Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Timjoebillybob]

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:

Thanks, I hadn't checked yet today.

It appears at first glance that it is the same as last years. So my post above stands. With one minor change, I stated it was possible but doubtful that this could effect our current reciprocity with other states. After rethinking, I'd say it's possible maybe even probable and remove the doubtful. We would not be licensed to carry a handgun, just a firearm. Do any of the states that currently honor our LTCH have language in their codes that specify license/permit for handguns? OH and TX for instance specifies handguns, I'm sure some of the other states do also, but I haven't checked them all. So leave the language of 35-47-2-3 alone. I see no logical/valid reason to change it.

I also wonder if Rep Lucas realizes he struck down the fee schedule for issuing one? Will that negate any charge by the ISP, or will it be up to them to set the cost?
ETA I don't know why it doesn't show on the copy/paste. But this entire section quoted is struck in the bill.

SECTION 14. IC 35-47-2-4, AS AMENDED BY P.L.158-2013,
30 SECTION 575, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS
31 [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017]: Sec. 4. (a)
A qualified license shall be issued for hunting and target practice. The
39 superintendent may adopt rules imposing limitations on the use and
40 carrying of handguns under a license when handguns are carried by a
41 licensee as a condition of employment. Unlimited licenses shall be
42 issued for the purpose of the protection of life and property
(b) In addition to the application fee, the fee for:
2 (1) a qualified license shall be:
3 (A) five dollars ($5) for a four (4) year qualified license;
4 (B) twenty-five dollars ($25) for a lifetime qualified license
5 from a person who does not currently possess a valid Indiana
6 handgun license; or
7 (C) twenty dollars ($20) for a lifetime qualified license from
8 a person who currently possesses a valid Indiana handgun
9 license; and
10 (2) an unlimited license shall be:
11 (A) thirty dollars ($30) for a four (4) year unlimited license;
12 (B) seventy-five dollars ($75) for a lifetime unlimited license
13 from a person who does not currently possess a valid Indiana
14 handgun license; or
15 (C) sixty dollars ($60) for a lifetime unlimited license from a
16 person who currently possesses a valid Indiana handgun
17 license.

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...

2) Anyone can carry a firearm w/o training and without a license now. Long guns, cap and ball revolvers, etc.
3) If they are a felon or domestic batterer they are prohibited from owning/carrying regardless.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks, I hadn't checked yet today.

It appears at first glance that it is the same as last years. So my post above stands. With one minor change, I stated it was possible but doubtful that this could effect our current reciprocity with other states. After rethinking, I'd say it's possible and remove the doubtful. We would not be licensed to carry a handgun, just a firearm. Do any of the states that currently honor our LTCH have language in their codes that specify license/permit for handguns? OH and TX for instance specifies handguns, I'm sure some of the other states do also, but I haven't checked them all.

It is a change in terminology; nothing more.

I think your concerns are largely misplaced. Every state issues a different type of license. Some license the carry of handguns. Some license the concealed carry of handguns. Some license the concealed carry of "weapons". The name is largely irrelevant. And since Indiana apparently has no formal (i.e. signed by the respective Attorneys General) reciprocity agreements in place with any other states, I see no issue. Those states honor Indiana's license on the basis that it exists - just as Indiana honors all other states' licenses on the basis that they exist.

For example, Alaska (a constitutional carry state) issues a "Concealed Handgun Permit" for purposes of reciprocity. Indiana recognizes that permit. An Alaska resident who holds that permit while in Indiana would be able lawfully to carry a handgun concealed or open, as both forms of carry are lawful - even though the permit is a "Concealed Handgun Permit".

So leave the language of 35-47-2-3 alone. I see no logical/valid reason to change it.

I'll ask, but I presume the reason for the nomenclature change is to avoid giving the perception that the license is required for carrying a handgun. Keeping the name, "License To Carry Handgun" potentially leaves room for some activist court to "interpret" a legislative intent that the license is required to carry, and not merely optional for reciprocity purposes.

 

[brotherbill3]

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...

quick note I don't see already answered on #1:

1a) Currently 11 other states have unlicensed OC/CC (Constitutional Carry) - with at least 3 (that I've seen starting this January) - that aim to move to this or closer (In addition to Indiana).

1b) Also, currently 30 states allow OPEN CARRY - without permit. (this number has grown slightly, but has been upwards of 25 for a while, IIRC).

1c) If you add in states that allow cap and ball revolvers to be OC'd without a permit - you can grown that number even more.
(TX and IN are 2 that I know of, never really researched it beyond that; but I would guess it might be a few more than that even.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It is a change in terminology; nothing more.

I think your concerns are largely misplaced. Every state issues a different type of license. Some license the carry of handguns. Some license the concealed carry of handguns. Some license the concealed carry of "weapons". The name is largely irrelevant. And since Indiana apparently has no formal (i.e. signed by the respective Attorneys General) reciprocity agreements in place with any other states, I see no issue. Those states honor Indiana's license on the basis that it exists - just as Indiana honors all other states' licenses on the basis that they exist.

For example, Alaska (a constitutional carry state) issues a "Concealed Handgun Permit" for purposes of reciprocity. Indiana recognizes that permit. An Alaska resident who holds that permit while in Indiana would be able lawfully to carry a handgun concealed or open, as both forms of carry are lawful - even though the permit is a "Concealed Handgun Permit".

I'll ask, but I presume the reason for the nomenclature change is to avoid giving the perception that the license is required for carrying a handgun. Keeping the name, "License To Carry Handgun" potentially leaves room for some activist court to "interpret" a legislative intent that the license is required to carry, and not merely optional for reciprocity purposes.

I hope they are largely misplaced. And yes every state issues a different kind of license/permit. And yes the name is largely irrelevant. They could change it to a LTCS "License to Carry Schnitzel" and it wouldn't matter. But the codified language of what is allowed isn't irrelevant. While the codified language in IN doesn't specify concealed, it allows for it along with open carry. As an example in issues a "hunting and trapping" LTCH, that would not allow us to carry in other states unless we were hunting/trapping and their law allowed for it.

As for a AK permit holder would be legally allowed to open carry in IN, that is up for debate. And has been on here many times before. The consensus iirc was that it is up in the air, due to the wording of the IN code specifically the bolded section. If a state issued a permit that authorizes only Open carry, it would be debatable if they could carry concealed in IN.

(b) Licenses to carry handguns, issued by other states or foreign
countries, will be recognized according to the terms thereof but only
while the holders are not residents of Indiana.

 

[jamil]

Something worth mentioning, since many of us are close neighbors with Kentucky, they introduced Senate Bill 7 on January 3 to enact constitutional carry. I hope they get it passed and signed. I hope we do too.

 

[LongLiveTheRepublic]

Hi...I'm new here!!

I just looked over HB1159. Is it a sure thing that current LTCH holders will not have to apply for an “Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License” to carry in other states? Or pay a fee to get an updated card that is worded different? I see nothing in the bill that says current LTCH holders are “converted” or “grandfathered” to an “Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License”.

 

[jamil]

I just looked over HB1159. Is it a sure thing that current LTCH holders will not have to apply for an “Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License” to carry in other states? Or pay a fee to get an updated card that is worded different? I see nothing in the bill that says current LTCH holders are “converted” or “grandfathered” to an “Indiana Firearms Reciprocity License”.

In correspondence with Lucas last year, if memory serves me well, I believe he said that current LTCH holders wouldn't have to get the new reciprocity license until their current LTCH expires, and in the case of the lifetime license, it doesn't expire.

But I don't see anything that says that in the current bill, unless I'm missing something. It looks like 35-47-2-3 is amended, among other things, to eliminate the requirement for having the license while carrying a firearm, and changing the name of the license issued to "Indiana firearms reciprocity license".

It seems reasonable to ask for clarification.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In correspondence with Lucas last year, if memory serves me well, I believe he said that current LTCH holders wouldn't have to get the new reciprocity license until their current LTCH expires, and in the case of the lifetime license, it doesn't expire.

But I don't see anything that says that in the current bill, unless I'm missing something. It looks like 35-47-2-3 is amended, among other things, to eliminate the requirement for having the license while carrying a firearm, and changing the name of the license issued to "Indiana firearms reciprocity license".

It seems reasonable to ask for clarification.

I agree, I mentioned something along these lines up thread. Along with a couple of other possible issues.

Better to get verification now while it's still early, rather then it (hopefully) passes.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Napolean and Hitler come to mind.

We'll just not invade Russia too close to winter.

 

[ATM]

I never met a law I didn't want to repeal.

 

[oldpink]

Even if this passes, the LTCH needs to remain for this reason.

Thanks for answering my question right there.
IOW, for anyone who has no intention to carry beyond the state line, constitutional carry is great, but those of with lifetime LTCH in no way have a worthless card in our wallets for when we should go beyond the state line to the more rational states.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

What percentage of legal drivers have a driver's license that DOES require you prove that you have been trained to drive (by someone)? That's easy, if they're legal drivers, 100%. So by the logic of some of the antis, if you have a driver's license, you will have no accidents or unsafe behaviors. Since the number of accidents and unsafe behaviors is nowhere near zero, let alone not BEING zero, and the number of those accidents and unsafe behaviors by legal drivers is similarly non-zero, it can be inferred that training and licensure do not stop accidents and unsafe behaviors, and possibly argued that that number is not even reduced by licensure.

Any criminal could carry a gun? Yes. And as stated, they do. So should police be able to stop and check people out solely because they possess a gun?

We'll come back to that.

A person carrying a pen could be about to commit forgery, and a person with a cell phone or tablet or laptop could be about to commit identity theft, in either case stealing someone's life savings and reputation. The consequences of these actions could be very far-reaching, beyond only that person; depending on who the victim is, it could affect many lives. A person entering a theater could be about to shout "FIRE!" and panic everyone in there, causing a melee toward the exit. Should people be required to obtain a LTCP or a LTCCPor a LTCT or a LTCL? Should police be able to stop someone, confiscate their pen, phone, tablet, or laptop, disassemble the same, and return it to the owner in pieces with instructions to not reassemble it until the officer is gone? Should the theater-goer have to super-glue his mouth closed, leaving only an opening large enough for a piece of popcorn or a drinking straw?

There is the famous story, which may be a joke or may have happened, I don't know. It seems a man stands accused in court of unlawfully entering and stealing from a business, and the prosecutor in her expensive suit makes the argument, "Mr. Smith, when you were arrested, you had all the tools on you needed to commit a burglary!"

He replies to her, "And Madame Prosecutor, you presently in this courtroom have all the tools necessary to commit prostitution. Should you be arrested?"

There is a concept known as "prior restraint", which as I understand it, says that even though a person has the ability to commit a crime does not permit infringement upon his rights until there is more evidence to prove he intends to do so. That's a grossly oversimplified definition, but I don't believe it's erroneous. Any of our legal eagles is invited to correct any (alleged! ) error in the preceding statements.

What it all boils down to is that we, the citizens of Indiana, are being prosecuted for exercising our rights without paying a "tribute" to obtain permission to do so. In Virginia, a few years ago, a person could carry openly without permit, but could not conceal without one. The argument was made that people were being arrested on the charge of wearing a coat without a license. It could be argued that we are being arrested not for carrying a handgun, but for not possessing a pink receipt.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Trigger Time]

This is about holding these representatives accountable for the oath they took.
denying us constitutional carry is dereliction of duty.

 

[jamil]

I never met a law I didn't want to repeal.

Ya. Me too. I mean, like, have you ever read Indiana Code Title 35, article 42? ****ing statist *******s. I think we should start with the complete repeal of chapter one. Or at least get section one repealed. That one is particularly egregious.

 

[2A_Tom]

I never met a law I didn't want to repeal.

That would be fine if all men were believers.

As it is we need some way to respond to malefactors including believers.

 

[ATM]

Ya. Me too. I mean, like, have you ever read Indiana Code Title 35, article 42? ****ing statist *******s. I think we should start with the complete repeal of chapter one. Or at least get section one repealed. That one is particularly egregious.

I have no use for it.

 

[ATM]

That would be fine if all men were believers.

As it is we need some way to respond to malefactors including believers.

There have always been ways to respond. Unfortunately, our laws generally serve to shield some from just responses.

The abuses of that unnatural state are quite predictable throughout history.

 

[Phase2]

Excellent! I'll be calling my Rep.

Nice link to look up both your state and federal legislators: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/find-legislators/

 

[courier6]

If this passes I will have no idea what to do with the pink card in my wallet. I remember how happy I was to get that thing in the mail and finally start carrying. I can't imagine how crazy the crooked politicians in Marion county will react if this law is enacted.

 

[jamil]

If this passes I will have no idea what to do with the pink card in my wallet. I remember how happy I was to get that thing in the mail and finally start carrying. I can't imagine how crazy the crooked politicians in Marion county will react if this law is enacted.

Keep it. Use it when you cross state lines where they have reciprocity with Indiana.