Bill would repeal law requiring license to carry

[Lebowski]

Email I sent out to my reps. I'm phone shy:

Well hello there, I hope that this reaches an actual individual for review.


As law abiding gun owner, lifetime LTCH holder and just a regular guy who advocates strengthening all of our core rights I'm very happy to see Indiana move forward with introducing some very positive bills, namely:


House Bill 1143 - Which would prevent a campus or university from barring individuals from legally carrying a firearm on their premises.


It is important Indiana stands strong and doesn't create more 'gun free islands'. As you may or may not know already, in the somewhat recent tragic shooting in a Florida State college library one individual who was shot was a firearms owner and a licensed carrier, but legally was unable to carry on campus and became a victim. Don't let local Hoosiers become easy prey and victims in the most unfortunate of scenarios, please.


House Bill 1144 - This is a big one and I would love to see it pushed forward. Indiana State Police must be quite overwhelemed with the increase of LTCH applications over the last few years and citizens are tired of waiting months to receive a license that simply grants a right that all people should have regardless.

Introducing 'Constitutional Carry' in Indiana sends a message that Hoosiers are a freedom loving state and would join the ranks of just a few others like it. One concern though is that I would like to see the LTCH system still operated and maintained, as the licenses already issued would still hold reciprocity with other states. As of now my LTCH allows me to legally carry in 30-something other states, without it, I would not be able to travel as a free man. I support constitutional carry in Indiana 100%, even if it means I lose my ability to travel outside of the state as I would like, though I do hope that this will be taken into serious consideration as many LTCH holders are not as understanding as I am and would be upset over losing the ability to be recognized by other states as 'fit for carrying', even if they could do so locally without a license. For that reason I think it's great to remove the requirement to carry within Indiana, but to maintain the LTCH system for reciprocity with other states.

House Bill 1244 - This seems like a sort of common sense bill and even if passed is one that I hope would be rarely referenced or required (meaning that something bad would happen to someone before they could take action that is outlined in this bill).




Those are three excellent bills that I hope you will support! And just for fun, in case someone is actually reading this I've got one bill that I'd like to see done away with and tossed in the can:

House Bill 1029 is counter productive and serves no positive purpose and has several real negatives. For starters, when a police officer runs your plate numbers he or she will be made aware of your firearm licensing status, having this stamped on your Drivers License is unneeded. A law abiding LTCH holder is also not an individual the officer should fear regardless, only a criminal with a firearm should be feared and as a criminal they would be unlikely to have an LTCH to begin with (due to background checks) and thus wouldn't have the stamp on their licenses.


But what about other people who see my license? Should the clerk need to know I am a firearms owner/carrier when paying with card when they request to see my ID? What about when I am carded when buying a bottle of wine? Should that individual also be made aware of this somewhat private and personal decision I have made, to become a licensed firearm carrier? How would I be treated if I get pulled over while driving in a state with much less freedom then Indiana, for example New Jersey and officer so-and-so sees I am a firearms owner by looking at my drivers license... what level of inconvenience would I face then? Handcuffed and searched over a 'reasonable suspicion' of having a firearm, all because it is stamped on my drivers license that I have my LTCH? So many negatives and no positives here.


While I understand the intention was likely good, it solves zero problems and creates many more. It's a bill that I hope gets flushed as it serves no real practical purpose and I trust that you will see and understand this as well.


Apologies for the long winded email and thank you for your valuable time.

All the best.

I used examples gathered from this thread to craft my email, namely the use of 'gun free islands' and the scenario of being pulled over in NJ.

 

[Redhorse]

I'm just irritated because this bill is starting to overshadow HB1143 to allow campus carry, something that affects me, and many students like me, everyday.

 

[brotherbill3]

I'm just irritated because this bill is starting to overshadow HB1143 to allow campus carry, something that affects me, and many students like me, everyday.

Call Dermody - he has control of BOTH at the moment - Supporting BOTH here.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I just wanted to drop this here for everyone. I'm doing it in other threads like this one, too.

STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
HOUSE BILL No. 1029
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 9-24; IC 10-11-2-34; IC 35-47-2-3.
Synopsis: BMV documentation indicating a handgun license. Provides that an individual
must indicate on an application for or a renewal of a driver's license, permit, or
identification card whether the individual possesses a handgun license (license). Requires
the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) to verify whether the individual has a license by
contacting the superintendent of the state police department. Requires the bureau to place
a notation on the individual's driver's license, permit, or identification card that indicates
that the individual possesses a license. Makes a technical correction.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Gutwein
January 6, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Roads and Transportation.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1107
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 35-47-2.
Synopsis: Handgun training and reciprocity license. Provides that a person who: (1) is at
least 21 years of age; and (2) successfully completes a handgun safety and training
course that meets certain requirements; may have the superintendent of state police place
an identifying symbol on the face of the person's four year Indiana handgun license that
the person may refer to in attempting to qualify for a firearms reciprocity license issued by
another state or a political subdivision of another state. Requires the superintendent of
state police to retain a copy of the person's handgun safety and training course certificate
of completion for at least four years.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Burton
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1143
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 35-31.5-2; IC 35-47.
Synopsis: Possession of firearms on state property. Prohibits a state agency, including a
state supported college or university, from regulating the possession or transportation of
firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and
other structures that are; owned or leased by the state. Provides for certain exceptions.
Voids, as of July 1, 2015, any rules or policies enacted or undertaken by a state agency
1 of 3
STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
before, on, or after June 30, 2015, concerning possession or transportation of firearms,
ammunition, or firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the state.
Allows a person to bring an action against a state agency if the person is adversely
affected by a rule, a measure, an enactment, or a policy of the state agency that violates
this law.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, Eberhart, VanNatter
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1144
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 5-2-1-9; IC 5-2-8-2; IC 10-13-3-40;
IC 11-9-2-4; IC 11-13-1-3.5; IC 14-16-1-23; IC 21-17-5-6;
IC 21-39-4-7; IC 31-30-1-4; IC 35-33-1-1; IC 35-47; IC 35-50-2-13.
Synopsis: Handgun license repeal. Repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a
license to carry a handgun in Indiana. Makes conforming amendments.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, Judy, VanNatter, Ober
January 8, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1244
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 34-24-5; IC 34-30-20.5.
Synopsis: Firearms on business premises. Permits a person to bring an action for
damages against a business entity having a policy of barring possession of a firearm on
the entity's property, if: (1) the person suffers a loss due to criminal activity on the entity's
property; and (2) the loss could have been avoided or reduced if the business entity did
not prohibit possession of a firearm on its property. Provides that a person who does not
prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the
person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the
scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on
the person's failure to adopt such a policy.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Lucas, VanNatter
January 13, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN
HOUSE BILL No. 1494
2 of 3
STATUS OF HOUSE FIREARMS BILLS
1/15/15
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 25-1-9; IC 34-28-8.1.
Synopsis: Firearm ownership and medical records. Prohibits a practitioner or medical
records custodian from disclosing certain information relating to a patient's ownership of a
firearm. Prohibits a political subdivision or the board regulating a practitioner from
requiring the practitioner to: (1) inquire whether a patient owns a firearm; (2) document in a
patient's medical record whether the patient owns a firearm; or (3) notify any governmental
entity of the patient's identification solely on the basis of the patient's ownership of a
firearm.
Effective: July 1, 2015.
Judy, Lucas, VanNatter, Morris
January 14, 2015, read first time and referred to Committee on Public Policy.
2015 IN

 

[John Galt]

HB1143, HB1144 & HB1244 will not be getting a hearing in the Public Policy Committee this year.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That is disconcerting.

We shall return.

 

[bwframe]

OK, so what did we learn here?
Were we too spread out?
Too controversial?
Got the baby threw out with the bathwater?

 

[Lebowski]

So what now? Better luck next year?

I'm not too saddened as I don't really feel inconvenienced and Indiana is already a great gun state, but would have been a good move forward to make it an even better one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So what now?

Spread the word. Urge him to reconsider.

I just want to know, was this our good friends in the C of C?

 

[MrSmitty]

I would like the provision requiring a license to carry a gun in your repealed.....alot of states recognize that your car is your property too, and should not require a LTCH for it to happen...stupid law...the same for open carry....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Maintain a database of revoked LTCHs?

How would you know there was a valid one to revoke? If someone is arrested and convicted of robbery and doesn't volunteer the information, how would you know they had one that needed revoking?

 

[bwframe]

Spread the word. Urge him to reconsider.

I just want to know, was this our good friends in the C of C?

Huh?

 

[Bill of Rights]

How would you know there was a valid one to revoke? If someone is arrested and convicted of robbery and doesn't volunteer the information, how would you know they had one that needed revoking?

BBI, I think the idea is, as the Founders said, that all men be armed. That is, if the guy you pull over or otherwise interact with raises your index of suspicion, you run him. If in fact he is armed and is either shown as a prohibited person due to his previous felony (however much I may disagree personally with that group being categorically prohibited from the peaceable possession and/or defensive use of arms,) you as the officer act on that. I understand that this is far outside your present paradigm, and as such will meet resistance. If you examine the idea that all men are innocent until proven guilty, though, I think you'll have to agree that it's not up to the citizen to prove his innocence, but rather up to you to prove his guilt via due process, prior to infringing his rights to his life, liberty, or property.
By the same token, if the person is convicted of some crime, right now there are things that happen on that conviction, yes? One of those is that the person is taken to some facility, another is that certain info is entered in the record of the court and in a database such as IDACS or NCIC. Would it be such a stretch to say, then, that at that point, maybe right before or right after the IDACS entry, a notation is made that this person with this birthdate and these vital stats (height/weight, hair/eye color, etc) is hereby prohibited from the lawful possession of arms until such and such date, or the entry of a full pardon, whichever comes first? This would be more liberty-conscious, IMHO. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Huh?

I could. of course, be mistaken about his intention, but I believe Mr. Freeman is suggesting that the Chamber of Commerce has inserted their fingers into the pockets of some legislators and then removed said fingers, having left several somethings of a green color therein. Coincidentally, after this happened, some bills which the C of C was opposed to might have had support before, but this was reconsidered.

Of course, these two hypothetical events would be completely independent of each other. I'd not wish to impugn the integrity of any of our legislative leaders by a suggestion of impropriety. This is simply my understanding of what he might be saying. I'm certain he'll correct me if I am in fact, mistaken.

He also seems to be saying we should redouble our efforts to change Mr. Dermody's mind, as a groundswell of support might do so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CathyInBlue]

You know what might change the mind of the Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the Indiana House of Representatives?

A new Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BBI, I think the idea is, as the Founders said, that all men be armed. That is, if the guy you pull over or otherwise interact with raises your index of suspicion, you run him....

Look at the specific suggestion in the posts I was replying to. Maintaining a LTCH but outlawing the maintaining of any database related to it. That's an unworkable compromise.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He also seems to be saying we should redouble our efforts to change Mr. Dermody's mind, as a groundswell of support might do so.

Blessings,
Bill

QFT.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Look at the specific suggestion in the posts I was replying to. Maintaining a LTCH but outlawing the maintaining of any database related to it. That's an unworkable compromise.

From the point of view that other states will and do demand to confirm that a license is issued, I can see that as being unworkable. To me, it seems that this is more an argument for the abolition of the whole "permission slip" concept, especially considering the racist origins of that system, however, while permits still exist and are still used along with unConstitutional "laws" to theoretically keep guns away from "the wrong people" (apparently, the good citizens who actually follow the laws requiring the obtaining of said permission slips, since we know the criminals don't make application for and await the arrival of permission,) I suppose keeping a database serves the purpose of verifying the official nature of someone's pink card. We'll just blind ourselves to the abuse to which such a database lends itself, right?

There is a woman I know whose situation compares to this. When married to her ex-husband, she tells of how she very intentionally became pregnant, to the point of making sure she essentially stood on her head after the act... He was oblivious to what she was doing, but at some point, he did become aware and told her that she didn't have his permission to become pregnant! Her reply was, "I had your p****r, I didn't need your permission!"
Now... Some might complain that I've compared her to the "felons" who today don't seek a LTCH, but it's more that I compare government to her abusive, alcoholic ex-husband, who thought he could require her to seek that permission and that the act would not even be contemplated without it being granted.

The "wrong people" are going to have guns. Having a "permission slip" system is only a stumbling block for the "right people" who want to keep them in check.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He also seems to be saying we should redouble our efforts to change Mr. Dermody's mind, as a groundswell of support might do so.

Blessings,
Bill

It wouldn't hurt to fill up Dermody's email box and, if you're so inclined, call him.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The "wrong people" are going to have guns. Having a "permission slip" system is only a stumbling block for the "right people" who want to keep them in check.

So wouldn't it make sense to enforce the gun laws more strictly when 'wrong people' are found to be in possession of weapons? How many of our murder suspects had a prior weapons conviction? Wanna guess "most"?

Laws don't keep all people from doing things, but that's not their use. They give society options on how to deal with people who do those things. People still rape, rob, and murder yet we don't just shrug and make them legal because some people violate the law. I don't really care one way or the other if Indiana issues a permit or allows carry without one, but let's not play "criminals violates the law so let's do away with the law."