Alabama Sherriff's don't like Shall Issue

[Kutnupe14]

Does no one have issue with this part of the bill?

The permit process isn't the only possible change that bothers Taylor and Jones.

"It would prevent churches and business owners and property owners from saying, 'I don't want someone to be able to carry a pistol on my property,'" Taylor said. "What kind of crock is that?"

Read more here: Russell, Lee County sheriff's say Alabama gun bill threatens public safety | Latest News | Columbus Ledger Enquirer​

The rest I'm fine with, but this part is an infringement on property owner's rights.

 

[drillsgt]

Does no one have issue with this part of the bill?



The rest I'm fine with, but this part is an infringement on property owner's rights.

I can agree if there is no exemption for off duty LEO's as well. If no guns means no guns then it means everybody, unless you are on duty and have official business there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can agree if there is no exemption for off duty LEO's as well. If no guns means no guns then it means everybody, unless you are on duty and have official business there.

Nope, unacceptable as well (at least to me). A person owning private property should be able to set their own rules. If an owner wants to let everyone carry a firearm BUT LEOs, I'd be fine with that too (or the converse).

 

[buckstopshere]

This is more about them losing authority by not having any discretionary day in whether someone gets a permit as well as being held accountable for wrongfully arresting/detaining a legal permit holder just for having a firearm.

It's a load of BS. They're acting like children.

 

[buckstopshere]

Does no one have issue with this part of the bill?



The rest I'm fine with, but this part is an infringement on property owner's rights.

I like the way Indiana does it. You can be asked to leave and must do so or be guilty of trespassing.

I'd like to see the actual wording I the proposed bill. I wouldn't put it past these babies to be taking that piece out of context.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Indiana is often spoken of as "shall issue" but we are not. We are "may issue" as long as it's purely the judgement of the ISP who is and who is not a "proper person". Reform or repeal the "proper person" clauses and insert the words "shall issue" into IC 35-47-2, and then Indiana will be "shall issue".

"Proper person" is defined in the law as is "proper reason". There is one point on which they can equivocate, but otherwise, the definition is objective, not subjective. No "judgment" involved, other than by someone in a black robe.

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:
(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:
(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;
(B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.

They can equivocate on "documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct", but that's the only point. Anything else, either you do or you do not have the conviction, court order, etc. Even "alcohol-" or "drug abuser" are defined narrowly.

Now, that said, I think that the LTCH is itself an infringement. I don't support it, though I'll happily take advantage of the fact that it clearly defines who we are and what we do, insofar as not committing violent crimes. I have and will continue to less happily keep mine as a method of remaining within the law while I fight to change the law.

ETA: I spoke too soon. There is one other place they can equivocate:

(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;
the superintendent shall issue to the applicant a qualified or an unlimited license to carry any handgun lawfully possessed by the applicant.

"Good character and reputation". This could be up for debate, but if one has never crossed paths with LE, his/her reputation should be untarnished and there would be no evidence of other-than-good character. And if you notice, "Shall issue" IS in IC 35-47-2-3(e).

Blessings,
Bill