Carrying without LTCH

[Sylvain]

I googled "Mexican carry" and found that.

 

[CBR1000rr]

Some may have Constitutional objections to the licensing by the state of what is in actuality a Right reserved by the People at whom's consent that state governs.

If they passed a law requiring you apply for a license to attend church or read the newspaper of your choosing, would you comply?

You have just defined myself sir. I refuse to submit to the scrutiny of the government just so I can exercise my 2A rights. These are the same rights everyone happens to be quasi fighting for. I am most certainly a qualified individual who has never been arrested and only pulled over a handful of times. I am in no way prohibited from owning a firearm or being given permission to carry a handgun. I simply do not agree with ANY restrictions placed upon ANY of our rights.

Now, being the rebel I am, I do NOT carry a pistol (Mexican Carry or Puerto Rican carry in my case) out of respect for the law. This doesn't mean I am defenseless or at the mercy of a criminal who opts to disobey the law of the land.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I refuse to submit to the scrutiny of the government just so I can exercise my 2A rights.


Now, being the rebel I am, I do NOT carry a pistol (Mexican Carry or Puerto Rican carry in my case) out of respect for the law.

Seems contradictory IMO

I refuse to submit... but, since I'm a rebel, I choose not to carry. Choosing to respect an unconstitutional law, is submitting, no ?

 

[Scutter01]

IC 35-47-2-1 defines the details of unlicensed carry and the exceptions thereof.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery

IC 35-47-2-23 defines the penalties. The penalty for unlicensed carry is either a Class A Misdemeanor or a Class C Felony depending on whether there is a school involved. Note that if there is a school involved or the defendant has been convicted once already, you may also be subject to federal charges as well.

IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies
Sec. 23. (a) A person who violates section 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, or 16 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates section 7, 17, or 18 of this chapter commits a Class C felony.
(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.

IC 35-50-3-2
Class A misdemeanor
Sec. 2. A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year; in addition, he may be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000).

A Class "C" felony carries a penalty upon conviction of a fixed term between two (2) and eight (8) years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.00.

A felony conviction will preclude you from ever owning another firearm.

 

[CBR1000rr]

Seems contradictory IMO

I refuse to submit... but, since I'm a rebel, I choose not to carry. Choosing to respect an unconstitutional law, is submitting, no ?

Not quite. Defining myself as a rebel was merely humor as I'm actually quite the opposite.

Choosing to not carry a weapon out of respect for an unconstitutional law isn't really contradictory. I don't believe marijuana should be illegal but I don't smoke it. My point is, illegally exercising my 2A right is not worth risking everything I've worked for. If it were that large of an issue, I would simply move 1 state south.

In my mind, if you are fighting to maintain your rights, you should be fighting to repeal all restrictions placed upon the constitutional rights of Americans and not just the ones you don't agree with. Fighting for one right and not another is hipocracy.

 

[9mmfan]

Some may have Constitutional objections to the licensing by the state of what is in actuality a Right reserved by the People at whom's consent that state governs.

If they passed a law requiring you apply for a license to attend church or read the newspaper of your choosing, would you comply?

Constitutional right or not, I will not go to jail 'to prove a point'. I am a single father who has full custody of my son and it's hard to put food on the table for him when I'm in jail.

Heck, the initial reason I got a LTCH in the first place was so I could legally carry the gun to and from the range without a big hassle. This was over 15 years ago, long before you could legally do so without taking some precautions.

 

[Scutter01]

If you were really carrying without a license to prove a point, you'd be going out of your way to get caught so that it would go to court. However, since the SCOTUS has already ruled that licensing programs are Constitutional, you would lose that case almost immediately and spend your year in jail and pay your fine. So, what's the REAL reason you won't get a license?

Allow me to qualify that question by saying I did see that you don't carry without a license, and I respect that.

 

[CBR1000rr]

If you were really carrying without a license to prove a point, you'd be going out of your way to get caught so that it would go to court. However, since the SCOTUS has already ruled that licensing programs are Constitutional, you would lose that case almost immediately and spend your year in jail and pay your fine. So, what's the REAL reason you won't get a license?

Allow me to qualify that question by saying I did see that you don't carry without a license, and I respect that.

Since the SCOTUS said it is ok to place restrictions upon the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, it MUST be right. Is this your argument? According to the SCOTUS, a man with a non violent felony conviction no longer has the right to defend his wife from being raped or murdered because of a stupid mistake he made when he was 18. Seems to me that this ruling is more of a policy ruling than a judgement and as such, I find it morally wrong and subsequently unconstitutional. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter and all those fighting to stop the assault weapons ban could really care less as long as they can keep their scary black rifle and 100 round drums. If we agree to submit to the scrutiny of the government on this issue, why not go ahead and agree to register all guns and ban high cap magazines?

Back to your question, the REAL reason I choose not to apply for my LTCH is because I do not believe I should be required to pay the state of Indiana to gain permission to exercise my right. I do not believe that any human being who is currently a US Citizen and not behind bars should be denied the right to defend themselves. Since I take this position and I know that my voice on the matter falls silent to those who can actually change this, I choose not to carry a handgun.

 

[daddymikey1975]

If you were really carrying without a license to prove a point, you'd be going out of your way to get caught so that it would go to court. However, since the SCOTUS has already ruled that licensing programs are Constitutional, you would lose that case almost immediately and spend your year in jail and pay your fine. So, what's the REAL reason you won't get a license?

Allow me to qualify that question by saying I did see that you don't carry without a license, and I respect that.

Do you have a link for that? Not being argumentative, just enjoy reading case law.

 

[Scutter01]

Since the SCOTUS said it is ok to place restrictions upon the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, it MUST be right. Is this your argument?

I made no comment on whether I thought the decision was right or wrong. It was a preface to a comment on how a case about unlicensed carry was most likely to be decided. The case will be lost and, if it ever appealed that far, the SCOTUS would refuse to hear it since they've already ruled on it.

I have no problem with someone working to change the law. I don't even necessarily disagree with using civil disobedience to do it. However, we've had many people right here on INGO that claim to carry unlicensed as an act of civil disobedience, but they refuse to be tried in a court of law. In other words, they avoid the whole "getting caught" part that is so critical to a civil disobedience tactic.

Do you have a link for that? Not being argumentative, just enjoy reading case law.

I don't have it handy. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[CBR1000rr]

I made no comment on whether I thought the decision was right or wrong. It was a preface to a comment on how a case about unlicensed carry was most likely to be decided. The case will be lost and, if it ever appealed that far, the SCOTUS would refuse to hear it since they've already ruled on it.

I have no problem with someone working to change the law. I don't even necessarily disagree with using civil disobedience to do it. However, we've had many people right here on INGO that claim the same thing, but they refuse to be tried in a court of law. In other words, they avoid the whole "getting caught" part that is so critical to a civil disobedience tactic.



I don't have it handy. I'll see if I can dig it up.

I understand. If I were single and independently wealthy without children, I would most certainly choose the civil disobedience route. However, at this stage in the game, I would find it much simpler to move to a state that is more in line with my point of view.

As to your case being lost if one were to attempt that route? I will agree. It really makes me wonder why it hasn't been challenged already with a circumstance as I described being the motive?

 

[Lex Concord]

When I carry that way, I just tuck "Old Fred" in my sock to keep him out of the way. I don't see the problem.

Wow, so you got it worse than Cotton Hill? Thank you for your service .

 

[Signal23]

Kick him in the marbles...................see if he's a good shot or all talk.

 

[Scutter01]

As to your case being lost if one were to attempt that route? I will agree. It really makes me wonder why it hasn't been challenged already with a circumstance as I described being the motive?

Two reasons that I can think of: It's already been tried and decided and no one wants to go to jail over it.

For what it's worth, I have my LTCH, but I also regularly ask my legislators to repeal the licensing laws and make Indiana a Constitutional Carry state. It can happen. It's already happened in several other states.

 

[Jack Burton]

Mexican carry....

If you remember this guy you are older than dirt...

 

[Jack Burton]

Jennifer Lopez shows us her version of "Mexican carry" in the new movie, Parker

 

[sgtonory]

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. I see nothing in the state constitution about controlling how you use your right. Do LEO's need a LTCH? If not how are they any different from you or I?

 

[mistap]

Two reasons that I can think of: It's already been tried and decided and no one wants to go to jail over it.

For what it's worth, I have my LTCH, but I also regularly ask my legislators to repeal the licensing laws and make Indiana a Constitutional Carry state. It can happen. It's already happened in several other states.

I applaud your efforts in advocating for your Rights through the system; however, I have to ask a question:

What other enumerated Rights would you consent to have licensed?

 

[Scutter01]

I applaud your efforts in advocating for your Rights through the system; however, I have to ask a question:

What other enumerated Rights would you consent to have licensed?

I don't consent to have any of them licensed. I know that you're trying to trap me into giving a hypocritical answer.

 

[mistap]

Perhaps, but flash forward 100 years when your great-great grandson has to apply for a permit to attend the church of his choice or read a certain newspaper.

Think that's crazy? I would venture to say that over the course of human history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than most anything else. Religion is, therefore, dangerous, and it must be regulated. I mean, think of the children!

I wonder if he, under the threat of an A misdemeanor, would likewise consent to an unjust usurpation of his Rights?