Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[KellyinAvon]

Thing is, it's not. Even Kentucky is getting it done....KENTUCKY!

Kentucky's beating Indiana again...

On behalf of the great state of Indiana, I am embarrassed.

 

[brotherbill3]

On behalf of the great state of Indiana, I am embarrassed.

As noted somewhere else - KY is already No Permit to OC ... and without a Lifetime ... it is probably easier to argue.

Also - does anyone know how long they have been pursuing it?

 

[WestSider]

There are reasons why some in law enforcement are not a huge fan of this.
I'm not trying to start an argument. I think the card is silly, but that system is in place for a reason and taking it away will have a potentially substantial ripple effect.

 

[WestSider]

I'm just concerned because a full criminal history would have to be run on someone to check their status.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As noted somewhere else - KY is already No Permit to OC ... and without a Lifetime ... it is probably easier to argue.

Also - does anyone know how long they have been pursuing it?

I think that was Bunnykid and I over on FB.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There are reasons why some in law enforcement are not a huge fan of this.
I'm not trying to start an argument. I think the card is silly, but that system is in place for a reason and taking it away will have a potentially substantial ripple effect.

We can talk about the reason for the UFA now? I thought that was forbidden?

Well, now that the safety pins are out, that system exists because of the influence of the Klu Klux Klan in Indiana. The UFA was the last cheer that the Klan had left in Indiana.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I will attempt to explain why I have some concerns from a LE standpoint. Right now if a police officer wants to check if someone is supposed to be in possession of a firearm, all they have to do is run a 30 second BMV/IDACS inquiry on their laptop on the individual. ISP information comes across and either a yes or no for LTCH. So the card isn't needed at all for this. However, if we do away with that whole system now we are saying an officer has to run a full criminal history on the person.

At least in our county, that can NOT be done by an officer remotely, has to be called in and run by dispatch, which takes a LOT more time and ties up a dispatcher while they sift through the return and check for convictions. Not a good thing to pile on to the dispatchers, and also creates the possibly for clerical error.

I'm fully in line with the viewpoint that the card is silly, but the background check required to get the card is the important thing. I hate that the thing is so expensive but I hope we can all agree that there are plenty of people in our communities that we do not want having or carrying firearms and we want LE to be able to easily make sure that doesn't happen. I guess my fear is that this would embolden folks with criminal histories to carry a gun thinking that cops are going to be too lazy to run a full criminal history on everyone they suspect might be carrying a firearm illegally.

Just some thoughts. Am I missing something?

1. Handgun. It is a license to carry a handgun, not a firearm. The license to carry is required for some handguns. The license is not required to carry certain handguns.

2. Why are you running "inquiries"? Especially given the implications of Pinner, why does the handgun matter at all?

3. Why would the officer have to run a full criminal history?

4. Why would dispatchers care if someone is not committing a crime by carrying a handgun? How is obeying the law grounds to run full criminal histories?

5. The card is silly and constitutes a prior restraint on a civil right. It is illegal.

6. How does a pink card prevent criminals from carrying handguns?

7. Why are we deliberately confusing handguns for "firearms"?

 

[WestSider]

1. Handgun. It is a license to carry a handgun, not a firearm. The license to carry is required for some handguns. The license is not required to carry certain handguns.

2. Why are you running "inquiries"? Especially given the implications of Pinner, why does the handgun matter at all?

3. Why would the officer have to run a full criminal history?

4. Why would dispatchers care if someone is not committing a crime by carrying a handgun? How is obeying the law grounds to run full criminal histories?

5. The card is silly and constitutes a prior restraint on a civil right. It is illegal.

6. How does a pink card prevent criminals from carrying handguns?

7. Why are we deliberately confusing handguns for "firearms"?

Well I do see your points. I'm actually in agreement with this. I know I said "firearms" and I meant "handgun" I'm not deliberately confusing things, I'm just trying to shed some light on the issue. In some areas as you probably know there are issues with criminals carrying guns.

A police officer doesn't typically need to check this unless maybe some other crime has been committed. As long as it doesn't inhibit law enforcement in any way I'm all for tossing the card and system out, as I said I think it's silly too.

 

[WestSider]

I guess my point is that if the status (thumbs up / thumbs down) isn't part of the normal inquiry run by an officer on a contact with a citizen, in my opinion more people who are convicted felons will carry handguns because they won't ever get flagged for it. This is just my personal opinion. If that is something we need to accept, so be it i guess..

 

[Trigger Time]

They had to be heavy as hard
There was a black one in my Gramma's basement we used to play with.

New Sig line!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well I do see your points. I'm actually in agreement with this. I know I said "firearms" and I meant "handgun" I'm not deliberately confusing things, I'm just trying to shed some light on the issue. In some areas as you probably know there are issues with criminals carrying guns.

A police officer doesn't typically need to check this unless maybe some other crime has been committed. As long as it doesn't inhibit law enforcement in any way I'm all for tossing the card and system out, as I said I think it's silly too.

If criminals are carrying handguns, then arrest then for their crime for which you have probable cause.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I guess my point is that if the status (thumbs up / thumbs down) isn't part of the normal inquiry run by an officer on a contact with a citizen, in my opinion more people who are convicted felons will carry handguns because they won't ever get flagged for it. This is just my personal opinion. If that is something we need to accept, so be it i guess..

Assuming no LTCH, Indiana law does not prohibit all convicted felons from carrying handguns.

 

[K_W]

I guess my point is that if the status (thumbs up / thumbs down) isn't part of the normal inquiry run by an officer on a contact with a citizen, in my opinion more people who are convicted felons will carry handguns because they won't ever get flagged for it. This is just my personal opinion. If that is something we need to accept, so be it i guess..

There are those who believe those too dangerous to have a firearm should not be among us to begin with.

I reject your defense of Indiana's practice of subjecting the law abiding populace to an infringement of their natural right, making it instead a privilege subject to police approval and possession of a wafer of plastic.

 

[WestSider]

Assuming no LTCH, Indiana law does not prohibit all convicted felons from carrying handguns.

I know, that's the point though..right now it's an automatic green light / red light based on that status of the card, not the possession of the card itself. I'm on your side on this, I just think there are people out there who we all don't want carrying handguns and if we clip away the ability for the police to detect these instances then we have to live with the results which will likely be those people will feel completely free to continue to carry them.

Are you of the opinion that everyone in the state of Indiana should be legally allowed to carry a handgun, regardless of their past criminal history?

 

[WestSider]

There are those who believe those too dangerous to have a firearm should not be among us to begin with.

I reject your defense of Indiana's practice of subjecting the law abiding populace to an infringement of their natural right, making it instead a privilege subject to police approval and possession of a wafer of plastic.

You are completely wrong on both points. It's not subject to the police officer's approval on the scene of the contact nor the possession of a piece of plastic. The systemic return is based on the status of the piece of plastic, not the possession of it, that has already been changed (thankfully). The police don't have the ability to walk up to someone and decide whether they should be carrying a handgun or not. That is based on their criminal history. I'm talking about the method of obtaining that information.

 

[K_W]

You are completely wrong on both points. It's not subject to the police officer's approval on the scene of the contact nor the possession of a piece of plastic. The systemic return is based on the status of the piece of plastic, not the possession of it, that has already been changed (thankfully). The police don't have the ability to walk up to someone and decide whether they should be carrying a handgun or not. That is based on their criminal history. I'm talking about the method of obtaining that information.

You read a bit too literally... physical possession is not required, but he still must "possess" the license after having obtained it through a petition to and blessing of the State government.

Respectfully sir, as to simple possession of a firearm, that was intended to be a protected natural right by our founders. It SHOULD BE none of your business if someone has a firearm in public and is not otherwise engaged in criminal or dangerous activity.

 

[WestSider]

You read a bit too literally... physical possession is not required, but he still must "possess" the license after having obtained it through a petition to and blessing of the State government.

..which is based on a background check which would reveal any prior convictions barring someone from carrying a handgun. Look I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just saying we can't have it both ways. The 2nd amendment doesn't have a stipulation barring certain people from carrying handguns, so by your logic no matter what prior convictions someone has, you feel they should be OK to carry a handgun, correct? I just want to be clear that this is your position.. Even if someone has multiple violent felony convictions you are OK with them legally carrying a handgun in your state.

 

[K_W]

Look I'm not trying to be argumentative...

I just want to be clear that this is your position.. Even if someone has multiple violent felony convictions you are OK with them legally carrying a handgun in your state.

I understand your intent in challenging my stance.

No, as I said above. Virtually nobody would. I am saying if they are that dangerous they should still be caged.

You act as if there is no way you as an officer of the law could know someones criminal history when you are in "contact".

 

[jamil]

We can talk about the reason for the UFA now? I thought that was forbidden?

Well, now that the safety pins are out, that system exists because of the influence of the Klu Klux Klan in Indiana. The UFA was the last cheer that the Klan had left in Indiana.

What is UFA?

 

[WestSider]

I understand your intent in challenging my stance.

No, as I said above. Virtually nobody would. I am saying if they are that dangerous they should still be caged.

Agree completely, you have my vote on that as well as probably every law enforcement officer in the country! However, if this were the case we wouldn't need police at all because all violent people would already be locked up and not out on the street. Believe it or not, police are actually out there to detect and prevent crime, not harass law abiding citizens.

You act as if there is no way you as an officer of the law could know someones criminal history when you are in "contact".

That is exactly what I am saying.. How exactly do you think an officer would know someone's criminal history just by talking to them unless they had personal prior experience with them? Just to be clear here I'm talking about a lawful contact with a person, I am not suggesting at all that police have the right to go around demanding to see everyone's LTCH. Heck I wouldn't want that, but if I'm in a situation where the police have a lawful reason to ID me I have no problem with them being able to see whether I am a proper person to be carrying a handgun or not.

.