This was what I was told when I took the class for my Utah license.
I didn't check it out myself, but this was the Utah certified instructor that told us.
I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Reciprocity/Comity (yet again) Advances in Ohio
- Thread starter Kirk Freeman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This was what I was told when I took the class for my Utah license.
I didn't check it out myself, but this was the Utah certified instructor that told us.
I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
rugertoter
Master
That's why I got the Utah permit, to go along with my Indiana. No whiners here.
Because the ISP does not background-check against other states or at the federal level, our standard was not stringent enough to be considered acceptable in place of NICS.
Indiana has a few of these, yes, and Kirk is understandably pointing out the one he had a hand in bringing to fruition. With that said, we needed those agreements not for compliance with our laws but rather tor those states that require a specific agreement be signed. Indiana recognizes all other governmentally-issued permission slips to carry.
Blessings,
Bill
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
It is my contention that we are oversold the "lack of training" rhetoric. Ohio has agreements with no training requirements.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
Kirk, one thing. That is not a reciprocity agreement between TX and IN. The Gov of TX issued a proclamation. That is not to discredit the work you did to get that into place.
What states does IN have a signed agreement with. The one Kirk pointed out is not an agreement between IN and TX. And under what IN law is it allowed? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm honestly curious.
the proclamation announcement refers to it as a "concealed weapon permit" and then the actual proclamation refers to it as a "license to carry a handgun" are the two terms essentially interchangeable. Is there any case law that specifically calls out to the technical wording of the permit/license?
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
He did not.
Yes, just ask any INGO member. We know what the PR department is saying.
Case law? Yes, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refer to its title from the Indiana Code.
sorry - I was asking if there was any case law where the two terms were debated and the actual wording of the permit mattered. Or if the terms are universally interchangeable. For instance a state with a "concealed carry permit" - would that define how the weapon is carried in other states or does the state law trump the permit name when it comes to how one can carry.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Yup, Ok, I'm tracking now.
In Indiana's universal recognition statute there is the terms of the license language but so far the Court of Appeals has not been asked your question. It is a valid one, e.g. a CHL holder from Texas open carrying in Indiana.
In Indiana's universal recognition statute there is the terms of the license language but so far the Court of Appeals has not been asked your question. It is a valid one, e.g. a CHL holder from Texas open carrying in Indiana.
Precisely.
we've hashed it out on INGO before, with no resolution until we have case law. However the general consensus is that Indiana doesn't have a law to charge a Texan who OCs on a CHL with. They would have to someone nullify the Tx license claiming it's "not a valid license" but since Indiana doesn't specifically say whose license they honor it's a crap shoot. IN could easily clarify this by naming specific states, versus saying "all states". The ambiguity in the acceptance, leads me to believe that any sort if firearm carrying permit/license is honored, and IN Laws apply.
My my opinion is that it would get thrown out, citing the TX License is valid, and all IN laws apply when carrying in IN.
^This, My Fl. CCW is now a non resident and was good in Indy until I either got a job, renewed my DL, or paid taxes.As long as I was carrying concealed as permitted by my CCW. Thats what ISP told me. No matter I have an Indy LTC too. But alas back to the POINT of the thread, I have my Fl. and im good in Ohio.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
The link you cited seems to disagree.
http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/legal/reciprocity/Indianaproclamation.pdf
It states the law (411.173(b)) which allows for an agreement or a proclamation by the Governor. The document itself lists it as a proclamation.
(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun under which a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state - See more at: TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 411.173 : Texas Statutes - Section 411.173: NONRESIDENT LICENSE
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
I cited the agreement. There is an agreement by the Attorney General of Texas and Indiana. It is modeled upon the agreement between Arizona and Texas.
There was no Obamian proclamation.
There was no Obamian proclamation.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
This is the cite you provided.
TxDPS - CHL Agreements with Other States
For Indiana it links to this one.
http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/legal/reciprocity/Indianaproclamation.pdf
I cannot find a link to the agreement between TX and AZ, but here is the press release issued by TX on it.
Texas Department of Public Safety - Courtesy, Service, Protection
It states that the Director of Public Safety signed an agreement with AZ. For the actual IN proclamation there is no mention of that. There is a mention that the Gov of TX received a finding from the Attorney General that IN performs background checks that are in line with what the TX code requires.
It is nearly identical to the one for NY, did the TX AG negotiate and agreement with NY? And the same for NJ. And for CA, and HI. All of which are titled as Proclamations. But interestingly enough very different than the UT one which is entitled a Memorandum of Agreement.
If you wish to call it Obamian, that is your choice. Although I would put it as he used his legal and officially legislated powers.
With perhaps a bit of persuasion by a certain INGO member. Or by Congressmen he had persuaded.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Tim, yes, what I mean is that the Gov. of Texas followed the rule of law. He did not wake up one day and wave his magic wand out a window in Austin.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
Yep and I cited the law above. What I was pointing out is that there is no reciprocity agreement between IN and TX. There is no need for one, and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing under IN law that provides the ability for IN to enter into one(nothing that forbids it either though). And nope he didn't wave a magic wand, he contacted the TX AG (or vice versa) and found out that IN background check meets the requirements of TX code and simply signed a proclamation, nothing more was needed. And actually from a quick check, you possibly did more than you claim credit for. After IN was recognized there seems to be a whole slew of others that followed shortly afterwards. Including all the states (and more) I listed above that don't recognize TX. I would hazard to guess that your work getting them to recognize IN opened the door for the people that live in those states.
buckhunter21
Marksman
Has anyone heard any updates on this?
Last edited:
