Can you folks in Indy get rid of her at the next election?
That would require a significant change in the voting populace within her district. Unfortunately, it probably isn't going to happen.
Can you folks in Indy get rid of her at the next election?
Do we know this or think we know this?
Do we have an e-mail, telegram, gorillagram from another state saying that the reason they "look down" on Indiana's LTCH is because of training?
OK, then you tell me. Why does Ohio not honor our LTCH? I thought it was because [STRIKE]our requirements are not the same as theirs[/STRIKE]we do not infringe upon people's rights as egregiously as they do.
I am all for training, but not requiring it. Some people need the training, others don't.
What would be the effect of such a requirement?
I guess more states would allow us to carry with our Indiana LTCH because we would meet "their" requirements.
I don't think much else would change as far as safety or crime is concerned. It would have the effect of having less
people wanting to get their LTCH.
Dear Sen. [XXX],
It is my understanding that Sen. Breaux has introduced SB 45 in the Indiana Senate to add some training requirement to applicants for the Indiana License to Carry Handgun. I OPPOSE this idea and urge you to to the same.
I would support this concept under one condition, that a TEST demonstrating knowledge of candidates and the issues is required to be taken and passed before any person may vote in an election in Indiana.
I'm sure that Sen. Breaux would vehemently oppose any such legislation since in her radical mindset, voting is a protected right while the right to keep and bear arms is not.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
You say something here that you may not realize....Maybe this is her intent....making it difficult, resulting in less people wanting their permit is back door gun control.
An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.
An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.
I don't think that at all. It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms.
Who says you have to have a drivers license to own a car? How about to drive it on your personal property where you arent endangering others' lives?
I dont see training requirements for the ability to CARRY as all that bad. Now to be able to POSSESS or BUY a gun? Thats a different story. If they try that sh** I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.
I just dont see how being properly trained and educated to use a deadly weapon is all that evil.
And yes, its not a quote* but with rights come responsibilities. We are all responsible for being competent with our firearms.
You have your views, I have mine.
*needed a disclaimer since somebody here got his panties in a wad because he thought I was quoting a similar statement and I "got it wrong".
I am all for training, but not requiring it. Some people need the training, others don't.
What would be the effect of such a requirement?
I guess more states would allow us to carry with our Indiana LTCH because we would meet "their" requirements.
I don't think much else would change as far as safety or crime is concerned. It would have the effect of having less
people wanting to get their LTCH.
Maybe a voluntary on-line training that once completed would shorten the time to get your LTCH might make sense.
That way people would want to do it. I do feel that LTCH holders need to read and understand the state laws for firearms and self defense.
Supposing Indiana offered a second license, maybe as an endorsement on your LTCH, that would be the itraining needed for reciprocity with other states. Completely voluntary of course, like opting to get a Utah license. You cojld still get the no training pink paper, or a training reciprocal green/orange/fuschia whatever.
That's the ONLY benefit I see of them requiring training. I took it upon myself after I purchased my first handgun and obtained my LTCH to get training before I started to carry. I don't think it should be required, though.
We need to be more like a few other states. Kentucky for example, you need no permit/license to open carry, but if you wish to carry in other states or carry concealed you must take a training class and get a permit/license.
First, as far as the relationship to Travon's case goes, I believe Florida has a training requirement....
Second, before we change any Indiana laws we need a study comparing our statistics ( murder rates, accidents, etc.) with states with stricter laws.
Unless there is strong evidence that suggests that training makes people more responible or much better shots it's pointless.
I would agree to get training if we changed to a two tier system and could gt prior agreement from most of those states that require training, including Illinois....as it sets now, we can only carry in the land of Lincoln if we aquire their permit at a cost of $300 ,not including paperwork and in state training
( $150-$250 more)...
Actually ,I would like to find State Senators willing to propose legislation that recipricates terms with our neighbor to the west. Illinois residents should show us proof of training and pay $300 to aquire an Indiana LTCH....any ideas how to push this idea?
OK, then you tell me. Why does Ohio not honor our LTCH? I thought it was because our requirements are not the same as theirs.
An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.
2. A well-trained militia is the goal. Getting to the goal cannot be used as a stalking horse by the government to interfere with the right.
Assume arguendo that the Second Amendment read, a well-educated populace being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed.
The government cannot then restrict the right. The government could build public libraries (public shooting ranges), encourage book clubs, not tax books, make book purchases tax deductible, etc.
Who says you have to have a drivers license to own a car? How about to drive it on your personal property where you arent endangering others' lives?
I dont see training requirements for the ability to CARRY as all that bad. Now to be able to POSSESS or BUY a gun? Thats a different story. If they try that sh** I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.
I just dont see how being properly trained and educated to use a deadly weapon is all that evil.
Right idea, wrong example: I'd go with Vermont or maybe Arizona. No permit required, period. Available if you wish. I don't think training should ever be a requirement, though.
In layman's terms. The government cannot restrict your right to keep and bear arms because you haven't been "properly" trained in their use.Our problem is that we don't know. No one has a letter, an e-mail or a gorilla gram from Ohio saying what the problem is. No one has sent an envoy or rhino dressed as Ambassador Spock to Columbus to find out what the problem is.
We don't know, yet some are acting as if they know the problem and how to fix it.
1. Statement of purpose in the Second Amendment does not define the right just as the statement of purpose in the First Amendment does not define the right in the First. NAACP v. Alabama.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. A well-trained militia is the goal. Getting to the goal cannot be used as a stalking horse by the government to interfere with the right.
Assume arguendo that the Second Amendment read, a well-educated populace being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed.
The government cannot then restrict the right. The government could build public libraries (public shooting ranges), encourage book clubs, not tax books, make book purchases tax deductible, etc.
Our problem is that we don't know. No one has a letter, an e-mail or a gorilla gram from Ohio saying what the problem is. No one has sent an envoy or rhino dressed as Ambassador Spock to Columbus to find out what the problem is.
We don't know, yet some are acting as if they know the problem and how to fix it.
Yup, sent a e-mail to the Ohio AG asking why about 8 months ago, on of his assistants sent me a number to call and talk, he basically was saying since Indiana does not require a training session to obtain a permit that we are all idiots and and fools.
Ohio's never getting another $$$'s from me.