Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Kirk Freeman]

Let's say I'm a convicted felon. Let's say I'm pulled over for a burned out license plate bulb. Let's say I'm carrying a handgun at the time I'm pulled over. Officer runs my drivers license and registration. Will the DL check reveal that I'm a convicted felon? Should it? I'm not talking the entire record, but just a "yes" or "no".

Don't know, don't care.

The existence of the LTCH has absolutely no bearing on whether criminals carry guns. Separate, non-touching circles in the Venn diagram.

 

[cbhausen]

Bill I was waiting for you to show up
Thanks for the good dialogue and question. I guess in my mind the officer has no reason or incentive to keep Bruiser from carrying a firearm. I think the distinction I have been trying to make is that it is not up to the individual officer on a contact to decide if the person should or should not have a handgun. I don't believe personally that should ever be the officer's job, absent the gun being actually used in the commission of a crime. The decision of whether they should be in possession of a handgun has already made for them based on the actions and conduct of the person (IE qualifying convictions causing their LTCH to be revoked). Now, on a normal traffic stop as you have said the officer, absent any other reasonable suspicion, would have no reason to even ask the person if they had any firearms in the vehicle. However, if there were other factors involved and further investigation revealed criminal activity in which a handgun was found, I personally then find it completely reasonable for the officer, through the normal inquiries, to validate that individual is a proper person to be carrying a handgun.

As for the other states argument, you are right in that I have no data to back up my prediction yet. I am just trying to look at it from the criminal's viewpoint. Let's toss the LTCH and background check system out the window. Now I can carry a gun without the officer (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) knowing whether I should have it or not, even if I'm stopped for a legitimate reason. I cannot imagine this not emboldening some bad element of our society to feel a newfound sense of freedom from the restrictions which were put in place to protect us. That is my only point. I'm all about 2A but I do believe there are some people that we absolutely do not want carrying guns around because of their past history.

CBHAUSEN just stated he thinks when someone is released from prison they have paid their debt and should be given a completely clean slate regardless of the significance or nature of the crimes. I respectfully disagree.

Let me say this again, I have absolutely no resistance to ditching the card system.. I paid for the 4 year licenses for years and then the lifetime when it became available and i hate it. But understand that part of the money for that card is going to making sure we at least make a good faith attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

If we can do both (get rid of the card and not hamper law enforcement), I'm all for it.

I did propose a cooling-off period as a possibility. No law prohibiting possession of firearms from anyone will prevent a determined person from recidivist acts.

 

[2A_Tom]

Rhetorical question...have there ever been, to the best of your knowledge, any instances of law enforcement detaining, questioning, harassing citizens who were carrying lawfully, simply because they were carrying?

.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...5185-luke-gas-station.html?highlight=luke+oil

Exactly. Just making note that simply because something isn`t against the law, that we may not bear hardship or harassment for exercising that right.

But, as previously stated it is currently illegal to carry a handgun in Indiana, thus the need for this law to pass.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...

States rights? 10th Amendment? I believe that the states have agreed that a driver's license is valid in all 50 states for purposes of interstate commerce (which the Federal government is permitted to regulate per the Constitution). Not sure what the argument is about the interstate validity of marriage licenses (I'm not entirely sure that we need marriage licenses...but we do need legal registration of marriages which the license provides).

True, I'd forgotten the compact between states re: DLs. The controversy about marriage licenses is best left to another thread. (There have been plenty.) As to registration of marriages, I suppose that's needed to provide for dissolutions of them, should that occur. I'll save my eyeroll and repetition of William Pitt's quote regarding necessity, other than to say that neither are at you, only at the inherent statism.

The issue here is whether or not permission to carry a handgun is a Federal issue or a state issue. And, that seems to be the core of the argument against Indiana's LTCH. Since carrying a handgun is a right granted by the 2A and is otherwise regulated by the Federal government, what, exactly, are the states accomplishing by further regulating it?

Why is carry of a handgun any kind of government issue? Well, other than at its origin, to keep "the wrong people" from carrying them. Also, as I'm surprised no others have pointed out in the ~2hrs since you posted, the 2A grants nothing. The Constitution only forbids the government from infringing upon that right, thus protecting the right. Except that just like a restraining order failing to protect an abused person from their abuser, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to protect anything, if people ignore it with impunity.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

As things currently stand in Indiana, if an officer checks the validity of your driver's license, a flag on the report indicates whether or not you are an LTCH holder. That's probably the fastest way for an officer to know.

And how, exactly, does that help said officer in that context? It tells the officer that the person is documented to be imminently law-abiding; but, beyond that? What if the LTCH flag is missing? How does the knowledge of an absence of an LTCH flag help an officer?

States rights? 10th Amendment?

The second amendment doesn't constrain only the federal government; it constrains all levels of government subordinate to the constitution. Thus, states do not have any authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that the states have agreed that a driver's license is valid in all 50 states for purposes of interstate commerce (which the Federal government is permitted to regulate per the Constitution). Not sure what the argument is about the interstate validity of marriage licenses (I'm not entirely sure that we need marriage licenses...but we do need legal registration of marriages which the license provides).

Now is an appropriate time to bring up Obergefell v Hodges...

The issue here is whether or not permission to carry a handgun is a Federal issue or a state issue.

That question was settled by the second amendment. Government does not have authority, at any level, to regulate or otherwise to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

And, that seems to be the core of the argument against Indiana's LTCH. Since carrying a handgun is a right granted by the 2A and is otherwise regulated by the Federal government, what, exactly, are the states accomplishing by further regulating it?

The constitution does not grant rights. Governments have no authority to grant rights. Rights are an endowment from our Creator. The constitution merely acknowledges the pre-existence of certain rights. The second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms; it does not grant that right.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The reminder of your story (well handled BTW!) and thoughts of others similar do make me wonder how many officers will continue to waste citizens' time when Constitutional carry does pass. I wonder how much money Mr. Relford and our other counselors-at-law will make teaching that lesson to various communities?

Still say it's a pity that the people of those communities are the ones paying the legal expenses, not the person committing the act causing the expense in the first place.

Blessings,
Bill

.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...5185-luke-gas-station.html?highlight=luke+oil



But, as previously stated it is currently illegal to carry a handgun in Indiana, thus the need for this law to pass.

 

[d.kaufman]

Just seen that Bosma and the Indiana republican committee both accepted money from Everytown for gunsafety. Bosma took $500 and the republican committee accepted $2000. Now if this group wasn't funded by Bloomberg and was actually for improving "gun safety", i wouldnt have a problem with this. Now if they were truly for our gun rights i think they should of declined these monies. Both were paid at end of last year

 

[brotherbill3]

Just gonna drop this here since I just heard it listening to Guy Relford on the Gun Guy radio show:

Many (perhaps Majority) of the Legislator Surveys (R side at least) were 80% opposed to Constitutional Carry.
This jibes will with when we were told (by another legislator that supports this issue) - that even in the BEST (conservative pro-gun) areas - this was at best 50-50 for-against.
This is largely attributed to misunderstanding and misinformation by the media.


Does this mean that we don't want legislators to support this? NO; but realistically - this poses a serious problem and obstacle.
Why would they push for something they perceive that far out of the public's desires or concerns?

and I note a large "in favor of" response to gas taxes, noting this ONLY for comparison - on the survey I just got back from my state senator.
I will add that these are obviously leading - carefully worded to shape the answers to the way they may want in many cases.

 

[bb37]

Why is carry of a handgun any kind of government issue? Well, other than at its origin, to keep "the wrong people" from carrying them. Also, as I'm surprised no others have pointed out in the ~2hrs since you posted, the 2A grants nothing. The Constitution only forbids the government from infringing upon that right, thus protecting the right.

Yeah, I goofed. Let me re-word it:

"Since carrying a handgun is a right that shall not be infringed, so sayeth the 2A, but is still regulated by the Federal government, what, exactly, are the states accomplishing by further regulating it?"

We have accepted, to one extent or another, that the Federal government regulates different aspects of firearms production, importation, commerce, and ownership. But, I'm not looking to argue that point. I'm trying, rather inelegantly, to direct the conversation towards "what do the states, specifically Indiana, gain from regulating firearms and how can we address the states', specifically Indiana's, concerns through legislative activism?".

 

[bb37]

And how, exactly, does that help said officer in that context? It tells the officer that the person is documented to be imminently law-abiding; but, beyond that? What if the LTCH flag is missing? How does the knowledge of an absence of an LTCH flag help an officer?

Ergo, having a program to issue licenses to carry handguns accomplishes nothing...so why have the program?

When the ISA says that we have to have an LTCH program for officer safety, your statement seems to be an appropriate response.

 

[ATM]

Perhaps we should all stop calling it "constitutional carry", which most either don't understand or purposefully use to misrepresent their opposition.

Let's break it down to what we actually mean: repeal the Indiana handgun carry prohibition!

Too many don't even consider it a prohibition since there are exemptions available to purchase.

 

[JTScribe]

Just gonna drop this here since I just heard it listening to Guy Relford on the Gun Guy radio show:

Many (perhaps Majority) of the Legislator Surveys (R side at least) were 80% opposed to Constitutional Carry.
This jibes will with when we were told (by another legislator that supports this issue) - that even in the BEST (conservative pro-gun) areas - this was at best 50-50 for-against.
This is largely attributed to misunderstanding and misinformation by the media.


Does this mean that we don't want legislators to support this? NO; but realistically - this poses a serious problem and obstacle.
Why would they push for something they perceive that far out of the public's desires or concerns?

and I note a large "in favor of" response to gas taxes, noting this ONLY for comparison - on the survey I just got back from my state senator.
I will add that these are obviously leading - carefully worded to shape the answers to the way they may want in many cases.

It was close on the "report card" my state rep sent out, but the question was worded very awkwardly, and a similar question about lawful persons being allowed to carry on university property, IIRC, was something like 60-30 pro.

 

[brotherbill3]

It was close on the "report card" my state rep sent out, but the question was worded very awkwardly, and a similar question about lawful persons being allowed to carry on university property, IIRC, was something like 60-30 pro.

My State Senator didn't have a 2A / A1.S32 question - so I left that note in my comments - My State Rep did, but I haven't see the results yet. (and Hers was poorly worded).

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just seen that Bosma and the Indiana republican committee both accepted money from Everytown for gunsafety. Bosma took $500 and the republican committee accepted $2000. Now if this group wasn't funded by Bloomberg and was actually for improving "gun safety", i wouldnt have a problem with this. Now if they were truly for our gun rights i think they should of declined these monies. Both were paid at end of last year

Ehhh.. Not necessarily. Ron Paul was given a donation by a group of "skinheads", a la Aryan Nation (I don't know and am not in the mood to look up if it was that specific group, but it doesn't much matter) He accepted the donation, but made clear that they would not have his ear because of it. In short, he said he was keeping it because their money spends just like everyone else's and if they gave it to him, they didn't have it to give to someone who might be inclined to listen to them and give them some part of what they wanted. In addition, $500 to an individual and $2000 to the whole caucus is nothing, a micro-drop in the bucket, to Bloomberg. He vowed to spend $50 million in the 2014 election, did so, and still only gained a very few positions, despite outspending the NRA's total donations personally. I've not looked, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he spent more than he spent on the GOP, maybe an order of magnitude more, on the Democratic caucus, in the hopes they would possibly take back one of the houses of the legislature, or even the Governor's mansion.

Yeah, I goofed. Let me re-word it:

"Since carrying a handgun is a right that shall not be infringed, so sayeth the 2A, but is still regulated by the Federal government, what, exactly, are the states accomplishing by further regulating it?"

We have accepted, to one extent or another, that the Federal government regulates different aspects of firearms production, importation, commerce, and ownership. But, I'm not looking to argue that point. I'm trying, rather inelegantly, to direct the conversation towards "what do the states, specifically Indiana, gain from regulating firearms and how can we address the states', specifically Indiana's, concerns through legislative activism?".

Fair question, and I didn't mean to come across as pedantic, I'm sorry if I did. We as a society might have accepted that federal encroachment upon territory they have no authority to enter, but some of us individually have not accepted that at all. (though I think it's fair to say no one is going to admit to violating those laws, if they do.) Be that as it may, that's not your point. As to why Indiana specifically, but the several states generally regulate what the fedgov also regulates, I don't know. We do it in re: firearms in the secure/"sterile" area of airports, we have done it in re: SBS and machine guns, and we do it in re: GFSZA, though not to the distance the fed extends to include. I'm sure there are other places as well, unrelated to firearms.

Perhaps the reasoning is that it is a revenue stream. That would make sense, as $125/license x 15% of the population licensed is one hell of a chunk of change. One method I suggested to Mr. Lucas recently was that Indiana could open the availability of the Lifetime LTCH/reciprocity license/whatever to those who live elsewhere, such as Utah, Arizona, and Florida do. There is no reason I can think of why we shouldn't cash in on that revenue that presently is paid only to those few states that offer non-resident licenses without strict limitation. My thought was that those funds would possibly replace or even exceed what we pay in each year. Now that I think about it more, it is possible we don't offer that for the same reason that our LTCH has for years not been accepted in lieu of a NICS check: ISP does not check federal records or those of other states, only someone's Indiana criminal history. Perhaps with fewer licenses to check, they could return to that practice, open it up to those living elsewhere, and replace or exceed the funds presently paid by us.

I have yet to receive an answer on this question from Rep. Lucas, however in fairness, he IS in the middle of the legislative session, my question/suggestion is of an appropriately very low priority, and he has many irons in the fire right now. It is my hope that he either has plans in place to include this suggestion or will see it from me and pass it along to Senators Messmer and Freeman, and remove LE concerns regarding funding.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

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

Kentucky's beating Indiana again...

I just googled the status of this in KY. SB7 was pulled from consideration in the Senate on Feb 22. It was amended on Feb 22 to conform to the house bill 316. I can't find anything that says it's been reintroduced. It's probably getting done more than Indiana's, but I don't know if I would say KY is getting it done.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Incidentally, it should be noted that HB 1071 passed with the support of some and the spite of others, not as we might imagine.

If your rep is Dvorak, Forestal, Goodin, Hatfield, Klinker, Macer, Moed, Moseley, J. Taylor, or Wright, you are represented by a Democrat who voted to pass HB 1071.

If your rep is Baird, Beumer, Gutwein, Olthoff, Saunders, Slager, or Ziemke, you are represented by a Republican who voted to NOT pass HB 1071.

Please let your representative know that you are aware of their vote and what your thoughts are regarding the same.

Aylesworth and Stemler were excused absent from the Chamber that day, but all other votes were along party lines.

Also, while you are writing, make certain you contact Senator Bray, who chairs the Senate Judiciary committee, and your own Senator as well, to let them both know if you support HB 1071, as written and would like to see Rep. Lucas' language from HB 1159 included as well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bb37]

Perhaps the reasoning is that it is a revenue stream. That would make sense, as $125/license x 15% of the population licensed is one hell of a chunk of change.

According to this report, there were 776,500 active Indiana LTCH's at the end of 2016. If all of them are lifetime licenses, and I suspect they aren't, then $125 x 776,500 = approx $97 million. But, if those are all lifetime licenses, that's a one-time, non-recurring payment. There were 661,364 licenses at the end of 2015, so that's a growth of approx 115,000 in a contentious election year. $125 x 115,000 is an annual revenue stream of approx $14 million assuming lifetime permits continue to be issued at a high rate. But, the state doesn't get all of that $125. $50 goes to the local jurisdiction. And, that right there, may be why the ISA does not support this legislation. The sheriffs know that it would hurt their local revenue streams.

So, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered by the entire populace of INGO, what about replacing the LTCH fee with a special firearms sales tax to be collected at retail?

OK. The "thank you sir, may I please have another" line from the hazing scene in Animal House comes to mind.

As for Rep. Lucas, I started following him on Facebook. He, along with just about every other state legislator, is getting hammered over the proposed new gasoline and vehicle excise taxes to help pay for highway maintenance and construction. Republicans proposing new taxes and Democrats fighting the proposal? Cats and dogs living together? We live in interesting times.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Incidentally, it should be noted that HB 1071 passed with the support of some and the spite of others, not as we might imagine.

If your rep is Dvorak, Forestal, Goodin, Hatfield, Klinker, Macer, Moed, Moseley, J. Taylor, or Wright, you are represented by a Democrat who voted to pass HB 1071.

If your rep is Baird, Beumer, Gutwein, Olthoff, Saunders, Slager, or Ziemke, you are represented by a Republican who voted to NOT pass HB 1071.

Please let your representative know that you are aware of their vote and what your thoughts are regarding the same.

Aylesworth and Stemler were excused absent from the Chamber that day, but all other votes were along party lines.

Also, while you are writing, make certain you contact Senator Bray, who chairs the Senate Judiciary committee, and your own Senator as well, to let them both know if you support HB 1071, as written and would like to see Rep. Lucas' language from HB 1159 included as well.

Blessings,
Bill

Not surprising with some of the Dems voting our way. Goodin has an NRA A+ grade. Macer, Wright, and Hatfield have A or AQ. Moed has an A, but I used to work with his ex-fiance so he'll only get F-'s from me.

 

[KellyinAvon]

According to this report, there were 776,500 active Indiana LTCH's at the end of 2016. If all of them are lifetime licenses, and I suspect they aren't, then $125 x 776,500 = approx $97 million. But, if those are all lifetime licenses, that's a one-time, non-recurring payment. There were 661,364 licenses at the end of 2015, so that's a growth of approx 115,000 in a contentious election year. $125 x 115,000 is an annual revenue stream of approx $14 million assuming lifetime permits continue to be issued at a high rate. But, the state doesn't get all of that $125. $50 goes to the local jurisdiction. And, that right there, may be why the ISA does not support this legislation. The sheriffs know that it would hurt their local revenue streams.

So, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered by the entire populace of INGO, what about replacing the LTCH fee with a special firearms sales tax to be collected at retail?

OK. The "thank you sir, may I please have another" line from the hazing scene in Animal House comes to mind.

As for Rep. Lucas, I started following him on Facebook. He, along with just about every other state legislator, is getting hammered over the proposed new gasoline and vehicle excise taxes to help pay for highway maintenance and construction. Republicans proposing new taxes and Democrats fighting the proposal? Cats and dogs living together? We live in interesting times.

Follow the money! I did an easy math version somewhere back a few pages and used $100 X difference between active LTCHs in 2013 and now. I got just over $30M doing it that way. From the info Cbausen got out of the soon to be ex-Sheriff of Hendricks County I was about $6M low.

 

[Bill of Rights]

According to this report, there were 776,500 active Indiana LTCH's at the end of 2016. If all of them are lifetime licenses, and I suspect they aren't, then $125 x 776,500 = approx $97 million. But, if those are all lifetime licenses, that's a one-time, non-recurring payment. There were 661,364 licenses at the end of 2015, so that's a growth of approx 115,000 in a contentious election year. $125 x 115,000 is an annual revenue stream of approx $14 million assuming lifetime permits continue to be issued at a high rate. But, the state doesn't get all of that $125. $50 goes to the local jurisdiction. And, that right there, may be why the ISA does not support this legislation. The sheriffs know that it would hurt their local revenue streams.

So, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered by the entire populace of INGO, what about replacing the LTCH fee with a special firearms sales tax to be collected at retail?

OK. The "thank you sir, may I please have another" line from the hazing scene in Animal House comes to mind.

As for Rep. Lucas, I started following him on Facebook. He, along with just about every other state legislator, is getting hammered over the proposed new gasoline and vehicle excise taxes to help pay for highway maintenance and construction. Republicans proposing new taxes and Democrats fighting the proposal? Cats and dogs living together? We live in interesting times.

This would be part of the reason I came up with the idea of opening it up to non-residents: Whatever amount they are charged (not that it should be more than we pay,) it would be money we are not collecting now. In addition, it could be divided evenly or even proportionately to the various LEAs around the state, but either way, it would be painless to state residents and available optionally to those from out of state.

As to the vehicle and excise taxes, I've not followed that story, though I understand the basic concept. Anyone remember parts of I-65 being shut down for a several weeks last year? Anyone remember why? I do. One of the bridges was unsafe and so everyone had to find different routes. This was something of a challenge when 65, parts of 52, and I think a couple of the back roads were all under some kind of closure and construction. That money doesn't come from thin air, and like it or not (I don't, personally) we who drive on those roads should be paying for them. Since every highway will need some maintenance, and I'd guess the majority of people in cars in the state will use those highways at some point, I can see a tax as valid, given that the state is going to be putting that money back into our pockets by making the roads both safe and passable (and thus making us not have to be on the remaining passable roads longer, due to greater distances, etc.)

Everyone loves to b***h about taxes, but I don't hear anyone coming up with a better way to provide for that upkeep.

Blessings,
Bill