Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Trigger Time]

Just like we did on the federal level it is time to force out false politicians who do not care about their oath. It is time to elect sheriffs and state reps who will have the balls to do what is RIGHT by the constitution and not what is only popular or to appease the people who squeak the loudest. Time to unemploy some public servants and employ new ones.

 

[cbhausen]

All of the rationale for licensed carry reads right out of the antis' playbook. The statement even referred to "concealed weapons permits" and an "Indiana Gun Permit"... shaking my head in disbelief.

My unwavering support of LEO is now officially wavering and my wallet is officially closed until further notice.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why are we stuck with this system?

Ignorance.

...and fear.

But probably mostly due to seeking safety....and ignorance.

 

[87iroc]

Bosma was on Tony Katz this AM. The buck got passed to the LEOs pretty much word for word off the letter. "We deny LTCH apps from felons and domestic abusers" doesn't fly with me since criminals don't obey the law anyway. How many of last year's murders were committed by individuals denied an LTCH? Being able to use technology to see if someone has an LTCH does nothing to make anyone safe.

I suspected they wanted buy in from a group that they knew wouldn't like it in general....such that they could pass the buck. 'see, we're not the bad guys here. We love and respect law enforcement and they think its a bad idea'...blood in the streets, wild wild west, etc.

 

[cbhausen]

I'm also left wondering how influential potential lost revenue from the LTCH process was in LEO organizations' opposition to HB 1159. But you won't find that in their official position statement.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm also left wondering how influential potential lost revenue from the LTCH process was in LEO organizations' opposition to HB 1159. But you won't find that in their official position statement.

Follow the money...

 

[jamil]

I heard that Tuesday. I got from what he said, they pretty much just keep the stats of the numbers for and against a particular topic regardless of the media. I'm sure they read some of them but I doubt it's all that many and if it's the umpteenth email I've sent and the subject line says anything about guns or the 2A, I doubt they believe I'll have anything new to say that will change how they're going to vote.

I'm not happy about it but I do understand why they do it. On hot-button issues I just can't see them spending the time to read every letter they get. So, since we know the score, I'm not going to spend my time thinking out and writing a letter that presents a logical argument. I'm not going to go through the expense of paying postage. If it's just about tallying the yea's and nay's, I'll send them mine as economically as possible.

Bosma was on Tony Katz this AM. The buck got passed to the LEOs pretty much word for word off the letter. "We deny LTCH apps from felons and domestic abusers" doesn't fly with me since criminals don't obey the law anyway. How many of last year's murders were committed by individuals denied an LTCH? Being able to use technology to see if someone has an LTCH does nothing to make anyone safe.

This is about having a reason to give for a position. It's not about explaining the reasoning that led them to adopting that position. You can poke holes in it, certainly. But it's not for their benefit that you do so. Maybe some folks that thought otherwise might reverse their position. But that doesn't make the real reasons for $taking that position go away.

We're not dealing with philosophical ideals here. We're dealing with people and all their foibles and faults. You and I agree on a great many things and share a very similar preferred world view on how things ought to be. I'm not defending them only trying to see and explain the (political) world from their view. We are not the great majority we imagine ourselves being. Our positions are simply not that persuasive. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, obviously. These politicians are operating in a world where other people are pulling and tugging on them too. Their votes count just as much as ours and their emails and phone calls (to certain extents anyway) are weighed just as ours are. Much like evangelizing the freedom that lies in following Christ, it looks like we need to evangelize the truth and freedom that lies in strictly following the Constitution. When constitutional carry is important to more of us, it'll be important to them.

Um. Dude. Did you just get into my head? I was just going to right something astonishingly similar. It's monolithic thinking that "America" wants this or that. There are hundreds of millions of people with diverse desires, opinions and goals. They're given a binary choice of pigeon holes into which to toss their lot. One of those wins the power of the stick. And then starts beating up those who disagreed. And if enough individuals are happy with those beatings, they vote to leave the stick in that bully's hands for another 4 years.

I think the only way a society of diverse individuals can remain free is to take away the stick so neither side can use it against the other. But our current system is what people know. They're reluctant and even afraid not to wield the stick against people who disagree. I talk to people, give them the "stick" speech, watch the wheels spin for a few minutes, then the eyes glaze over when they realize this means no more stick for them. They WANT to fight over the stick. They're willing to lose it for a time because they know they'll get it back.

Why are we stuck with this system?

Is it because of the same constitution which is being ignored?

Why do only some get to ignore it while others are bound by it?

Why shouldn't we burn such a useless constitution and dismantle the useless system it protects?

Yes. We're stuck with the system. It's going to change, but the evolution of change will be more entropic than ordinal. And then it will follow the pattern of rise and fall of nations. Individuals are smart enough to stop it. But a society of individuals can't act as one. There's always another side, sometimes weaker, sometimes stronger.

 

[JTScribe]

Look at the top of his FB page. He clearly states that that page is only for disseminating information. They will delete all of your comments and from what I've seen, it will happen in a timely manner. I wouldn't waste the effort to post there. His email address is prominently posted so folks can tell him directly how you feel.

Which is, IMO, bullcrap. He claims it's so people don't jump on the people who's DUI pictures they post, but he obviously wants no feedback from the public.

 

[brotherbill3]

I'm also left wondering how influential potential lost revenue from the LTCH process was in LEO organizations' opposition to HB 1159. But you won't find that in their official position statement.

My understanding is there was a plan to replace this ... spread across the 4+ million Hoosier adults - this is a $1.25 to $1.50 a year.

 

[foszoe]

No. I usually get their stuff on my feed. I guess I just missed it. Frankly, I don't know about you but I'm kind of worn out with all the hysteria of Trump's cabinet nominees and the nit-picking of every syllable he utters and perceived warts on his nominees. That's why I've pretty much dropped out of those threads.

Not saying this is you...but your post struck a chord I was thinking about this morning. How long will Republicans deal with threats to themselves, their families, and their property?

I am getting sick of all the protests and they aren't even directly threatening me however, all the trump supporters in general seem to be staying home and aren't really as vocal as they were prior to the election.

i wonder how much the talk about Republicans already backing down on some issues is being accomplished by the left with the silent majority again going silent.

 

[foszoe]

I should have kept up better with this and contacted my sheriff. He usually responds fairly quickly to stuff.

 

[KellyinAvon]

My understanding is there was a plan to replace this ... spread across the 4+ million Hoosier adults - this is a $1.25 to $1.50 a year.

The workload associated with processing LTCHs will decrease significantly. The manning positions supporting the workload will no longer be needed. People will move into other positions or leave State employment, in couple years everything re-balances. When the USAF retired the F-4 fleet the associated manpower didn't just hang around as F-4 types. They retrained into other weapons systems, other specialties, some retired, some got out, etc. Something tells me there's a lot of LTCH funding not being used for LTCH-specific work.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm also left wondering how influential potential lost revenue from the LTCH process was in LEO organizations' opposition to HB 1159. But you won't find that in their official position statement.

My sheriff pretty much told me he completely supported the idea of CC....BUT...what about my department's money?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Um. Dude. Did you just get into my head? I was just going to right something astonishingly similar.

Hey...uhhhh...don't forget to pick up the milk on your way home this afternoon.

 

[brotherbill3]

Dang it - Sheriff Myers to down the letter from ISA ... Can't seem to find it. ... any one screen capture or copy to text?jk

Thanks ... I've been swamped. (yeah really) ....

 

[JTScribe]

Dang it - Sheriff Myers to down the letter from ISA ... Can't seem to find it. ... any one screen capture or copy to text?jk

Thanks ... I've been swamped. (yeah really) ....

Interesting. Wonder if they didn't like all the angry likes they were getting.

 

[cbhausen]

Heh, BACKLASH!

 

[JTScribe]

I e-mailed the Sheriff. We'll see what they say.

Two questions regarding the ISA statement about proposed "Constitutional Carry" legislation.

1) The statement you shared seems to have been removed from your Facebook wall. If your page is intended to share information, why the removal of the statement?


2) The ISA has taken the position against 'Constitutional carry' on the basis that it will negatively impact investigations. Before coming to this conclusion, did the ISA seek out any information from any law enforcement agencies of the 13 states that have similar laws? Given that it's a trend that's spreading nationwide, the ISA's concerns seem a bit overstated.


Thanks,
Daniel Humphreys
Columbus

 

[tbhausen]

tl; dr:

Since infringement of the Second Amendment is commonplace, we support it because it makes our jobs easier.

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

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Dang it - Sheriff Myers to down the letter from ISA ... Can't seem to find it. ... any one screen capture or copy to text?jk

Thanks ... I've been swamped. (yeah really) ....

I've got a partial screen shot. I can't even find Jim Lucas' thread about on his FB page either. Of course my internet connection at home is so pitiful that maybe I'm just missing it.