Indiana Considers an Upper Tier CCW Permit

[Que]

I just want to be recognized as a proper person in Indiana before I worry about other states. I want to be able to carry everywhere I go, without disarming, including work, school, events, etc.

 

[mbills2223]

Some animals are more equal than others.

Great book.

I just want to be recognized as a proper person in Indiana before I worry about other states. I want to be able to carry everywhere I go, without disarming, including work, school, events, etc.

Sorry if I missed it, but what are you suggesting with this in regards to either a new, tiered licensure system or perhaps Constitutional Carry?

Oh, and by the way

 

[92LX]

I just want to be recognized as a proper person in Indiana before I worry about other states. I want to be able to carry everywhere I go, without disarming, including work, school, events, etc.

Exactly Que....EXACTLY.

All we will get out of this is more stuff to make it harder, costlier, and more time consuming to get a permit.

More red tape, less freedom, all for maybe some ridicoulous notion, that just perhaps, 5 more states, might, if they are feeling generous, and can change it at any time without any warning, let us carry there........What can go wrong


Holy cow, with "friends" like these...... Sounds to me like the guy pushing this wants to carry in one of the states and is doing his darned best to make it happen at any expense.

Just once this decade, can we at least think about a bill or proposal for 1 second before we randomly scatter incoherent and vague verbage down to become law.

 

[aaron580]

Since the existing permits will be ok to use still, I will be fine having one. As long as I can OC in this state and Montana, I am fine.

 

[rhino]

Some animals are more equal than others.

Animal Farm should be required reading in every school in America, whether private or government operated.

I just want to be recognized as a proper person in Indiana before I worry about other states. I want to be able to carry everywhere I go, without disarming, including work, school, events, etc.

Me too. And there's no valid reason why it can't be that way.

Our License to Carry Handgun was valid on school grounds until the mid 1990s when the law was amended. A judge told me a few years ago that it was changed to prevent students and recent graduates who had gang affiliations or were otherwise likely to commit violence from possessing weapons on school grounds, especially during sporting events. Whether or not that was factual (I have no way to know), such a restriction is clearly ineffective from stopping predators from being armed on school grounds because they're not going to obey laws anyway. It only hurt parents, faculty, and staff and ultimately their children by making them less safe.

 

[T2D4]

"If training is now required that is a reduction of our 2nd Amendment rights!"
stopped reading at that point.

 

[rsklar]

There are those that think that training requirements are not necessary, but think of it this way, how confident are you about knowing that there are people out there carrying a firearm concealed that may have no experience or training?

Most training requirements are very minor, usually nothing more than basic safe gun handling and showing that you can safely discharge a firearm.

Some states require training, other do not. Well those that do will not recognize states permits/licenses that do as part of their reciprocity agreement.

No one is denying anyone a constitutional right to firearms, just that you are safe before actually carrying one concealed in public. If you want to carry it in your house without any training, go right ahead, but do not put my safety in jeopardy because your pride comes before good common sense and good judgement.

 

[Car Ramrod]

There are those that think that training requirements are not necessary, but think of it this way, how confident are you about knowing that there are people out there carrying a firearm concealed that may have no experience or training?

What about those who are carrying open?

 

[eldirector]

No one is denying anyone a constitutional right to firearms, just that you are safe before actually carrying one concealed in public. If you want to carry it in your house without any training, go right ahead, but do not put my safety in jeopardy because your pride comes before good common sense and good judgement.

Don't put my rights in jeopardy because your irrational fear comes before good common sense and good judgement.

I've been a long-time supporter of a 2-tier system, at least until the rest of the States agree to recognize our natural rights.

Tier 1 - Constitutional Carry for all residents
Tier 2 - Fancy-dancy "permit" that meets the reciprocity requirements for as many other States as possible.

But, until we get #1, I cannot support #2. I refuse to give up more for nothing in return.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Most training requirements are very minor, usually nothing more than basic safe gun handling and showing that you can safely discharge a firearm.

Training requirements are barriers to entry of a fundamental constitutional right.

Training requirements are prone to manipulation and abuse. Training requirements are not a week at Thunder Ranch. E.g., Utah does not even reauire discharge of a firearm.

Some states require training, other do not. Well those that do will not recognize states permits/licenses that do as part of their reciprocity agreement.

Florida requires training. Texas requires training.

Both FLorida and Texas recognize Indiana's LTCH which has no training requirement. The proponents of SB555 are speculating that training is a requirement of other states and have produced no evidence, that I have seen, that training is an issue in states that do not recognize Indiana.

No one is denying anyone a constitutional right to firearms, just that you are safe before actually carrying one concealed in public. If you want to carry it in your house without any training, go right ahead, but do not put my safety in jeopardy because your pride comes before good common sense and good judgement.

Thank you for validating my objection to this proposal.

It is clear that the "top tier" of this two tier system will be used to force a training requirement on Indiana. I understand the concern to have people seek training, but believe that that goal is better addressed with such proposals as changes to the tax code (making training an above the line deduction).

 

[Bill of Rights]

There are those that think that training requirements are not necessary, but think of it this way, how confident are you about knowing that there are people out there carrying a firearm concealed that may have no experience or training?

Most training requirements are very minor, usually nothing more than basic safe gun handling and showing that you can safely discharge a firearm.

Some states require training, other do not. Well those that do will not recognize states permits/licenses that do as part of their reciprocity agreement.

No one is denying anyone a constitutional right to firearms, just that you are safe before actually carrying one concealed in public. If you want to carry it in your house without any training, go right ahead, but do not put my safety in jeopardy because your pride comes before good common sense and good judgement.

Which other rights do you think should require training before they're allowed to be exercised in public? Do note that the government that will be enforcing this requirement is the one that is supposed to be bound and restricted by those documents that were used to found this country.

Also, you have no "right to be safe". You have a right to attempt to ensure your own safety, a right which currently is being infringed by 46 states. You certainly have no right to require others to be safe.

These states recognize our LTCH:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado (resident only) Florida(resident only), Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan (resident only), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire (resident only), North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

As Kirk said, Texas and Florida both require training. Both recognize our LTCH without it. Others that also require training but do not demand it of us are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi (questionable; their site mentions an "enhanced permit instructor"), Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Now... Arizona and Wyoming require it for their permit, but do not require a permit. (That is, if you choose to get the permit, you have to prove training.) The same may be true of Alaska, I didn't check.

So 21 states of the 28 others who recognize us, require training.... but not of us. I'd say that's a strong argument against the necessity... wouldn't you?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Expat]

This sounds like a great thing for people in the training business.

 

[rhino]

This sounds like a great thing for people in the training business.

I'd love to see more people getting more training . . . of their own volition.

I oppose forcing them to submit to a "training requirement" to be allowed to exercise a fundamental human right without fear of reprisal.

 

[TEK]

cool interactive reciprocity map
Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps - USA Carry

 

[cbhausen]

I just want to be recognized as a proper person in Indiana before I worry about other states. I want to be able to carry everywhere I go, without disarming, including work, school, events, etc.

Taking this one step further, I clearly remember my initial reaction to this assertion made by a fellow INGOer (sorry I can't recall their handle): "Anyone free to walk the streets should freely be able to exercise their natural right of self-defense with equal force against an attacker" or words to that effect.

I was suporised, almost shocked at first. Convicted felons being allowed to have guns? Are you kidding me? But the more I read and think about it, the idea isn't so farfetched. You're either locked up or you're not, incarcerated or a free person. It doesn't make much sense to me anyone should have the authority to limit another individual's natural right of self-defense. When facing grave bodily injury or death from an attacker, why should any human being be able to deny another human being the right to stay alive by using reciprocal force against life-threatening circumstances?

I never would have come to this simple conclusion had it not been for INGO and the places INGO has taken me. The whole key is self-defense. Punish SEVERELY those who misuse the tools of self-defense whether they be hands and feet, knives, clubs, guns, whatever... But leave the rest of us the hell alone; that's all we want.


<rant off> and sorry for the thread-jack

 

[Bill of Rights]

Taking this one step further, I clearly remember my initial reaction to this assertion made by a fellow INGOer (sorry I can't recall their handle): "Anyone free to walk the streets should freely be able to exercise their natural right of self-defense with equal force against an attacker" or words to that effect.

I was suporised, almost shocked at first. Convicted felons being allowed to have guns? Are you kidding me? But the more I read and think about it, the idea isn't so farfetched. You're either locked up or you're not, incarcerated or a free person. It doesn't make much sense to me anyone should have the authority to limit another individual's natural right of self-defense. When facing grave bodily injury or death from an attacker, why should any human being be able to deny another human being the right to stay alive by using reciprocal force against life-threatening circumstances?

I never would have come to this simple conclusion had it not been for INGO and the places INGO has taken me. The whole key is self-defense. Punish SEVERELY those who misuse the tools of self-defense whether they be hands and feet, knives, clubs, guns, whatever... But leave the rest of us the hell alone; that's all we want.


<rant off> and sorry for the thread-jack

No threadjack that I can see; thanks for your input.

Paradigms are a funny thing, aren't they? Since 1968, 44 years, we've had a law that says "Guns are forbidden to "felons"." and we've thought it a good thing, because that's what we were told or because that's all we've ever known. "Felons" are bad people, you see, and of course we don't want bad people having guns. It takes a little bit of thought and a little bit of digging to get to the rest of the story, that it's not the former felon having the gun that's problematic, it's what s/he does with it when s/he has it. This also leaves unspoken the number of things that have become "felonies" in the last 44 years, and further ignores the addition of the "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" addition that crosses the felony line and is the camel's nose under the tent. No one's going to argue that a person who violently accosts a spouse or child should be armed, but what does it take to turn that accusation into a conviction? Not much, and now we have one more class of people who are forbidden. When leaving a store with an empty 99 cent bag of potato chips can get you arrested and charged with felony theft, the meaning and import of the term "felony" gets very blurry, very quickly. And are we as a country, safer because Martha Stewart and (briefly) Lt.Col. Oliver North are disarmed by the courts, when people like Drew Peterson are still free to go to work and be armed? (No, I don't mean now, but for a time, he was.)
We could even make the argument that the former felon trying to go straight has more need to be armed than the rest of us; Who is more likely to have criminal acquaintances? Who may have to fight them off to keep his family safe? As long as his use is strictly defensive (just like the rest of us!) I can see no need for the "felon" to be disarmed.

IMHO, it's long past time for Lyndon Johnson's GCA to be repealed and consigned to the legislative scrap heap. (and the requirement of a LTCH should go along with it)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

IMHO, it's long past time for Lyndon Johnson's GCA to be repealed and consigned to the legislative scrap heap. (and the requirement of a LTCH should go along with it)

AMEN!

 

[Steve B]

I think the only LTC anyone should need in any state is a copy of the constitution. Nuff said.

 

[Caleb]

I didn't know we had CCW's in indiana...I prefer to keep it that way

 

[Llamaguy]

Yes, remember when seat belts were optional equipment on cars?
Remember when seat belts were mandatory on cars but optional to wear?
Remember when seat belts were mandatory to wear but they couldn't pull you over?