it less...unsure) already have Constitutional Carry. Where has this happened?
2) Anybody can carry a gun w/o training.: Response(albeit weak in my opinion): The current license requires no training. There would be no difference(this is weak because the response is...we SHOULD require training by the anti's)
3) Any Criminal could carry a gun!: Response: They already carry guns as criminals don't pay attention to laws anyway.


I'm running out and should pay attention to my meeting...but we need a quick reference guide set up of the common spasms by the anti's...

 

[SteveM4A1]

We need a list of 'talking points' for Constitutional Carry. I am starting to see things popping up on FB people 'shocked' by the thought of allowing knuckle dragging gun owners whose wet dream is to shoot a place up pop up on FB. I'm exaggerating...but suspect it will come. What are the main points against Constitutional Carry? How can we refute them?

I'll start...with the easy ones..

1) My god, it will turn in to the wild west. Response: 17 states(or is it less...unsure) already have Constitutional Carry. Where has this happened?
2) Anybody can carry a gun w/o training.: Response(albeit weak in my opinion): The current license requires no training. There would be no difference(this is weak because the response is...we SHOULD require training by the anti's)
3) Any Criminal could carry a gun!: Response: They already carry guns as criminals don't pay attention to laws anyway.


I'm running out and should pay attention to my meeting...but we need a quick reference guide set up of the common spasms by the anti's...

Refer them to Guy's article...he does a very good job of tackling this concept (as usual)

Debunking the Arguments against Constitutional Carry | 93.1 WIBC

 

[jamil]

We need a list of 'talking points' for Constitutional Carry. I am starting to see things popping up on FB people 'shocked' by the thought of allowing knuckle dragging gun owners whose wet dream is to shoot a place up pop up on FB. I'm exaggerating...but suspect it will come. What are the main points against Constitutional Carry? How can we refute them?

I'll start...with the easy ones..

1) My god, it will turn in to the wild west. Response: 17 states(or is it less...unsure) already have Constitutional Carry. Where has this happened?
2) Anybody can carry a gun w/o training.: Response(albeit weak in my opinion): The current license requires no training. There would be no difference(this is weak because the response is...we SHOULD require training by the anti's)
3) Any Criminal could carry a gun!: Response: They already carry guns as criminals don't pay attention to laws anyway.


I'm running out and should pay attention to my meeting...but we need a quick reference guide set up of the common spasms by the anti's...

Regarding #3, I just don't see many criminals bothering to go through the hassles to get a carry license. Basically, the carry license is exclusively for people who obey laws. Yeah. Sometimes a LTCH holder does bad stiluff with a firearm. And the LTCH didn't prevent it.

 

[87iroc]

Refer them to Guy's article...he does a very good job of tackling this concept (as usual)

Debunking the Arguments against Constitutional Carry | 93.1 WIBC

Thanks, I had not seen that. Just shared it on FB.

 

[chipbennett]

Refer them to Guy's article...he does a very good job of tackling this concept (as usual)

Debunking the Arguments against Constitutional Carry | 93.1 WIBC

Good link. Let's look at the arguments he identifies:

#1 OH NOES! It will make it easier for bad guys to get moar gunz!!!!

Rev. Charles Harrison of the Ten Point Coalition has stated that "we already have a problem with the proliferation of unlawful guns on the street. [Constitutional Carry] will make it way easier for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns."

The Gun Guy's response:

"Importantly, this bill would have no effect whatsoever on who can “get a gun” in Indiana. A person does not need a license or permit of any kind to purchase a gun in this state, including a handgun. A person also doesn’t need a License to Carry Handgun to possess a handgun on their own property, at a shooting range, in a firearms instructional course, and several other locations – including in their vehicle so long as the handgun is unloaded, not readily accessible and secured in a case."

He hits the key point: the LTCH is not involved in any way whatsoever in the purchase or transfer of a handgun in Indiana. One can have an LTCH without possessing a handgun, and one can lawfully acquire (buy, transfer) a handgun without having an LTCH.

The other point to bring up here: criminals aren't constrained by laws. Even if the LTCH were required to purchase or transfer a firearm, criminals get 80%+ of their handguns from either theft or private transfer (often already unlawful under Indiana law, given that felons likely already know that they are selling/transferring a firearm to another felon). And even if bad guys tried to purchase a handgun through an FFL, the bad guy could either lie on the form 4473, or participate in a straw purchase. The existence of the LTCH still doesn't factor into such a transfer, because the LTCH is not involved in the transfer of firearms. So, eliminating the requirement to have an LTCH in order to carry a handgun would have zero impact on bad guys acquiring handguns.

#2 The LTCH keeps bad guys from carrying handguns

In opposing Constitutional Carry in statements to the Indy Star, Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry has stated that “permitting serves a legitimate purpose in terms of denying the right to carry a handgun to certain individuals."

Gun Guy's response:

However, Rep. Lucas counters that “the Constitutional Carry bill only affects innocent, lawful people by removing this requirement to pay and prove one’s innocence. If a person is prohibited from carrying a handgun [now], they will still be prohibited from carrying a handgun after the law passes.”


So the question becomes – who is correct? Is it true that “dangerous people” will be able to lawfully carry guns in public and that Constitutional Carry “will make it way easier for people who shouldn't have guns” to lawfully carry guns? To answer that question, it is critical to understand that several classes of people are prohibited from possessing a gun at all under state and federal law. Whether those people, known as “prohibited possessors,” have a License to Carry Handgun is irrelevant to the fact that they can be prosecuted for several different felonies simply for possessing a gun – whether at home, in public or in a vehicle. For example, a person with a felony conviction on his record who is found in possession of any firearm, anywhere, is subject to criminal conviction and a prison sentence of up to ten years for a first offense, and many more years for "armed career criminals" found in possession of a gun. For this exact reason, it is simply incorrect that serious “criminals” will be able to lawfully carry a handgun if Constitutional Carry passes.

Gun Guy then goes on a lengthy and detailed comparison of Indiana's "proper person" under the LTCH statutes and federal statutes' definition of a "prohibited person", but I think he really misses the point: it should be obvious that the LTCH doesn't actually prevent bad guys from carrying handguns, because ever since the implementation of the LTCH, bad guys have continued to carry handguns, despite not having an LTCH. I'm sure one of the many Indiana LEOs here at INGO can confirm that they have continued to arrest prohibited persons for possession of firearms, and that prohibited persons have continued to commit crimes using firearms - despite the LTCH requirement and their failure to meet LTCH criteria.

#3 But untrained people will be carrying handguns OMGWTFBBQ!! (Not addressed by Gun Guy, but one I spent most of the weekend debating with an alleged "Republican")

This argument is essentially that, when the LTCH requirement is eliminated, more people without safe firearms handling (or statutory use-of-force) training will be carrying firearms.

The response to this argument is two-fold. One, the current LTCH statutes do not include a training requirement, so merely removing the LTCH requirement for carrying a handgun would have zero impact on training requirements. And two, there is no evidence that government-mandated training as a prerequisite to carrying a handgun has any impact on either accidental injury/death from negligent discharges due to unsafe handgun handling, or unjustified use of deadly force due to lack of statutory use-of-force training. Whether the state mandates training as a prerequisite to carry a handgun or not, responsible people will act responsibly - both in safe handling and lawful use of firearms, and in acquiring any training necessary to act responsibly - and irresponsible people will act irresponsibly - both in failing to get any needed training and in acting contrary to any training received.

#4 The LTCH lets police officers know that someone is a "proper person" (also not addressed by Gun Guy, but one that LEO make in opposition to constitutional carry)

This argument is that the LTCH provides a way for LEO to know that someone is lawfully carrying a firearm, during an interaction with that person. Without the LTCH, the LEO would have no way to know.

The response to this argument is also two-fold.

One, the premise of this argument is contrary to the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding people, including the right of due process, and its corollary right, the right to the presumption of innocence. Absent evidence to support specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is acting unlawfully, that persn has the presumption of innocence. The state - and therefore, the agent of the state: the LEO - bears the burden of proving that a person is acting unlawfully. The mere act of carrying a handgun, where carry of a handgun is lawful, is not evidence constituting reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful activity.

Two, LEO who observe persons in the act of committing a crime - particularly, a crime that would cause someone to be a "prohibited person" - or someone known to LEO as a felon or otherwise "prohibited person" would negate the necessity of the LEO to ascertain whether such a person is in possession of an LTCH. Such circumstances would constitute evidence of individualized suspicion, and would be grounds for LEO dealing with such a person appropriately.

The Indiana LTCH turns this scenario on its head, and places the burden of proof on law-abiding people to provide evidence that they are lawfully carrying a handgun. (This is, in fact, my biggest issue with the LTCH scheme: it violates the constitutional rights of due process and presumption of innocence of law-abiding people - who constitute the sole demographic who actually make an effort to obtain the LTCH.)

Reference the 4th Circuit decision in US v Black:

Second, Gates’ prior arrest history cannot be a logical basis for a reasonable, particularized suspicion as to Black. Without more, Gates’ prior arrest history in itself is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion as to Gates, much less Black. See Powell, 666 F.3d at 188 ("[A] prior criminal record is not, standing alone, sufficient to create reasonable suspicion." (citation omitted)). Moreover, we "ha[ve] repeatedly emphasized that to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." DesRoches v. Caprio, 156 F.3d 571, 574 (4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and alterations omitted) (emphasis added). In other words, the suspicious facts must be specific and particular to the individual seized. Exceptions to the individualized suspicion requirement "have been upheld only in ‘certain limited circumstances,’ where the search is justified by ‘special needs’"—that is, concerns other than crime detection—and must be justified by balancing the individual’s privacy expectations against the government interests. Id. (quoting Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308, 313 (1997)); see Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665-66 (1989). Here, the Government has not identified any substantial interests that override Black’s interest in privacy or that suppress the normal requirement of individualized suspicion.


Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms, see generally N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-415.10 to 14-415.23, Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Government avers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "go about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst to possess a firearm." We are not persuaded.


Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states. United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, Troupe’s lawful display of his lawfully possessed firearm cannot be the justification for Troupe’s detention. See St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D.N.M. 2009) (finding no reasonable suspicion where the plaintiff arrived at a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun, an act which is legal in the State of New Mexico.) That the officer had never seen anyone in this particular division openly carry a weapon also fails to justify reasonable suspicion. From our understanding of the laws of North Carolina, its laws apply uniformly and without exception in every single division, and every part of the state. Thus, the officer’s observation is irrational and fails to give rise to reasonable suspicion. To hold otherwise would be to give the judicial imprimatur to the dichotomy in the intrusion of constitutional protections.

In fact, the LTCH statutes read as a thinly veiled means to circumvent this court ruling.