Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[brotherbill3]

This for sure!

If gun owners want to keep their rights, part of the effort is to be a good ambassador to other people, be knowledgeable about the issues, about what are their arguments, and what is our answer. Be a gun rights apologist. Be the anti-stereotype in your circle.

I don't know if I should take credit for this, but I think my teammates I work with have a better understanding of the issues. I'd like to think I had something to do with that. I've arranged a trip to the range for a team outing. Some of them are left-leaning. Some are moderates. Maybe one on the right who is pretty pro-gun. They really enjoyed shooting. Some own guns but haven't really practiced with them.

We've talked about and debated gun rights together. When I hear nonsense on the news or social media, I talk it over with them to make sure they understand the other side. I don't think I've turned them into gun nuts like me, and i've certainly not turned them into conservatarians. But they do understand the issues better, and they understand better where the other side is coming from. I'd like to think I had something to do with that.

WELL DONE!
Its that one-to-one thing that makes it work ... you're the "EXAMPLE" gun owner to them. I try to be. sometimes even I, yes me, am too much for my daughter.

I got into a discussion at one point at my grandson B-day party w/ the brother of her best friend -
he's the odd liberal, chicagoian in the family (I'm friends w/ the others too)
Daughter and her friend were worried - but I didn't make his head explode and we had a good discussion.

Right after 12-20-12 - within weeks (which is when I really stepped into using Social Media outside of gun-forums) - I talked down to would be liberals after they got hit with the "Ban assault hammers" - these were friends of friends I didn't know; but then - for a little while - I applied sense and reason and at a minimum kept them from jumping immediately into the MDA boat. - it is little wins. sometimes.

 

[bwframe]

Broken record here, but no one seems to want to hear it. How many times do we need to go through this once or twice a year after disappointments like this?

We need a state lobbying organization similar to our national organization, the NRA.

We should know who is voting and passing our proposed legislation (or not) before it happens. Our state organization should be informing us of progress and needs via individual contact and over every broadcast media available. They should be informing and recruiting at every single state gun related event there is. Every show, every shop, every match, every training event, every range, every forum.


Maybe not exact models to follow, but a start:

Open Carry Texas - Gun Rights For Texas

https://texascarry.org/

 

[BigMoose]

This will come. As more states adopt CC laws, there will be more pressure on Indiana to fall in line. I know we all want it now. But some times it pays to be patient.

 

[jamil]

WELL DONE!
Its that one-to-one thing that makes it work ... you're the "EXAMPLE" gun owner to them. I try to be. sometimes even I, yes me, am too much for my daughter.

I got into a discussion at one point at my grandson B-day party w/ the brother of her best friend -
he's the odd liberal, chicagoian in the family (I'm friends w/ the others too)
Daughter and her friend were worried - but I didn't make his head explode and we had a good discussion.

Right after 12-20-12 - within weeks (which is when I really stepped into using Social Media outside of gun-forums) - I talked down to would be liberals after they got hit with the "Ban assault hammers" - these were friends of friends I didn't know; but then - for a little while - I applied sense and reason and at a minimum kept them from jumping immediately into the MDA boat. - it is little wins. sometimes.

Sometimes people are open to it, sometimes not so much. With my coworkers, we've worked together, have done other team outings and that sort of thing for quite some time, and that helps. I never pushed opinions on them, but I had talked about the issues. They knew I'm a firearms enthusiast, as I call myself. I often wear hats that make it pretty clear. And I think in a sense that piqued some interest in the subject that probably wouldn't have been there if I'd never had said a word and never wore those hats.

When I took my coworkers to the range, there were 7 of us. It was a really good time. I had already taken a couple of them to the range. One of the guys said he wanted to go shooting again, I said sure. Then I thought hey, let's see if the others want to come along. And they did. I offered to let them shoot my guns so they wouldn't have to spend money renting them, but they bought their own ammo.

One thing I'd like to stress about the importance of doing this, if we all can at least inform someone, as many of us as there are, it could affect a lot of attitudes. While eating lunch before going to the range, we got into a friendly debate on universal background checks. I didn't get a sense that anyone opposed it, even the ones who've shot before. They basically issued the standard line, "I know way too many people that just shouldn't have guns". I told them what UBC actually means, how impossible it would be to enforce, what the supposed "gun show loophole" actually means, and how unlikely background checks would stop "that guy" from getting a gun anyway.

Basically I just cleared up the misinformation. Many of them had never been exposed to gun culture, or to people who are gun rights supporters. They haven't heard our side of it before. They've only heard the stereotypes about us and the straw monsters build by the media. But I think that if they answered a poll asking them if they support for UBC, I hope to think they'd now say no. They seemed to agree that it casts an unnecessarily large net, yet without actually being able to widely predict who will commit crimes with a gun. We can have influence on people. Just be informative, not pushy, not bat**** crazy. If they're open to hearing our side, they'll hear it. If not, well, at least you know.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Guys, guys, it passed the House!!! . . . . in New Hampshire.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...nal+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf55249735=1

 

[cbhausen]

Guys, guys, it passed the House!!! . . . . in New Hampshire.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...nal+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf55249735=1

I guess they're more worthy than we are. Maybe the folks up there tried harder than we lazy slobs.

 

[jamil]

Guys, guys, it passed the House!!! . . . . in New Hampshire.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...nal+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf55249735=1

I guess they're more worthy than we are. Maybe the folks up there tried harder than we lazy slobs.

We'll have to ask them how they fought off their angry mobs of Fudds.

 

[T.Lex]

We'll have to ask them how they fought off their angry mobs of Fudds.

Appendix carry, that's how.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We'll have to ask them how they fought off their angry mobs of Fudds.

They're more progressive than we are.

 

[BigMoose]

They're more progressive than we are.

They are next to the original CC State.

Just adds more momentum.

 

[T.Lex]

Broken record here, but no one seems to want to hear it. How many times do we need to go through this once or twice a year after disappointments like this?

INGO might be a good place to organize like this, but it'll take some long range planning.

Before the end of this session, it'll mean small conversations - coffee, lunch - with the people involved getting them to commit to putting it to a vote. Then, in April, schedule coffees and lunches for May. Then in June, schedule them for July. And so on. With each meeting, getting a commitment to put it to a vote. In these conversations, talk about other things. Philosophies, kids, mutual friends, sports teams.

Then, next year, remind them. Well, it should've been repeated so much that a reminder shouldn't be necessary, but you get the idea.

Part of the problem is that they only have to think about it for a couple weeks a year, from people who are basically anonymous. Yet, they are elected legislators year-round. If, in the course of these conversations, you realize that your legislator may not align with your priorities, try to find someone who does.

 

[JTScribe]

Well, the Sheriff's association are a bunch of mealy-mouthed statists.

The following statement was prepared by the ISA leadership in cooperation with our lobbyist:

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Sheriffs in Indiana strongly support a citizen’s second amendment right to keep and bear arms. As sheriffs we recognize the rule of law and that the United States Supreme Court and our State courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of all laws. It should be noted that Courts have ruled that although gun ownership is a right, it can still be regulated. The right to bear arms is not unlike other constitutional guarantees, such as the right to vote, or freedom of speech. Even though we have absolute rights, they still are regulated, and of course the regulation of those rights is interpreted by our Courts. The 2nd Amendment is no stranger to debate and has faced challenges since it was adopted by our forefathers in 1791.


Indiana Sheriffs believe law abiding citizens should be able to have guns in their homes, vehicles and places of business. They believe citizens should be able to engage in sports and recreational activity involving firearms. They also believe that qualified citizens should be able to obtain concealed weapons permits and keep their weapons with them. In fact, many Sheriffs are members of gun rights groups, like the NRA, and sponsor firearms training programs for area citizens.


Indiana Sheriffs do not believe that a change to the permitting process in Indiana is in the best interests of public or officer safety. The change could negatively impact efforts to investigate individuals and determine whether they are armed or not. They fear that this change would create uncertainty in reciprocity situations and will have a negative impact on law enforcement training.


Indiana Sheriffs believe that the possession of an Indiana Gun Permit is an honorable and cherished item for Indiana residents and should remain so in the future.


Respectfully,


Mark J. Bowen


Mark J. Bowen, Sheriff
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office
18100 Cumberland Rd.
Noblesville, IN

 

[Trigger Time]

I'll remember that when they need support again.
what they think should matter as much as a fart in the wind.

 

[cbhausen]

Well, the Sheriff's association are a bunch of mealy-mouthed statists.

The following statement was prepared by the ISA leadership in cooperation with our lobbyist:

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Sheriffs in Indiana strongly support a citizen’s second amendment right to keep and bear arms. As sheriffs we recognize the rule of law and that the United States Supreme Court and our State courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of all laws. It should be noted that Courts have ruled that although gun ownership is a right, it can still be regulated. The right to bear arms is not unlike other constitutional guarantees, such as the right to vote, or freedom of speech. Even though we have absolute rights, they still are regulated, and of course the regulation of those rights is interpreted by our Courts. The 2nd Amendment is no stranger to debate and has faced challenges since it was adopted by our forefathers in 1791.


Indiana Sheriffs believe law abiding citizens should be able to have guns in their homes, vehicles and places of business. They believe citizens should be able to engage in sports and recreational activity involving firearms. They also believe that qualified citizens should be able to obtain concealed weapons permits and keep their weapons with them. In fact, many Sheriffs are members of gun rights groups, like the NRA, and sponsor firearms training programs for area citizens.


Indiana Sheriffs do not believe that a change to the permitting process in Indiana is in the best interests of public or officer safety. The change could negatively impact efforts to investigate individuals and determine whether they are armed or not. They fear that this change would create uncertainty in reciprocity situations and will have a negative impact on law enforcement training.


Indiana Sheriffs believe that the possession of an Indiana Gun Permit is an honorable and cherished item for Indiana residents and should remain so in the future.


Respectfully,


Mark J. Bowen


Mark J. Bowen, Sheriff
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office
18100 Cumberland Rd.
Noblesville, IN

i can't wait for my next solicitation from or on behalf of them. My wallet is closed and here's why...

 

[Spear Dane]

New Hampshire becomes number 13 to embrace Constitutional Carry.

 

[Trigger Time]

i can't wait for my next solicitation from or on behalf of them. My wallet is closed and here's why...

Yep!!! And I will be writing letters to them to tell them this is unacceptable. We all need to do this. If anyone needs postage I'll pay for it.

 

[Trigger Time]

New Hampshire becomes number 13 to embrace Constitutional Carry.

i am so disappointed in our state.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Well, the Sheriff's association are a bunch of mealy-mouthed statists.

The following statement was prepared by the ISA leadership in cooperation with our lobbyist:

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Sheriffs in Indiana strongly support a citizen’s second amendment right to keep and bear arms. As sheriffs we recognize the rule of law and that the United States Supreme Court and our State courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of all laws. It should be noted that Courts have ruled that although gun ownership is a right, it can still be regulated. The right to bear arms is not unlike other constitutional guarantees, such as the right to vote, or freedom of speech. Even though we have absolute rights, they still are regulated, and of course the regulation of those rights is interpreted by our Courts. The 2nd Amendment is no stranger to debate and has faced challenges since it was adopted by our forefathers in 1791.


Indiana Sheriffs believe law abiding citizens should be able to have guns in their homes, vehicles and places of business. They believe citizens should be able to engage in sports and recreational activity involving firearms. They also believe that qualified citizens should be able to obtain concealed weapons permits and keep their weapons with them. In fact, many Sheriffs are members of gun rights groups, like the NRA, and sponsor firearms training programs for area citizens.


Indiana Sheriffs do not believe that a change to the permitting process in Indiana is in the best interests of public or officer safety. The change could negatively impact efforts to investigate individuals and determine whether they are armed or not. They fear that this change would create uncertainty in reciprocity situations and will have a negative impact on law enforcement training.


Indiana Sheriffs believe that the possession of an Indiana Gun Permit is an honorable and cherished item for Indiana residents and should remain so in the future.


Respectfully,


Mark J. Bowen


Mark J. Bowen, Sheriff
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office
18100 Cumberland Rd.
Noblesville, IN

Three words: follow the money.

Per ISP website: on 31 Dec 12 there were 474,790 active handgun licenses in Indiana

As of 1 Jan 17 there were 776,500. That's 301,710 more LTCHs in 4 years. Easy math with the $100 Lifetime LTCH with current LTCH mean add two zeros: $30,171,000

 

[Trigger Time]

Yep and each department gets a cut of that

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Over on Facebook Guy is trying to get the sheriff to accept an offer to appear on his radio show. Might I suggest a polite, civil, and respectful request to Sheriff Bowen to accept Guy's offer? I sent him one.