Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Jacke]

HB 1159 already keeps the LTCH valid.

No it does not retain the current LTCH. It create a new type of license.

Why don't you quote or better yet take a screenshot of the part of the bill that says current LTCH holders will be converted over to the new license.

 

[chipbennett]

No it does not retain the current LTCH. It create a new type of license.

Why don't you quote or better yet take a screenshot of the part of the bill that says current LTCH holders will be converted over to the new license.

I don't need to. Why don't you screenshot/quote the part of HB 1159 that invalidates the current LTCH?

 

[Jacke]

I don't need to. Why don't you screenshot/quote the part of HB 1159 that invalidates the current LTCH?

Better then what you gave...which was nothing.

 

[chipbennett]

Better then what you gave...which was nothing.

View attachment 52431

So, the license is renamed a "reciprocity" license in the statutory language. The license still exists. How does that demonstrate that HB 1159 invalidates the LTCH?

 

[Vendetta]

How did I know that zooming forward in this post would result in a devolution to stupid arguments over nitpicky bull****? *smh*

 

[cbhausen]

Walt Kelly was right. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Sometimes us gun folk ain't the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[AngryRooster]

Better then what you gave...which was nothing.

View attachment 52431

First, you should settle down a bit. No one here is your enemy. A confrontational attitude will earn you nothing, well nothing you want anyway.


Next. The new bill will decriminalize the carrying of a handgun in Indiana. Since that act is no longer against the law then there is no need for a license to do so. The change in wording is an administrative change. It will not invalidate the licenses that are out there. The criteria for obtaining a license will be the same. Other states that recognize our license have no reason to change that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, the license is renamed a "reciprocity" license in the statutory language. The license still exists. How does that demonstrate that HB 1159 invalidates the LTCH?

Can you show anywhere in the bill that the current LTCH will be converted to this new license?

Next. The new bill will decriminalize the carrying of a handgun in Indiana. Since that act is no longer against the law then there is no need for a license to do so. The change in wording is an administrative change. It will not invalidate the licenses that are out there. The criteria for obtaining a license will be the same. Other states that recognize our license have no reason to change that.

As I have stated before, I don't know that it will invalidate the current LTCH, but I see no language in the bill to retain it. Also the criteria does change for obtaining one. The criteria that does change is that it will be issued for those that want one to carry firearms in a state that IN has a reciprocity agreement with. IN does not have a reciprocity agreement with anyone. Nor is there anything in this bill or in the IC that allows for one.

As I have said above, I am for this bill. But why possibly shoot ourselves in the foot when not needed. I haven't heard any compelling argument for the terminology change from LTCH to reciprocity license. Do you have one?

 

[chipbennett]

Can you show anywhere in the bill that the current LTCH will be converted to this new license?

Can you show me anywhere in the bill that requires that existing LTCHs be "converted" to a new license?

As I have stated before, I don't know that it will invalidate the current LTCH, but I see no language in the bill to retain it.

There is no language in the bill to invalidate the LTCH.

Also the criteria does change for obtaining one.

Which is exactly why printing a new title on the pink card won't and cannot be construed as "invalidating" previous pink cards with a different title.

The criteria that does change is that it will be issued for those that want one to carry firearms in a state that IN has a reciprocity agreement with. IN does not have a reciprocity agreement with anyone. Nor is there anything in this bill or in the IC that allows for one.

As I have said above, I am for this bill. But why possibly shoot ourselves in the foot when not needed. I haven't heard any compelling argument for the terminology change from LTCH to reciprocity license. Do you have one?

I provided a reason - one that is certainly compelling if your concern about the LTCH being de facto invalidated is even minimally valid: changing the name of the license from "License to Carry Handgun" to "Reciprocity License" prevents anyone from making a claim that issuing a "License to Carry Handgun" is evidence of legislative intent that such a license is required in order to carry, rather than merely being optional for reciprocity purposes.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Can you show me anywhere in the bill that requires that existing LTCHs be "converted" to a new license?

There is no language in the bill to invalidate the LTCH.

Which is exactly why printing a new title on the pink card won't and cannot be construed as "invalidating" previous pink cards with a different title.

I provided a reason - one that is certainly compelling if your concern about the LTCH being de facto invalidated is even minimally valid: changing the name of the license from "License to Carry Handgun" to "Reciprocity License" prevents anyone from making a claim that issuing a "License to Carry Handgun" is evidence of legislative intent that such a license is required in order to carry, rather than merely being optional for reciprocity purposes.

Nope.

How would a license that doesn't exist, be valid? Per this bill, there will no longer be a LTCH in IN.

ETA. Submitted before I meant to.
How would that be an issue? What would the person be charged with for it to come up? Also the bill already provides for that. Didn't you read it?
Italics are stricken from current IN code and in this bill. Bold will be how IN code will be if this bill is passed.

A person desiring a license
1 to carry who is not otherwise prohibited from carrying or
2 possessing a handgun shall apply: is not required to obtain or
3 possess a license or permit from the state to carry a handgun in
4 Indiana.

 

[chipbennett]

Nope.

How would a license that doesn't exist, be valid? Per this bill, there will no longer be a LTCH in IN.

It does exist. The LTCH and the "Reciprocity License" are exactly the same thing, with a different title on the card. The procedure to get both is the same. The requirements to get both are the same. The only change is the name. A name change in no way invalidates an already issued license.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It does exist. The LTCH and the "Reciprocity License" are exactly the same thing, with a different title on the card. The procedure to get both is the same. The requirements to get both are the same. The only change is the name. A name change in no way invalidates an already issued license.

I edited my post above regarding the rest of your comment. I submitted it before I meant to.

And no the requirements aren't the same. One of the current criteria is that it will be issued for any lawful purpose, under this bill it will only be issued for those desiring to carry firearms in a state we have a reciprocity agreement with. Which is none.

 

[chipbennett]

I edited my post above regarding the rest of your comment. I submitted it before I meant to.

And no the requirements aren't the same. One of the current criteria is that it will be issued for any lawful purpose, under this bill it will only be issued for those desiring to carry firearms in a state we have a reciprocity agreement with. Which is none.

Indiana may or may not have formally signed reciprocity agreements with any given state (I honestly don't know). But Indiana has mutual/de facto reciprocity with every state that a) honors all other states' licenses, or b) honors the license of every state that honors its license.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Indiana may or may not have formally signed reciprocity agreements with any given state (I honestly don't know). But Indiana has mutual/de facto reciprocity with every state that a) honors all other states' licenses, or b) honors the license of every state that honors its license.

Except it doesn't say a state that IN has reciprocity with. It specifically states a reciprocity agreement.

And did my edited post above, answer your question of why the name change isn't needed?

 

[chipbennett]

Except it doesn't say a state that IN has reciprocity with. It specifically states a reciprocity agreement.

And did my edited post above, answer your question of why the name change isn't needed?

I agree with you with respect to my personal preference that the name of the license not be changed. I've been meaning to ask Lucas about it. I will do that.

But, another point: just because the statutory language says "reciprocity license" doesn't mean that the superintendent can't keep the extant license, complete with "License To Carry Handgun" wording, exactly as it is - because the extant LTCH meets the statutory intent of a "reciprocity license".

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I agree with you with respect to my personal preference that the name of the license not be changed. I've been meaning to ask Lucas about it. I will do that.

But, another point: just because the statutory language says "reciprocity license" doesn't mean that the superintendent can't keep the extant license, complete with "License To Carry Handgun" wording, exactly as it is - because the extant LTCH meets the statutory intent of a "reciprocity license".

He has no statutory authority to keep the current license. Per this bill there is no "License to Carry Handgun" there is now a "Reciprocity License", again I'm not saying that the LTCH will no longer be valid, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

He may be able to keep the same wording on the new "reciprocity license". I don't actually know how much latitude he has over what is printed on the physical license, I'm guessing quite a bit. I do know that at least one part of it doesn't match statutory language. That would be under type of license. It currently lists type of license as "personal protection" rather than the statutory language of "unlimited", and I'm assuming but don't know that it's the same for the statutory language of the "qualified" or "hunting and target".

 

[chipbennett]

He has no statutory authority to keep the current license. Per this bill there is no "License to Carry Handgun" there is now a "Reciprocity License", again I'm not saying that the LTCH will no longer be valid, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

He may be able to keep the same wording on the new "reciprocity license". I don't actually know how much latitude he has over what is printed on the physical license, I'm guessing quite a bit. I do know that at least one part of it doesn't match statutory language. That would be under type of license. It currently lists type of license as "personal protection" rather than the statutory language of "unlimited", and I'm assuming but don't know that it's the same for the statutory language of the "qualified" or "hunting and target".

Side comment/question: did anyone ever even bother to get a "hunting and target" LTCH? What would be the purpose?

 

[indyjoe]

Side comment/question: did anyone ever even bother to get a "hunting and target" LTCH? What would be the purpose?

I think this had more use when the law was ambiguous about transport to hunting or range. I forget exactly what changed, but I remember the wording of the law was updated to fix this. It was something that didn't include the range and maybe hunting as a valid transportation reason.

Edit: Found this with a quick search Police voice concerns over Indiana's new gun law - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[John Galt]

Any issues can easily be, and will be corrected, via amendments. More importantly is getting people to show up at the Statehouse for a show of support on the day this bill (hopefully) gets a committee hearing. Keyboard warrioring is easy, showing up and actually doing something is what really helps push these things across the line.

 

[ATM]

Any issues can easily be, and will be corrected, via amendments. More importantly is getting people to show up at the Statehouse for a show of support on the day this bill (hopefully) gets a committee hearing. Keyboard warrioring is easy, showing up and actually doing something is what really helps push these things across the line.

Making them pay consequences is what really helps push these things across the line.

Ensure that they won't want what happened to the last guy to happen to them.

Choices used to have consequences. Attempting to vote someone else into their position next election is hardly a consequence.