Hoosiers not aware of their state’s gun laws

[zx6rman96]

a mandatory gun class sounds a little far fetched, thats like saying people need to take a drivers ed course before getting their drivers license.......oh wait we already do that, and still have non educated moron drivers.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Man...

What about mandatory classes in order for us to exercise our Freedom of Speech?

What about mandatory classes in order for us to practice/have Freedom of Religion?

See how this works?

If you have mandatory classes for a certain inalienable right, why not institute mandatory classes for all of 'em, right?

Slippery slope, people. A very dangerous slippery slope riddled with broken glass & razor blades and a big pool of rubbing alcohol at the bottom.

-J-

While I get your point and I am not necessarily in favor of mandating gun classes, if you say the wrong thing a bullet doesn't come out and kill someone.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

While I get your point and I am not necessarily in favor of mandating gun classes, if you say the wrong thing a bullet doesn't come out and kill someone.

But speech can be and is used to incite and injure and maim and otherwise damage. There are already laws on the books prohibiting those actions/words that cause harm...

 

[femurphy77]

yep his last point doesn't make sense when his whole article is how about non-gun owners and police don't know the laws and the gun owners do. How about we make a required high school class called national firearms law and require everyone to take it.

How about a class in law, politics etc, and we could call it. . . . . .I don't know how about Civics?

 

[CSORuger]

I don't think they should mandate that people go to a gun class, but it would probably benefit the entire gun community if more people did.

I think this way also. Being from Pennsylvania and older, when I was in what we called Jr. High School 7th thur 9th. in the early 60's. We had the chose to attend a school class called The Conservation Class were one of the subjects taught was Firearm safety. During deer season around November 1st. classmates could bring there non-loaded no ammo in class, HP deer rifles, I have a modifed .303 british enfield to class to talk about why they chose that firearm and the safety of using it. In addition, we went hunting in five person groups during hunting season and were graded on how well we performed on safety and hunting skills. That same went for small game season were we used 410, 12,16,20 gage shotguns or 22 rifle.
Just think how a class like that today would send some people onto space.

 

[jmiller676]

I think this way also. Being from Pennsylvania and older, when I was in what we called Jr. High School 7th thur 9th. in the early 60's. We had the chose to attend a school class called The Conservation Class were one of the subjects taught was Firearm safety. During deer season around November 1st. classmates could bring there non-loaded no ammo in class, HP deer rifles, I had a modifed Ehglish made.303, to class to talk about why they chose that firearm and the safety of using it. In addition, we went hunting in five person groups during hunting season and were graded on how well we performed on safety and hunting skills. That same went for small game season were we used 410, 12,16,20 gage shotguns or 22 rifle.
Just think how a class like that today would send some people onto space.

I have a feeling I would get an easy A!! Times have changed...now I know why "the good 'ol days" were really that good.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

But speech can be and is used to incite and injure and maim and otherwise damage. There are already laws on the books prohibiting those actions/words that cause harm...

That is true for sure. However, I think there is a difference because typically when someone is using speech or religion as a means to cause damage or harm there is some thought behind what they are doing. They understand what they are doing has the potential to be destructive. In the example of a new gun owner, accidents can happen because they just simply aren't familiar with how things work or proper safety protocol. They could have learned that in a gun safety course.

But again I am not saying I am for the classes, I just think we as the gun community would be far better off if more people did take steps to learn proper safety and training. There would be less accidents and those people could then impart that information on their children and possibly even lessen the deaths of children. Yeah I understand that is all strictly hypothetical.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That is true for sure. However, I think there is a difference because typically when someone is using speech or religion as a means to cause damage or harm there is some thought behind what they are doing. They understand what they are doing has the potential to be destructive. In the example of a new gun owner, accidents can happen because they just simply aren't familiar with how things work or proper safety protocol. They could have learned that in a gun safety course.

But again I am not saying I am for the classes, I just think we as the gun community would be far better off if more people did take steps to learn proper safety and training. There would be less accidents and those people could then impart that information on their children and possibly even lessen the deaths of children. Yeah I understand that is all strictly hypothetical.

We would be better off if gun owners all had training in this or that point if firearm safety, yes. The example I use often is of a "defensive driving" class; if you've ever taken one, you know that glazed, bored look everyone has, just remembering what they have to to get through and promptly forgetting it all as soon as they're done.

Contrast that to most of the firearms classes I've seen; people are there because they want to be there, not because they have to be. They pay close attention and take the skills they learn home with them, but they only do that because the whole process is voluntary. Make something like that mandatory and you lose the benefit.

The easiest solution IMHO is to incentivize the classes. For example, decrease the fee for the LTCH for those who take class(es) covering, say, the Four Rules and how to make your firearm safe. Of course, those are only two examples, and I'm sure even here, we'll find some who want to add to that hypothetical class... And that's the nature of the slippery slope. Everyone can think of one more thing that it'd be really good for gun owners to know.

We can do something about this ourselves, though, without any laws required. We can start making it really cool to have training. How many out there came to an Appleseed because they saw people here who were PUMPED about the program? That was an effect of the program itself, bot a concerted effort on anyone's part that im aware of, but those concerted efforts work, too.

Good training is a good thing. Forcing people to take it is not, and that makes all the difference.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[halfmileharry]

Anyone ever hear of Rosa Parks? Strong personality. Standing up for one's rights isn't always easy. Like them or not.

 

[68_F100]

no not at all. Whenever I think my kids are bad a trip to walmart reminds me I have little angles.

 

[pudly]

Whenever I think my kids are bad a trip to walmart reminds me I have little angles.

So you are a-sayin they are a-cute?

(OK. It's a math joke. So sue me....)

 

[SirRealism]

So you are a-sayin they are a-cute?

(OK. It's a math joke. So sue me....)

I've never negative repped anybody, but you almost got one for that!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've never negative repped anybody, but you almost got one for that!

Don't be obtuse. He was right that little angles are acute.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

Well, this thread has certainly gone off on a tangent.


Bill, here's your sine.

 

[SirRealism]

Shut your ∏ holes and go to bed.

 

[jeremy]

The solution is mandatory training in government schools.

As I have said before this would be the Only type of Mandatory Training I would Consider...

I think it should be expanded to an Indiana State Laws Class though, not just Firearms Training. I find it amazing how many of my Neighbors do not know about the State's Laws...

After seeing the way some people handle there weapons, is training a bad thing?.

Mandatory Training always means well, just always delivers poorly...

What about the Texas system of CHL training? What's the consensus on that.

LMFAO!!!!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think training in public schools about firearms and Indiana law is a very good thing.

 

[CampingJosh]

And most definitely the police should know the law.

I think you'd have difficultly finding a lawyer who knows all the law. Our legal code is far too extensive for anyone to be expected to know it all (not nearly as bad on the state level as federally, but still).

Should the police be trained? Yes, of course. Should a ton of laws be repealed? Without question.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think you'd have difficultly finding a lawyer who knows all the law. Our legal code is far too extensive for anyone to be expected to know it all (not nearly as bad on the state level as federally, but still).

Should the police be trained? Yes, of course. Should a ton of laws be repealed? Without question.

To repeat a point others have made elsewhere on INGO, if even a police officer cannot be expected to know all of the law and that is their business; how can a citizen who doesn't cross the law often be expected to know it all? Yet we are often told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; how can it be allowed as an excuse for those who have more opportunity (and are paid) to know it?

To be clear, I'm not saying that that should be an allowable defense in court, I'm saying that it should not be for either and that LEOs who violate the law should be held as personally accountable as anyone else for violating it, meaning that the officer might lose his job, might be fined personally, might be jailed, or any combination of all three of those, with fines and jail sentences being at a minimum unaffected by, and more likely enhanced for LEOs because of their increased familiarity with the law. In short, that they should not be privileged to break the law with impunity in the name of enforcing it.

With all of the above said, it might be taken that I'm being "anti-cop". I'm not. If an officer has to use some level of force to maintain order, I can accept that. If an officer has to violate the speed limit to respond to a call for help or some other emergent situation, I'm good with that. If a person is detained while the law is sorted out (say, because the person is OCing and the officer doesn't believe it's legal), I'd even go that far. What it comes down to for me is that I want a level playing field. I don't want any more advantage over LEOs than I want them to have over me, nor do I want to be in or to have officers in a disadvantaged position relative to each other.

Some of this is unavoidable, of course namely, the fact that LE has unlimited resources with which to pursue offenders, but the presumption in court that the officer is being truthful solely on his word is ripe for abuse, should a LEO be one of those people without scruples. In place of that, I'd suggest "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" be a fair standard.

Again, I'm not speaking against LEOs here. My ultimate goal is that the people return to a default position of respecting, rather than fearing police. I'm not saying it will be easy. I'm just saying I think it will be worth it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CampingJosh]

To repeat a point others have made elsewhere on INGO, if even a police officer cannot be expected to know all of the law and that is their business; how can a citizen who doesn't cross the law often be expected to know it all? Yet we are often told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; how can it be allowed as an excuse for those who have more opportunity (and are paid) to know it?

I don't disagree at all. My point was not that the officers shouldn't be held accountable when they violate the law; it was that the extend of our legal code needs to be reduced dramatically.

To be clear, I'm not saying that that should be an allowable defense in court, I'm saying that it should not be for either and that LEOs who violate the law should be held as personally accountable as anyone else for violating it, meaning that the officer might lose his job, might be fined personally, might be jailed, or any combination of all three of those, with fines and jail sentences being at a minimum unaffected by, and more likely enhanced for LEOs because of their increased familiarity with the law. In short, that they should not be privileged to break the law with impunity in the name of enforcing it.

With all of the above said, it might be taken that I'm being "anti-cop". I'm not. If an officer has to use some level of force to maintain order, I can accept that. If an officer has to violate the speed limit to respond to a call for help or some other emergent situation, I'm good with that. If a person is detained while the law is sorted out (say, because the person is OCing and the officer doesn't believe it's legal), I'd even go that far. What it comes down to for me is that I want a level playing field. I don't want any more advantage over LEOs than I want them to have over me, nor do I want to be in or to have officers in a disadvantaged position relative to each other.

Some of this is unavoidable, of course namely, the fact that LE has unlimited resources with which to pursue offenders, but the presumption in court that the officer is being truthful solely on his word is ripe for abuse, should a LEO be one of those people without scruples. In place of that, I'd suggest "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" be a fair standard.

Again, I'm not speaking against LEOs here. My ultimate goal is that the people return to a default position of respecting, rather than fearing police. I'm not saying it will be easy. I'm just saying I think it will be worth it.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree with this.

From what I've read, I'm not certain that the officers did break the law in this situation. While likely biased, the newspaper seemed to report that the officers asked a person to modify the way in which he was exercising a right even though the law did not require that he do so. None of the articles I read said anything about "demanding" he do so. They all say something along the lines of the officers asked a man to conceal his gun, the man refused, and then the man began to make a scene. At this point, the issue was no longer the gun but the disturbed peace. I wasn't there, so I can't say definitively what happened.

Subjective crimes like "disturbing the peace" are definitely ripe for abuse.