HOW MANY PEOPLE THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE GETTING GUN PERMITS WHO DONT EVEN NEED THEM

[Benjamin]

So, who do you think "needs" one? Who, in your mind, should be allowed to exercise Constitutional rights, and who do you think should be denied the status of free citizen?

Anyone who can get one. Needs one.

 

[MontereyC6]

I had heard rumors and then I was told this by the receptionist at the local jail where I applied. I thought she knew what she was talking about given that she was the one doing the local application check. I'm sorry if this information is incorrect.

No need to apologize, but she was wrong. It would take a change of law by the state congress to take it away, and there is currently know impending legislation to do so.

 

[HICKMAN]

We should be required to have it. With that said, every citizen in the State of legal age should be issued one.

I firmly believe that if we were all armed, crime would drop. Imagine if every citizen of legal age in the ghettos, rough neighborhoods, trailer parks and suburbs chose to carry. Self-defense shootings would rise and crime would eventually fall.

The Wild West wasn't tamed with a slap on the wrist...

 

[Boilers]

They should just issue them at 18 or 21, and revoke them at whatever trial the sentence is handed down that takes away your license.

 

[Boilers]

We should be required to have it. With that said, every citizen in the State of legal age should be issued one.

I firmly believe that if we were all armed, crime would drop. Imagine if every citizen of legal age in the ghettos, rough neighborhoods, trailer parks and suburbs chose to carry. Self-defense shootings would rise and crime would eventually fall.

The Wild West wasn't tamed with a slap on the wrist...

Funny we posted this at same time.

 

[dburkhead]

What does need have to do with it?

"If a man neglect to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example." Oliver Wendall Holmes.

 

[MrsGungho]

I got one cause I thought the pink paper was pretty.

Me too!

 

[mrjarrell]

We should be required to have it. With that said, every citizen in the State of legal age should be issued one.

I firmly believe that if we were all armed, crime would drop. Imagine if every citizen of legal age in the ghettos, rough neighborhoods, trailer parks and suburbs chose to carry. Self-defense shootings would rise and crime would eventually fall.

The Wild West wasn't tamed with a slap on the wrist...

Permits weren't required in the not-so "Wild West", either. Rights don't require permits. Privileges do.

 

[CulpeperMM]

So, who do you think "needs" one? Who, in your mind, should be allowed to exercise Constitutional rights, and who do you think should be denied the status of free citizen?

+1

 

[Bubba]

It's a slippery slope, my friend. I think we can all agree that practice and training is a good thing and should be as much a part of responsible gun ownership as a reliable firearm and a quality holster. That is to say, recommended, but you use whatever you've got when the S truly HTF. However, how do you demonstrate "enough" knowledge or need to get a LTCH?

What about showing that you are at risk of attack and need to defend yourself? Sounds reasonable on the surface, after all, many folks in this country don't need to travel far very often, so do not own cars. So why let people who are not likely to need a firearm carry one regularly? This line of thinking is technically constitutional, has a grain of logic, and seems like a great compromise between pro- and anti- gun arguments. Let's look at some of the may-issue states: New York, California, Wisconsin (not may-issue, but certain need-based rights have been upheld by the courts). Not exactly bastions of 2A freedom, eh? And how would you demonstrate "need" exactly? Would you have to actually be attacked before you could get a license? How many times, and with what severity? What if you don't survive the application process?

Maybe we should stay a shall-issue state, but require a training course like Ohio? Who would set the curriculum? Who would determine the nature of the exam and the passing grade? Most importantly, who would pay for it? Short of hard-coding limits on the process in the state constitution, what is to stop a legislature from continually upping the required training and fees? Since when can our rights be regulated simply by making them not worth our while? You don't need a journalism degree to exercise free speech, you don't need a community organizer license to peaceably assemble, a defendant in a criminal trial does not need to pay an extra fee to get a jury that is not biased. So why should we be compelled to pay any material or immaterial expense to exercise the right of self defense?

IMHO, from at least the standpoint of getting a LTCH/CCW etc., Indiana is near the top of the list of "good" states. There is no major "buy-in", in time, in money, or in blood.

Edit: Wow. I know I'm a slow typist but this thread moved a long way. This was all in response to the OP.

 

[IUGradStudent]

Maybe they just want to take it to a range 1-2 times a year to practice

 

[in625shooter]

<- Capslock key is on that side of the keyboard, I think you forgot to turn it off before starting your post title :P

Given that an LTCH is required to be allowed to practice in the first place, since you aren't permitted to transport your gun to the range without it, it's not much of a surprise to me. It's likely some of those people that are applying are in fact intending to get their first gun and practice with it, they just haven't done so yet because there's not much you can do with it until your LTCH shows up.

I'm in that situation now - I don't have my LTCH yet, and haven't purchased a gun yet, since I can't go to the range to practice until it shows up, and it seems useless to have it without being able to practice. Although my (lack of) patience and love of shiny things is enough that I'll probably go ahead and get one before the LTCH shows up, if only to make sure I've got it ready to go as soon as I'm allowed to take it out

don't know if this has been touched but you do not need a permit to own or buy a handgun in indiana. Also you can transport to the range legally any handgun without a permit as long as it is unloaded in a case and the ammunition is stored seperate. You only need a permit if you are carring it upon your body in public or LOADED in your vehicle!

you can get a pocket size book of the indiana state criminal codes at your local prosecutors office. the IN code books has everything in it in the firearms section. my county's PO provideded them to the PD when I worked there. everyone should have one has a lot of good info.

 

[Joe Williams]

don't know if this has been touched but you do not need a permit to own or buy a handgun in indiana. Also you can transport to the range legally any handgun without a permit as long as it is unloaded in a case and the ammunition is stored seperate. You only need a permit if you are carring it upon your body in public or LOADED in your vehicle!

you can get a pocket size book of the indiana state criminal codes at your local prosecutors office. the IN code books has everything in it in the firearms section. my county's PO provideded them to the PD when I worked there. everyone should have one has a lot of good info.

Your advice is incorrect. Best check that little book again! Indiana code is most clear about the exceptions to needing a LTCH, and going to the range isn't one of them. The loaded/unloaded status of your gun is irrelevant, you cannot take your gun to the range without a LTCH.

 

[dburkhead]

don't know if this has been touched but you do not need a permit to own or buy a handgun in indiana. Also you can transport to the range legally any handgun without a permit as long as it is unloaded in a case and the ammunition is stored seperate. You only need a permit if you are carring it upon your body in public!

you can get a pocket size book of the indiana state criminal codes at your local prosecutors office. the IN code books has everything in it in the firearms section. my county's PO provideded them to the PD when I worked there. everyone should have one has a lot of good info.

The law does not say that. The exact text is:

Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(b) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body in the person's dwelling or on the person's property or fixed place of business.

and

Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by him in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business;
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in his possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business; or
(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

Nothing in there about taking the gun to the range. Now, it's most likely that you won't be hassled going to and from the range so long as you go directly there and backt, but it is illegal.

There's a reason why the limited license is called a hunting/target shooting license.

 

[Lucas156]

don't know if this has been touched but you do not need a permit to own or buy a handgun in indiana. Also you can transport to the range legally any handgun without a permit as long as it is unloaded in a case and the ammunition is stored seperate. You only need a permit if you are carring it upon your body in public or LOADED in your vehicle!

you can get a pocket size book of the indiana state criminal codes at your local prosecutors office. the IN code books has everything in it in the firearms section. my county's PO provideded them to the PD when I worked there. everyone should have one has a lot of good info.

I was not aware that you can transport that way.

 

[dburkhead]

I was not aware that you can transport that way.

You can't. Not legally. I posted the relevant portions, but you can check the Indiana Code for yourself here:

Indiana Code 35-47-2

 

[Lucion]

Why would you not need one if you can have one?

 

[SilentWarrior1]

I believe the following phrase sums it up.

"It was never a question of necessity."

 

[POTI]

Actually join a range and then

regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;

 

[dburkhead]

Actually join a range and then

regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;

The key phrase there is "duly authorized" which is legalese for "official sanction." It's a step above simply not being a "prohibited person" (which is the only "authorized" being a member of a private range would be).