Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[sidewinder27]

I got this from Sheriff Brett Clark of Hendricks County
Thanks for reaching out. The question here is about carrying without a license out in the community. There is no rule requiring a person to have a carry permit to purchase a firearm, to have a gun at their home to defend themselves, or to use a gun for hunting or sport. Responsible gun owners have a tremendous amount of freedom, choices, and privacy. The permit process is well established and is a reasonable way for us to try and keep hand guns away from convicted felons, persons suffering from mental illness, or domestic batterers. It also allows for safe reciprocal carry in other states. Contrary to what most people might think, we don't have any ability to determine if someone is a convicted felon simply by checking their ID. Criminal history records are proprietary and take a specific reason to access. We all enjoy many freedoms in our country and I very much respect and support the 2nd amendment like most all members of my profession, but there are reasonable restrictions in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. It is important to remember that although we have absolute rights guaranteed by our constitution, those rights can be regulated. We can say what we want but a person can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can worship where and how we please but no church generally can sacrifice animals for instance. I have openly expressed strong support for the rights of gun owners, attended many NRA events, and will always support our right to carry but I do not support this particular bill. I think that if you dig deeper here you will find that the majority of law enforcement groups do not. It is my understanding that this may get pushed out to a summer study committee to look at this issue further. Perhaps with some additional review they can come up with something that will work for our state that is both well thought out and respectful of our rights. Respectfully,Brett Clark

 

[cbhausen]

Brett Clark (R):

Election Results ? Hendricks County | RTV6 TheIndyChannel.com

He's up for re-election in 2018 and term-limited if he prevails.

 

[sidewinder27]

If memory serves me correct this is the second time Brett Clarke has come out against the 2nd. The first one that comes to memory was a few years ago when he made the comment to the news media that the legality of property owners shooting on their land needs to be looked at by the county board.

 

[Trigger Time]

I got this from Sheriff Brett Clark of Hendricks County
Thanks for reaching out. The question here is about carrying without a license out in the community. There is no rule requiring a person to have a carry permit to purchase a firearm, to have a gun at their home to defend themselves, or to use a gun for hunting or sport. Responsible gun owners have a tremendous amount of freedom, choices, and privacy. The permit process is well established and is a reasonable way for us to try and keep hand guns away from convicted felons, persons suffering from mental illness, or domestic batterers. It also allows for safe reciprocal carry in other states. Contrary to what most people might think, we don't have any ability to determine if someone is a convicted felon simply by checking their ID. Criminal history records are proprietary and take a specific reason to access. We all enjoy many freedoms in our country and I very much respect and support the 2nd amendment like most all members of my profession, but there are reasonable restrictions in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. It is important to remember that although we have absolute rights guaranteed by our constitution, those rights can be regulated. We can say what we want but a person can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can worship where and how we please but no church generally can sacrifice animals for instance. I have openly expressed strong support for the rights of gun owners, attended many NRA events, and will always support our right to carry but I do not support this particular bill. I think that if you dig deeper here you will find that the majority of law enforcement groups do not. It is my understanding that this may get pushed out to a summer study committee to look at this issue further. Perhaps with some additional review they can come up with something that will work for our state that is both well thought out and respectful of our rights. Respectfully,Brett Clark

he just digs the hole deeper. Vote him out! And if I were the NRA I'd tell him he isn't welcome at anymore events

 

[sidewinder27]

he just digs the hole deeper. Vote him out! And if I were the NRA I'd tell him he isn't welcome at anymore events

This was my response. As a law abiding citizen I can carry a pre 1899 black powder pistol or even a AR15 without a LTCH or any nonexistent permit and there is not much your department can do. So please tell me what the difference is it when it comes to carrying a modern semi-auto or revolver pistol? The current HB1159 does not allow a person that is currently counted as a restricted person from carrying a firearm. They will still not be able to attempt to buy a firearm. They will not be able to hunt or be in the possession of a firearm. So nothing changes. Even with the current LTCH model there is no guarantee that a person presenting the LTCH hasn't been convicted of a felony or something that would otherwise restrict their right to own or possess a firearm. Especially with the "lifetime license". In fact an officer couldn't stop a person just because they have a firearm on their persons so you still wouldn't be able to determine if they were a convicted felon. Under HB1159 the current LTCH would still be available so that we could lawfully carry out of state as we can now.Also no other right that was bestowed upon us by our Creator has the words "shall not be infringed" in it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

None of these negatively impact investigations, Kirk, as you know. The reason, or at least *A* reason they don't is because of the monies generated by the LTCH fees. The trick is going to be to get politicians to admit that in writing.

Blessings,
Bill

►If carrying handguns without a license negatively impacts investigations, what issues have Sheriff had with Hoosiers carrying blackpowder handguns or handguns manufactured before January 1, 1899 which do not require licenses?

►If carrying handguns without a license negatively impacts investigations, what issues have Sheriffs had with Hoosiers carrying long guns which do not require a license?

►If carrying handguns without a license negatively impacts investigations, what issues have Conservation Officers from the IDNR had in investigation game law violations of individuals carrying long guns which do not need a license to be carried? How about IDNR and handguns, any problems with unlicensed individuals with handguns carried to hunt deer?

 

[chipbennett]

I got this from Sheriff Brett Clark of Hendricks County
Thanks for reaching out. The question here is about carrying without a license out in the community. There is no rule requiring a person to have a carry permit to purchase a firearm, to have a gun at their home to defend themselves, or to use a gun for hunting or sport. Responsible gun owners have a tremendous amount of freedom, choices, and privacy. The permit process is well established and is a reasonable way for us to try and keep hand guns away from convicted felons, persons suffering from mental illness, or domestic batterers. It also allows for safe reciprocal carry in other states. Contrary to what most people might think, we don't have any ability to determine if someone is a convicted felon simply by checking their ID. Criminal history records are proprietary and take a specific reason to access. We all enjoy many freedoms in our country and I very much respect and support the 2nd amendment like most all members of my profession, but there are reasonable restrictions in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. It is important to remember that although we have absolute rights guaranteed by our constitution, those rights can be regulated. We can say what we want but a person can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can worship where and how we please but no church generally can sacrifice animals for instance. I have openly expressed strong support for the rights of gun owners, attended many NRA events, and will always support our right to carry but I do not support this particular bill. I think that if you dig deeper here you will find that the majority of law enforcement groups do not. It is my understanding that this may get pushed out to a summer study committee to look at this issue further. Perhaps with some additional review they can come up with something that will work for our state that is both well thought out and respectful of our rights. Respectfully,Brett Clark

Sounds like I need to have a discussion with my sheriff, as well. His talking points come directly from Matt Myers, and are easily refuted.

And I will make clear that his unconditional support of the second amendment is the determining factor in my support of his reelection - or in my efforts to see him ousted in 2018.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I got this from Sheriff Brett Clark of Hendricks County
Thanks for reaching out. The question here is about carrying without a license out in the community. There is no rule requiring a person to have a carry permit to purchase a firearm, to have a gun at their home to defend themselves, or to use a gun for hunting or sport. Responsible gun owners have a tremendous amount of freedom, choices, and privacy. The permit process is well established and is a reasonable way for us to try and keep hand guns away from convicted felons, persons suffering from mental illness, or domestic batterers. It also allows for safe reciprocal carry in other states. Contrary to what most people might think, we don't have any ability to determine if someone is a convicted felon simply by checking their ID. Criminal history records are proprietary and take a specific reason to access. We all enjoy many freedoms in our country and I very much respect and support the 2nd amendment like most all members of my profession, but there are reasonable restrictions in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. It is important to remember that although we have absolute rights guaranteed by our constitution, those rights can be regulated. We can say what we want but a person can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can worship where and how we please but no church generally can sacrifice animals for instance. I have openly expressed strong support for the rights of gun owners, attended many NRA events, and will always support our right to carry but I do not support this particular bill. I think that if you dig deeper here you will find that the majority of law enforcement groups do not. It is my understanding that this may get pushed out to a summer study committee to look at this issue further. Perhaps with some additional review they can come up with something that will work for our state that is both well thought out and respectful of our rights. Respectfully,Brett Clark

I have reviewed the Hendricks County Sheriff's remarks and have the following comments in italics and bold


Thanks for reaching out.
The question here is about carrying without a license out in the community. Yes, “bearing” arms as in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana State Constitution.
There is no rule requiring a person to have a carry permit to purchase a firearm, to have a gun at their home to defend themselves, or to use a gun for hunting or sport. Hermits and Fudds are good to go.
Responsible gun owners have a tremendous amount of freedom, choices, and privacy. Freedom compared to everyone else? Choices? Of what, Glock or S&W? Privacy? You mean like the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment? I think that applies to everyone.
The permit process is well established and is a reasonable way for us to try and keep hand guns away from convicted felons, persons suffering from mental illness, or domestic batterers. It’s a License (To Carry a Handgun) and all those people are prohibited from possessing ANY firearm.
It also allows for safe reciprocal carry in other states. Safe? I think you mean LAWFUL. We also get to learn all the different nuances of all the gun laws in all the states we enter.
Contrary to what most people might think, we don't have any ability to determine if someone is a convicted felon simply by checking their ID. Incident to arrest? Probable cause?
Criminal history records are proprietary and take a specific reason to access. Again, Incident to arrest? Probable cause?
We all enjoy many freedoms in our country and I very much respect and support the 2nd amendment like most all members of my profession, Fudd statement followed by the word BUT
but there are reasonable restrictions in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. Such as prohibited possessors, school zones, school buses, school property, court houses, the State Fair.
It is important to remember that although we have absolute rights guaranteed by our constitution, those rights can be regulated. Such as requiring licensing which has led to Police Departments receiving an estimated $30 million in the past 4 years.
We can say what we want but a person can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Non sequitur. I’m pretty sure I can’t show up naked either.
We can worship where and how we please but no church generally can sacrifice animals for instance. Don’t tell me how to worship the Lord. 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment much?
I have openly expressed strong support for the rights of gun owners, attended many NRA events, and will always support our right to carry Fudd statement followed by the word BUT

but I do not support this particular bill. My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.
I think that if you dig deeper here you will find that the majority of law enforcement groups do not. Follow the money…
It is my understanding that this may get pushed out to a summer study committee to look at this issue further. Perhaps with some additional review they can come up with something that will work for our state that is both well thought out and respectful of our rights. Representative Lucas offered to meet you anywhere, anytime. If you ask nice he’ll read you the bill in its entirety.

Respectfully,Brett Clark

 

[MCgrease08]

he just digs the hole deeper. Vote him out! And if I were the NRA I'd tell him he isn't welcome at anymore events

Sounds like I need to have a discussion with my sheriff, as well. His talking points come directly from Matt Myers, and are easily refuted.

And I will make clear that his unconditional support of the second amendment is the determining factor in my support of his reelection - or in my efforts to see him ousted in 2018.

His argument is essentially, 'that pesky fourth ammendment prevents us from looking up the criminal history of every person we encounter. We're OK with restricking the Second Amendment because it makes us feel better.'

Just having a licensing process in place certainly doesn't mean everyone who carries a gun is a proper person. I'm sure our IMPD members know this. Nothing changes with Constitutional Carry.

 

[cbhausen]

Back to the 15-minute conversation...

Sheriff Clark was cordial and polite and quite willing to talk. He only sounded intimidating one or two times when he was really trying to stress a point he was making. Yes, most of what he said was right out of the written statement up thread. But there were a couple of things that stood out. I'll give them each the paragraph they deserve.

Sheriff Clark had a basic problem with the term "Constitutional Carry". He told me so point-blank. He said the term politicizes the issue and we (us common folk) already carry Constitutionally. Sheriff Clark lamented the fact the issue was not called "permitless or unlicensed carry" because to him, it was more descriptive.

Sheriff Clark simply could not separate the notion of Constitutional Carry from the act of procuring and legally possessing a handgun. He indicated several times in our conversation he thought Constitutional Carry would result in more guns, hence more danger for his deputies, on the street.

At lease three times he went back to the increased difficulty thing, how Constitutional Carry would hamper his deputies' ability to investigate MWAG, know who is armed at traffic stops, etc. I told him if they get a MWAG call and nobody is doing anything unlawful LEO's should leave us alone. I asked him if he could cite any instances where Constitutional Carry had led to any of the concerns he voiced becoming a reality. He could not; he simply reiterated the perception of decreased officer safety and hampered investigations. He even said the "permit" helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals," I kid you not.

I actually laughed at him regarding the animal sacrifice analogy. I couldn't help myself, it was just so ludicrous hearing him say that without having read it first in their talking points. Kinda pissed him off for a minute.

He did mention the lost revenue, saying there was no way to replace it and actually telling me his deputies would suffer gear-wise as a result. He even asked me what would pay for their guns and vests without the revenue. He also said the State would lose $9 million/year if Constitutional Carry went into law. It was as if some bean counters had determined nobody would apply for Indiana LTCH if HB 1159 passed, which is again, ludicrous.

As for the summer study, he said he supported the idea and hoped "...it would lead to some compromise, like a training requirement..." No bull, that's what he said.

The man seemed to have a genuine disdain for the notion of Constitutional Carry in general and Rep. Lucas in particular. His mind is make up, folks. This particular Indiana Sheriff will, in my opinion, never support Constitutional Carry in our state. And he made it clear most of Indiana's LEO organizations stand united against Constitutional Carry.

Oh, and I asked him if he was concerned someone might run against him based on this issue when he's up for election. He was adamant in stating he doesn't let politics get in the way of doing what he thinks is the right thing and opposing HB 1159 was the right thing to do. Again, I kid you not. If someone wants to run against him on the issue, go ahead he said.

Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but it is what it is. I always looked up to our County Sheriffs as heroes, a last line of defense between us and the Fed should the Fed get out of hand. But this is really depressing. When I picked up the phone to make the call I had no idea I'd get 15 minutes with my County Sheriff. I really didn't know what his position on the issue was and I was hoping he was one of the few on the right side of this issue. It's just so disappointing, and I told him so. I told him ISA (and other LEO Organizations') arguments rang hollow with me and so many other Hoosiers, unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact.

I never, ever thought HB 1159 would get torpedoed by LEO with anti-gun groups cheering them on. It's like a bad dream.

By the way, Indiana County Sheriffs are term-limited to (2) 4-year terms and Hendricks County Sheriff Clark is up for re-election in 2018. Also, I read 46 of 92 (that's HALF, folks) of Indiana's County Sheriffs are newly-elected and serving their first terms. I could not find a list with political party affiliations attached.

Oh, and early in the conversation he asked for my name after accusingly asking me if I was the person who just emailed him on Facebook (which I wasn't). I gave him my name, which he recognized. I figured they already had it from caller ID. Anyone think that'll lead to me getting hassled? I don't at this point.

 

[brotherbill3]

Back to the 15-minute conversation...

Sheriff Clark was cordial and polite and quite willing to talk. He only sounded intimidating one or two times when he was really trying to stress a point he was making. Yes, most of what he said was right out of the written statement up thread. But there were a couple of things that stood out. I'll give them each the paragraph they deserve.

Sheriff Clark had a basic problem with the term "Constitutional Carry". He told me so point-blank. He said the term politicizes the issue and we (us common folk) already carry Constitutionally. Sheriff Clark lamented the fact the issue was not called "permitless or unlicensed carry" because to him, it was more descriptive.

Sheriff Clark simply could not separate the notion of Constitutional Carry from the act of procuring and legally possessing a handgun. He indicated several times in our conversation he thought Constitutional Carry would result in more guns, hence more danger for his deputies, on the street.

At lease three times he went back to the increased difficulty thing, how Constitutional Carry would hamper his deputies' ability to investigate MWAG, know who is armed at traffic stops, etc. I told him if they get a MWAG call and nobody is doing anything unlawful LEO's should leave us alone. I asked him if he could cite any instances where Constitutional Carry had led to any of the concerns he voiced becoming a reality. He could not; he simply reiterated the perception of decreased officer safety and hampered investigations. He even said the "permit" helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals," I kid you not.

I actually laughed at him regarding the animal sacrifice analogy. I couldn't help myself, it was just so ludicrous hearing him say that without having read it first in their talking points. Kinda pissed him off for a minute.

He did mention the lost revenue, saying there was no way to replace it and actually telling me his deputies would suffer gear-wise as a result. He even asked me what would pay for their guns and vests without the revenue. He also said the State would lose $9 million/year if Constitutional Carry went into law. It was as if some bean counters had determined nobody would apply for Indiana LTCH if HB 1159 passed, which is again, ludicrous.

As for the summer study, he said he supported the idea and hoped "...it would lead to some compromise, like a training requirement..." No bull, that's what he said.

The man seemed to have a genuine disdain for the notion of Constitutional Carry in general and Rep. Lucas in particular. His mind is make up, folks. This particular Indiana Sheriff will, in my opinion, never support Constitutional Carry in our state. And he made it clear most of Indiana's LEO organizations stand united against Constitutional Carry.

Oh, and I asked him if he was concerned someone might run against him based on this issue when he's up for election. He was adamant in stating he doesn't let politics get in the way of doing what he thinks is the right thing and opposing HB 1159 was the right thing to do. Again, I kid you not. If someone wants to run against him on the issue, go ahead he said.

Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but it is what it is. I always looked up to our County Sheriffs as heroes, a last line of defense between us and the Fed should the Fed get out of hand. But this is really depressing. When I picked up the phone to make the call I had no idea I'd get 15 minutes with my County Sheriff. I really didn't know what his position on the issue was and I was hoping he was one of the few on the right side of this issue. It's just so disappointing, and I told him so. I told him ISA (and other LEO Organizations') arguments rang hollow with me and so many other Hoosiers, unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact.

I never, ever thought HB 1159 would get torpedoed by LEO with anti-gun groups cheering them on. It's like a bad dream.

By the way, Indiana County Sheriffs are term-limited to (2) 4-year terms and Hendricks County Sheriff Clark is up for re-election in 2018. Also, I read 46 of 92 (that's HALF, folks) of Indiana's County Sheriffs are newly-elected and serving their first terms. I could not find a list with political party affiliations attached.

Oh, and early in the conversation he asked for my name after accusingly asking me if I was the person who just emailed him on Facebook (which I wasn't). I gave him my name, which he recognized. I figured they already had it from caller ID. Anyone think that'll lead to me getting hassled? I don't at this point.

QFT

and since it mostly seems like "FOLLOW THE MONEY" - or "SHOW ME THE MONEY" ... I'll just say my discussion w/ legislators is that - THE MONEY is planned to be replaced.

Do you have the code / reference for the Sheriff Term Limits? - that is interesting too.

 

[cbhausen]

Article 6, Section 2 (c).

 

[brotherbill3]

 

[Bill of Rights]

Back to the 15-minute conversation...

Sheriff Clark was cordial and polite and quite willing to talk. He only sounded intimidating one or two times when he was really trying to stress a point he was making. Yes, most of what he said was right out of the written statement up thread. But there were a couple of things that stood out. I'll give them each the paragraph they deserve.

Sheriff Clark had a basic problem with the term "Constitutional Carry". He told me so point-blank. He said the term politicizes the issue and we (us common folk) already carry Constitutionally. Sheriff Clark lamented the fact the issue was not called "permitless or unlicensed carry" because to him, it was more descriptive.

Of course. Because he doesn't want to be against the Constitution... that he swore an oath to protect and defend.

Sheriff Clark simply could not separate the notion of Constitutional Carry from the act of procuring and legally possessing a handgun. He indicated several times in our conversation he thought Constitutional Carry would result in more guns, hence more danger for his deputies, on the street.

At lease three times he went back to the increased difficulty thing, how Constitutional Carry would hamper his deputies' ability to investigate MWAG, know who is armed at traffic stops, etc. I told him if they get a MWAG call and nobody is doing anything unlawful LEO's should leave us alone. I asked him if he could cite any instances where Constitutional Carry had led to any of the concerns he voiced becoming a reality. He could not; he simply reiterated the perception of decreased officer safety and hampered investigations. He even said the "permit" helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals," I kid you not.

Investigate MWAG? So now, if someone calls in a report of a "man with a laptop" or a "man with a tablet", does he send officers to investigate the crime of identity theft? After all, they COULD be... And the "permit" keeps guns out of the hands of criminals... exactly how? If that works, then licensing drivers prevents motor vehicle collisions and drunken driving, too, right?

I actually laughed at him regarding the animal sacrifice analogy. I couldn't help myself, it was just so ludicrous hearing him say that without having read it first in their talking points. Kinda pissed him off for a minute.

That's a quasi-fair analogy. You may practice your religion however you wish, up to the point that it causes demonstrable harm to someone or something else. Christians are no longer allowed to put on armor, take up their swords, and go on Crusades to kill Muslims, nor may accused witches be burned at the stake, either. However... the carry of a handgun on one's person in and of itself causes no harm to anyone.

He did mention the lost revenue, saying there was no way to replace it and actually telling me his deputies would suffer gear-wise as a result. He even asked me what would pay for their guns and vests without the revenue. He also said the State would lose $9 million/year if Constitutional Carry went into law. It was as if some bean counters had determined nobody would apply for Indiana LTCH if HB 1159 passed, which is again, ludicrous.

I can see that one, too, as a worst-case scenario. That's what bean counters and politicians do when assessing a measure, look to see what the worst is that can happen, and guard against that.

As for the summer study, he said he supported the idea and hoped "...it would lead to some compromise, like a training requirement..." No bull, that's what he said.

Right. Because his officers are mandated to have a specific course of training for the job they voluntarily took on, so we, the people, should have to do no less to perform the same action... never mind the fact that the requirements are almost diametric opposites. The officer will have to understand that his mere presence is a show of force, even though the old force continuum is no longer in use. The officer is expected to run toward the danger, while the citizen may, if he chooses, but is not required to. The citizen will not be expected to make an arrest, Barney Fife and Gomer Pyle notwithstanding. Having training available is fine, and yes, it should be encouraged. Required, however, is a bridge too far.

The man seemed to have a genuine disdain for the notion of Constitutional Carry in general and Rep. Lucas in particular. His mind is make up, folks. This particular Indiana Sheriff will, in my opinion, never support Constitutional Carry in our state. And he made it clear most of Indiana's LEO organizations stand united against Constitutional Carry.

They do so long as the money flows to them from the license applications.

Oh, and I asked him if he was concerned someone might run against him based on this issue when he's up for election. He was adamant in stating he doesn't let politics get in the way of doing what he thinks is the right thing and opposing HB 1159 was the right thing to do. Again, I kid you not. If someone wants to run against him on the issue, go ahead he said.

Bravado and braggadocio. At one point, I'd be surprised if Hillary didn't tell Trump, "Go ahead and run against me!"

Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but it is what it is. I always looked up to our County Sheriffs as heroes, a last line of defense between us and the Fed should the Fed get out of hand. But this is really depressing. When I picked up the phone to make the call I had no idea I'd get 15 minutes with my County Sheriff. I really didn't know what his position on the issue was and I was hoping he was one of the few on the right side of this issue. It's just so disappointing, and I told him so. I told him ISA (and other LEO Organizations') arguments rang hollow with me and so many other Hoosiers, unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact.

I never, ever thought HB 1159 would get torpedoed by LEO with anti-gun groups cheering them on. It's like a bad dream.

Some, I'm sure, are anti-gun rights for anyone who isn't carrying for the government, just as some citizens are likewise. They are, in the final analysis, human beings and have the same failings the rest of us do. This does not stop the appeal to authority argument, citing their badge as the be-all, end-all that they are the more/most knowledgeable people involved in the discussion, and the rest of us should accede to their wishes. It's what Kirk calls the Heckler's Veto. I am, more than ever, convinced, though, that the real reason the LEAs are standing against Constitutional Carry is the revenue stream.

By the way, Indiana County Sheriffs are term-limited to (2) 4-year terms and Hendricks County Sheriff Clark is up for re-election in 2018. Also, I read 46 of 92 (that's HALF, folks) of Indiana's County Sheriffs are newly-elected and serving their first terms. I could not find a list with political party affiliations attached.

Oh, and early in the conversation he asked for my name after accusingly asking me if I was the person who just emailed him on Facebook (which I wasn't). I gave him my name, which he recognized. I figured they already had it from caller ID. Anyone think that'll lead to me getting hassled? I don't at this point.

Just in case, your post is quoted here in its entirety, with my comments interspersed but clearly separated. If that does happen, I think I would look upon it as a financial opportunity. I would also ask my attorney to seek the reparations to be paid you be paid by the Sheriff *personally*, not from his department or county funds. Your fellow citizens did nothing to curtail your access to your rights.

Lest there be any doubt, when I spoke of LEOs in this post, I referred specifically to those who would use their governmentally-granted authority and police powers to place themselves in a position above the citizenry, superior to the rest of us. Officers, if that statement does not describe you, no offense is meant. If that statement does describe you, no amount of contempt is sufficient. "To protect and serve" used to be a motto. For some it still is. For others, it's a punchline. This particular sheriff sounds as if he is in the latter group, at least to me. I hope he finds other employment soon. Walmart might need some store security.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bb37]

Regarding voting out sheriffs...Keep in mind that many of Indiana's counties are strongly Republican. This means that the General Election (in November) is a slam-dunk for the Republican candidates on the ballot for county office. In order to get someone "voted out", you have to address the issue in the Primary Election (in May). This means getting active in the race early in the year and probably the year before for a major office like sheriff. Also, keep in mind that you may be going against the local county party committee if you favor a candidate that isn't supported by the committee.

In the case of Sheriff Brett Clark in Hendricks County, he ran in the Primary against Ty Van Wagner and Steve Wagner (not related). Clark got 65% of the vote, T.V. Wagner got 4%, and S. Wagner got 30%. In a three-way race, getting two-thirds of the vote is pretty impressive which might indicate that he will be hard to beat in 2018 should he choose to run.

In the 2014 General Election, Clark ran unopposed.

 

[T.Lex]

So...regardless of any data, what other states have done, any of that just "no".?. Well that's the sort of thing that gets an old boy UNelected.

As others asked - R or D for the sheriff ... it does matter to a point. ... or to a rounded nub - there isn't much of a point when it is only 6 of 92.

Summer Study? Who? what? Details ...

Had a chance to check out the hearing room as the meeting was starting. Talked to a lobbyist I know. Sounds like it'll go to a study commission to assess what impact Const. Carry would have.

This is when the real politicking will happen. We need to know when the meetings are, who to talk to, how to influence the people studying the issue.

Once we find out who they will be, we need to be friendly to them. Invite them into the world of carrying.

Confront local sheriffs, maybe, but these legislators and legislative assistants need to be befriended.

 

[Trigger Time]

Regarding voting out sheriffs...Keep in mind that many of Indiana's counties are strongly Republican. This means that the General Election (in November) is a slam-dunk for the Republican candidates on the ballot for county office. In order to get someone "voted out", you have to address the issue in the Primary Election (in May). This means getting active in the race early in the year and probably the year before for a major office like sheriff. Also, keep in mind that you may be going against the local county party committee if you favor a candidate that isn't supported by the committee.

In the case of Sheriff Brett Clark in Hendricks County, he ran in the Primary against Ty Van Wagner and Steve Wagner (not related). Clark got 65% of the vote, T.V. Wagner got 4%, and S. Wagner got 30%. In a three-way race, getting two-thirds of the vote is pretty impressive which might indicate that he will be hard to beat in 2018 should he choose to run.

In the 2014 General Election, Clark ran unopposed.

everyone is vulnerable. If the party takes a side in the primaries they are playing dirty so that means the gloves are off. He can be beat just like everyone else. NRA needs to give all of these sherriffs an F rating. That will make a difference in rural counties. Time to lobby the NRA!

 

[brotherbill3]

OK - SUMMER STUDY on CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY was JUST AMENDED to HB 1071 (7 R for - 4 D opposed) and then PASSED (8 R for 4 D opposed) the committee.

WE are in NEW TERRITORY - now we have ALL SUMMER to work to change perceptions and public opinion.

FIRST - though - WE NEED TO GET HB 1071 to PASS both CHAMBERS ...

 

[Trigger Time]

OK - SUMMER STUDY on CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY was JUST AMENDED to HB 1071 (7 R for - 4 D opposed) and then PASSED (8 R for 4 D opposed) the committee.

WE are in NEW TERRITORY - now we have ALL SUMMER to work to change perceptions and public opinion.

FIRST - though - WE NEED TO GET HB 1071 to PASS both CHAMBERS ...

so help me understand. Did the constitutional carry bill get rolled into 1071 as an amendment?

 

[jamil]

My great grandma said the same thing about telephones back in 1895.

I suppose if my dislike for Facebook were the same sort of technophobia you're alluding to, I think I would need to spend some time introspecting. But that's not the case. I make my living off technology.

I think generally social media has had an overall negative effect on society, unlike telephony. Facebook in particular. But it's not lost on me how the world works now and the impact social media has in people's lives. But, not doing Facebook is not the equivalent of your great grandmother not doing telephones. I don't reject social media altogether--I do some social media, like INGO, linked-in, twitter (limited mostly to retweets and following newsmakers), and other forms of social media. I just don't care to do Facebook.