Campus Carry Legislation in IN Senate

[Femme Assise]

totenkopf -- While I know I'm in the minority, I agree with you. Training should be required for anyone getting their LTCH, even if it is nothing more than the basic NRA pistol course.

And, no, I do not believe that training or the LTCH is an infringement on my right. As I've said before, I don't want people who are mentally unstable or convicted felons, to being carrying.

Yes, I realize that training does not insure that the person will be safe with a weapon, but does increase the odds (at least in my opinion).

Felons are very aware of the repercussions that come with being caught with a firearm. If they are willing to take that risk, what makes you think they won't take the risk in buying and using a gun? Requiring training only delays the process of law-abiding citizens possessing firearms.

 

[J_Wales]

Have you folks written letters to the Senators on the committee yet?

Have you written your representatives to let them know you support this bill?

 

[24Carat]

I think the LTCH is toilet paper. We should not need it or training. A person is responsible for their own actions, not for something they may or may not do in the future.

I agree with your premise. But, in today's society I find inherent value in a mechanism that can give credence to the fact that one is considered a "proper person". With no such determination or classification the masses are one great unknown mix of good guys and BG's. It is us against them now. I will gladly wear a designation that I am one of us when push comes to shove. If not the LTCH pink nose rag then it should/would need to be some form of individual classification means and a state sponsored certification process with a means to identify individuals. Just gimme an LTCH in a durable format and I would be tickled.

 

[gunowner930]

I agree with your premise. But, in today's society I find inherent value in a mechanism that can give credence to the fact that one is considered a "proper person". With no such determination or classification the masses are one great unknown mix of good guys and BG's. It is us against them now. I will gladly wear a designation that I am one of us when push comes to shove. If not the LTCH pink nose rag then it should/would need to be some form individual classification means and a state sponsored certification process and means to identify individuals. Just gimme an LTCH in a durable format and I would be tickled.

So its ok to disregard the constitutation if times change? You are not a progressive are you? Our rights don't stop because of the inefficient criminal justice system. And frankly, denying 2nd Amendment rights to felons is unconstitutional as well.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think safety classes help make for better informed gun owners, and would help people weigh the very serious responsibility that comes with exercising our right to keep and bear arms. It's my one beef with Indiana's LTCH process, and the lack of a class is one reason why our permit may as well be toilet paper in states such as Ohio. As for concealed carry, in many ways, concealment is in the eye of the beholder, What you think is concealed may be blatantly obvious to someone else.

Further more, I don't think such safety classes should cost anyone any money. Campus P.D.'s and other L.E. agencies could, and should offer these type of things at no cost to the public, like they would a trigger lock.

Ohio (and 21 other states) are the ones in error, not us. Personally, I don't think anyone should be required under the law to conceal, though I think it should be an option.

Neither of those is the main issue, however. What is the main issue here is your premise, much like the "Occupy" crowd, that everything you want should be free. Those LEAs of which you speak still have to pay the salaries of the officers teaching those classes. If the officers do the classes during their regular duty hours, they are not available for patrol duties. If they come in extra, then they're on overtime... Should all of the citizens of the state have to pay so that a few can take some silly class to make an even smaller number of people feel better?

Totenkopf to !
You're pretty new around here so I'll try to go easy on ya. If you haven't realized it yet, you will quickly figure out that most INGOers are not big fans of mandatory classes, training, qualifications, etc. There are many reasons for this; I'll try to cover some of the most basic ones.

Constitutionality - The 2nd Amendment declares that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any requirement that comes before allowing someone to legally carry a firearm is an infringement. No matter how minor an infringement may be too some, it is still an impediment to one being able to protect their own life.

Cost - There is no such thing as a free class. If there is no direct charge to the participants then the taxpayers must pick up the tab. This can be considered a form of socialism and is a concept that most freedom loving INGOers abhor. If I choose to take classes or training, then I should be willing to pay for it.

Time - This is possibly one of the most inhumane problems with mandatory classes. Imagine a young woman who finally takes a stand for herself and gets out of an abusive relationship. She finds herself in need of immediate protection, but has to wait 2 weeks, a month, or possibly longer to get into a class. What if that were your daughter or sister?

Slippery Slopes - As BumpShadow pointed out, where do we draw the line? How much of our rights are we willing to give away? What requirement will we set to appease others? Do we need a safety class? Maybe mandatory qualification with each handgun we want to carry? How about mandatory gun registration and no private sales without a FFL transfer? There are already plenty of laws to penalize dangerous and reckless behavior. In general more armed citizens will result in a safer society; even if the road to that safer society might be a little bumpy in the beginning. As far as the jackwagons that might do something to make gun owners look bad, well happens.

There's just a few of the many reasons that most INGOers will disagree with your stance. As far as reciprocity issues with states like Ohio, I could not care less. I am glad to live in a state that infringes less on my fundamental rights than many other states. I would be truly proud if we managed to get constitutional carry, but at least this bill is a step in the right direction. Btw, according to Handgunlaw.us, our LTCH is honored by 26 states; and WV has constitutional open carry, adding 1 more. I am more interested in getting the more restrictive states to loosen their grasp on fundamental rights, than I am in giving my rights away so I can be more like them.

Sorry for the Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

27 other states, including AK, AZ, VT, and WY, which are all Constitutional Carry. WV is not. (The LTCH is valid in AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WI, and WY. CO, FL, MI, and NH all honor only resident LTCHs.)

Of note, DE, KS, MN, NE, NV, NM, OH, VA, WA, and WV can all be obtained with either or both of the AZ and UT non-resident permits, and CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, and RI all issue their own permits, though some are very difficult to obtain. SC and OR are available if you own property there. Only CA, HI, IL, and NY have no method in place for lawful carry by other-than-LE.

How, exactly, does a training course or a LTCH prevent mentally unstable people or convicted felons from carrying a gun?

Simply put, it doesn't. The other states that do require training classes have no appreciable difference in numbers of violent crimes committed... My guess is because the people required to take those classes are not the people committing those crimes.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BBSparkle]

And frankly, denying 2nd Amendment rights to felons is unconstitutional as well.

Agreed x9000. They've served their time, give them the chance to make it up or **** up again. Not like they can't get one for nefarious purposes, anyway. When does the punishment truly end?

 

[Sabreur]

Totenkopf to !
You're pretty new around here so I'll try to go easy on ya. If you haven't realized it yet, you will quickly figure out that most INGOers are not big fans of mandatory classes, training, qualifications, etc. There are many reasons for this; I'll try to cover some of the most basic ones.

Constitutionality - The 2nd Amendment declares that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any requirement that comes before allowing someone to legally carry a firearm is an infringement. No matter how minor an infringement may be too some, it is still an impediment to one being able to protect their own life.

Cost - There is no such thing as a free class. If there is no direct charge to the participants then the taxpayers must pick up the tab. This can be considered a form of socialism and is a concept that most freedom loving INGOers abhor. If I choose to take classes or training, then I should be willing to pay for it.

Time - This is possibly one of the most inhumane problems with mandatory classes. Imagine a young woman who finally takes a stand for herself and gets out of an abusive relationship. She finds herself in need of immediate protection, but has to wait 2 weeks, a month, or possibly longer to get into a class. What if that were your daughter or sister?

Slippery Slopes - As BumpShadow pointed out, where do we draw the line? How much of our rights are we willing to give away? What requirement will we set to appease others? Do we need a safety class? Maybe mandatory qualification with each handgun we want to carry? How about mandatory gun registration and no private sales without a FFL transfer? There are already plenty of laws to penalize dangerous and reckless behavior. In general more armed citizens will result in a safer society; even if the road to that safer society might be a little bumpy in the beginning. As far as the jackwagons that might do something to make gun owners look bad, well happens.

There's just a few of the many reasons that most INGOers will disagree with your stance. As far as reciprocity issues with states like Ohio, I could not care less. I am glad to live in a state that infringes less on my fundamental rights than many other states. I would be truly proud if we managed to get constitutional carry, but at least this bill is a step in the right direction. Btw, according to Handgunlaw.us, our LTCH is honored by 26 states; and WV has constitutional open carry, adding 1 more. I am more interested in getting the more restrictive states to loosen their grasp on fundamental rights, than I am in giving my rights away so I can be more like them.

Sorry for the Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Very, very well said!

 

[Bill B]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little common-sense regulation just like this lady is experiencing. And she doesn't even want to carry!
MILLER: Emily gets her gun - Washington Times

 

[ckcollins2003]

I agree with your premise. But, in today's society I find inherent value in a mechanism that can give credence to the fact that one is considered a "proper person". With no such determination or classification the masses are one great unknown mix of good guys and BG's. It is us against them now. I will gladly wear a designation that I am one of us when push comes to shove. If not the LTCH pink nose rag then it should/would need to be some form individual classification means and a state sponsored certification process and means to identify individuals. Just gimme an LTCH in a durable format and I would be tickled.

So just because someone doesn't have a little pink piece of paper you look at them as an "improper person"? I don't have an LTCH. I also have never committed a felony. I do own firearms and enjoy shooting them regularly without an LTCH. Do you always judge people based on what they have compared to you? I'd rather spend the $120 or whatever it costs for an LTCH on ammo so I can be better at defending myself if I ever need to use my handgun. I say let me carry my handgun without a license until I screw up and lose that right. Until then you are only placing me in the same spot as those convicted felons all because I haven't paid $120 for a $0.01 slip of paper.

The problem with having to apply for a license in order to carry your handgun is that felons and thugs who would actually use the firearm to commit a crime will never apply for one. And actually as long as they are not a felon they can carry any long gun they choose without a license. All of these restrictions to carry a handgun that we currently have (LTCH) and that has been suggested in this thread (training) only prohibits the "proper people" from exercising their constitutional rights and defending themselves against these criminals who don't care about the law.

ETA: And yes, I have emailed my reps to let them know I support this bill.

 

[inccwchris]

Campus Carry is already legal in Indiana, it is just not allowed by policy on most campuses.

 

[philagothon]

27 other states, including AK, AZ, VT, and WY, which are all Constitutional Carry. WV is not. (The LTCH is valid in AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WI, and WY. CO, FL, MI, and NH all honor only resident LTCHs.)

Of note, DE, KS, MN, NE, NV, NM, OH, VA, WA, and WV can all be obtained with either or both of the AZ and UT non-resident permits, and CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, and RI all issue their own permits, though some are very difficult to obtain. SC and OR are available if you own property there. Only CA, HI, IL, and NY have no method in place for lawful carry by other-than-LE.

Blessings,
Bill

It's been a while since I looked it up, but both KY & WV have constitutional OPEN carry. In both states OCers are looked down on as people who could not obtain a ccw permit by most CCers. My father-in-between lives on the KY/WV line and so I had to look into it before we traveled into WV. I called the local sheriff to ask if there was any way we could legally bring our handguns into WV. He said "Sure, just lay them out in the open." Apparently disassembling them and leaving them in the trunk counted as concealing them. We OCed there with no issue.

Edit to add:
I may be using improper wording. In retrospect, I believe that neither KY nor WV have laws making OC illegal. The RTKBA is in their constitutions, but method of carry is not. There are laws in both states against CC without a permit, but no laws against OC. OC is not constitutionally protected and could be made illegal with the stroke of a pen, but as of now OC without a permit is legal in both KY and WV.

 

[J_Wales]

So just because someone doesn't have a little pink piece of paper you look at them as an "improper person"? I don't have an LTCH. I also have never committed a felony. I do own firearms and enjoy shooting them regularly without an LTCH. Do you always judge people based on what they have compared to you? I'd rather spend the $120 or whatever it costs for an LTCH on ammo so I can be better at defending myself if I ever need to use my handgun. I say let me carry my handgun without a license until I screw up and lose that right. Until then you are only placing me in the same spot as those convicted felons all because I haven't paid $120 for a $0.01 slip of paper.

The problem with having to apply for a license in order to carry your handgun is that felons and thugs who would actually use the firearm to commit a crime will never apply for one. And actually as long as they are not a felon they can carry any long gun they choose without a license. All of these restrictions to carry a handgun that we currently have (LTCH) and that has been suggested in this thread (training) only prohibits the "proper people" from exercising their constitutional rights and defending themselves against these criminals who don't care about the law.

ETA: And yes, I have emailed my reps to let them know I support this bill.

Excellent post and well said.

 

[J_Wales]

Have you folks here at INGO written the Senators on the committee and your representatives to let them know your position on this bill?

bump

 

[Bondhead88]

totenkopf -- While I know I'm in the minority, I agree with you. Training should be required for anyone getting their LTCH, even if it is nothing more than the basic NRA pistol course.

And, no, I do not believe that training or the LTCH is an infringement on my right. As I've said before, I don't want people who are mentally unstable or convicted felons, to being carrying.

Yes, I realize that training does not insure that the person will be safe with a weapon, but does increase the odds (at least in my opinion).

-- Greg

Can we please stop making up our own definitions.

There is a thing called a dictionary. If you don't know the meaning of Infringement here it is.

in·fringe·ment (n-frnjmnt)
n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach.

And here is breach.

breach (brch)
n.
1.
a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
b. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
2. A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
3. A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
4. A leap of a whale from the water.
5. The breaking of waves or surf.

So a training classes whether a basic NRA or a licence is a legal obligation it is a breach otherwise know as an infringement

While you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts or your own definitions.

 

[japartridge]

Can we please stop making up our own definitions.

There is a thing called a dictionary. If you don't know the meaning of Infringement here it is.

in·fringe·ment (n-frnjmnt)
n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach.

And here is breach.

breach (brch)
n.
1.
a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
b. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
2. A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
3. A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
4. A leap of a whale from the water.
5. The breaking of waves or surf.

So a training classes whether a basic NRA or a licence is a legal obligation it is a breach otherwise know as an infringement

While you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts or your own definitions.

thank you!!! well stated!

 

[J_Wales]

thank you!!! well stated!

Second that

 

[indysafe317]

Can we please stop making up our own definitions.

There is a thing called a dictionary. If you don't know the meaning of Infringement here it is.

in·fringe·ment (n-frnjmnt)
n.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach.

And here is breach.

breach (brch)
n.
1.
a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
b. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
2. A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
3. A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
4. A leap of a whale from the water.
5. The breaking of waves or surf.

So a training classes whether a basic NRA or a licence is a legal obligation it is a breach otherwise know as an infringement

While you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts or your own definitions.

Wow, chill out dude, it's just an opinion. You know that a dictionary was written by a human being which means that the "definition" in itself is just an opinion. )) Words change definitions from time to time depending on who's defining them. My guess is what he meant to say was he's OK with that "infringement", since your being technical, so that there is some level of control. Not saying I agree with that, but it would appear he wasn't looking for a debate on his writing style. We all accept levels of "infringements" on all our rights or there would be anarchy. Again, I don't agree with that level in this instance, I'd prefer to be left alone, I'm a true libertarian at heart. I don't like all this legislation, just saying some people feel that level of "infringement" is OK and it's good we can at least still have this debate. It's just easier without the vocabulary police changing the topic, in my humble opinion.

While you have that book out though, you may want to check it again as a reference. I believe you may have spelled "license" wrong. I don't care myself because I know I'm not grammatically perfect but since your in a correcting mood, might start with yourself, just saying.

I bet if you copied my comments into a grammatical checker, you will find some errors as well since that seems to be your thing. Here is a great site for when your critiquing other peoples posts from now on instead of listening to their opinions.

Grammar Check – Free Online Grammar Checker

Or you could just try and see what peoples opinions are and go from there. Just a thought. Anyway, i won't respond again, I'll just let you pummel me and belittle me if that helps you feel better. I know that's what does it for some people. I'm good with it. Have an outstanding day.

 

[jgreiner]

As an IUPUI student I hope this one passes. There have been several incidents since I have been there. The most notable was someone going into the IT building armed. The cops came and kicked everyone out before finding the guy. That means sending out a bunch of *unarmed* civilians into an area known to have an armed gunman... Brilliant stuff.

The dean did send out a formal apology and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again but, I'd rather not have to rely on the boneheads with badges. (I am not bashing cops in general, but after that incident I do not have any faith in campus police.) Add In the number of carjackings that happen at IUPUI and it is a no brainer why people dislike the night classes.

LOL you are wise to not put a great deal of faith in campus cops.....when I was in college, ours shot the toe off of our Abe Lincoln Statue in the admin bldg......they swore he didn't freeze when they told him too.....they lost their guns shortly after that.....

 

[jmiller676]

totenkopf -- While I know I'm in the minority, I agree with you. Training should be required for anyone getting their LTCH, even if it is nothing more than the basic NRA pistol course.

And, no, I do not believe that training or the LTCH is an infringement on my right. As I've said before, I don't want people who are mentally unstable or convicted felons, to being carrying.

Yes, I realize that training does not insure that the person will be safe with a weapon, but does increase the odds (at least in my opinion).

-- Greg

The problem with that is who decides what courses meet the requirements? Who says .gov won't be in control of mandating that? Then if they would it can snowball from there.

 

[indysafe317]

The problem with that is who decides what courses meet the requirements? Who says .gov won't be in control of mandating that? Then if they would it can snowball from there.

I'd agree totally, Allot of these things start of with good intentions but then moves onto something crazy. We had a pretty good framework called the Constitution. , and look what our elected leaders are doing to that. It seems like more and more, I'd trust someone with a "Criminal Record" more than a politician without one. It's a crazy world and it's spiraling out of control pretty fast. I'm not sure I trust the people who define what "Crazy" is anymore either. ooops, there's that definition thing again, I need to be careful before the vocab police get me, but I think I agree with his stance so he'll probably let me slide.