Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't there research that suggests the wave of licensing schemes across the country was related to trying to keep African Americans disarmed during the Civil Rights era? Or am I thinking just of Reagan and Cali.

Indiana passed the license provision for carrying in 1935 UFA, not the 60s like California.

Our UFA was a collusion of the Klan and the faculty lounge's model legislation.

 

[T.Lex]

Indiana passed the license provision for carrying in 1935 UFA, not the 60s like California.

Our UFA was a collusion of the Klan and the faculty lounge's model legislation.

Seems like that would be noteworthy in today's environment.

 

[MarkC]

Seems like that would be noteworthy in today's environment.

I think the error started when someone looked at the current statutes and read:

As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

They didn't realize that was a recodification of Title 35, and not establishing a new law in 1983.

 

[T.Lex]

Newspapers.com is fascinating.

When the UFA was introduced and being implemented, the Lindbergh kidnapping trial was big news. (<--- understatement alert) Locally, there were bank robberies with roving gunfights, along with the usual domestic issues. (Even car break-ins. The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Information necessary to provide:

full name, address, occupation, color, place of birth, the date and hour of application, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number of pistol and a statement that he has never been convicted

The debate included someone reading a letter purportedly from a criminal thanking them for making it easier to rob people. That was kinda funny.

Otherwise, the debate revolved around the exact same issues we're talking about today.

 

[T.Lex]

I think a bit more historical perspective would be helpful to understand the context of the original licensing scheme. Eugenic sterilization was a thing. The 1907 version had been struck down in 1921. But then a window re-opened and new laws were passed in 1927 and continued to be tweaked as of 1933.

The Klan link might be more difficult to make. After the Stephenson prosecution* it looks like the Klan lost its luster in Indiana. Certainly still influential, but not as overt.


* More people need to know about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._Stephenson

 

[HoughMade]

...it looks like the Klan lost its luster in Indiana. Certainly still influential, but not as overt...

Have you been to Knox? A former partner of mine became a gun owner because of his need to frequently do business in that area...you guessed it, he's black.

 

[2A_Tom]

2:15 Major White admits that on a stop he just say thank you for informing him you are armed and it makes no difference at the stop.

FOP rep stated that he was afraid of guns. Say wut?????

Representative Taylor is the most stupid person I have ever see next to the woman sitting next to him.

Young seems very reasonable, for a non gun owner.

One point about all of the wittnesses. All of those for CC were well prepared and ar ticulate, those opposed not so much.

It reminds me of the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas.

 

[2A_Tom]

Knox...

Built a deck for a fellow who carried a revolver because it retained it's casings and he had needed to use it a couple of times.

Sided a house for a guy that wore a KKK hat.

Installed windows for a lady who ran cadaver dogs, who told us that the klan held bonfire gatherings in the woods near her home.

 

[T.Lex]

Have you been to Knox? A former partner of mine became a gun owner because of his need to frequently do business in that area...you guessed it, he's black.

You know, this gives me an idea. We could borrow a page from the other side and be completely intellectually corrupt. We could paint this narrow gun control issue with the same brush as all the rest: an effort by prior racist generations to discourage gun possession by the oppressed, like people of color, people who stood out as "different." We're supporting the right of the ostracized and outcast to protect themselves.

You want an end to hate crimes? Let the victims defend themselves from the fear of serious bodily injury at the hands of neo nazi white supremecist goons.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You know, this gives me an idea. We could borrow a page from the other side and be completely intellectually corrupt. We could paint this narrow gun control issue with the same brush as all the rest: an effort by prior racist generations to discourage gun possession by the oppressed, like people of color, people who stood out as "different." We're supporting the right of the ostracized and outcast to protect themselves.

You want an end to hate crimes? Let the victims defend themselves from the fear of serious bodily injury at the hands of neo nazi white supremecist goons.

That proposal is called "The Fourteenth Amendment".

 

[T.Lex]

That proposal is called "The Fourteenth Amendment".

Sure, but what has that done for us LATE-ly?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sure, but what has that done for us LATE-ly?

T. Lex met Otis McDonald. Otis McDonald met T. Lex.

 

[T.Lex]

T. Lex met Otis McDonald. Otis McDonald met T. Lex.

Pshaw.

That's so 2010.

 

[2A_Tom]

One thing that I see is that some of the opposing wittneses stated that they are only enforcing the laws that the legislature passed.

Draft a bill:

• Cuts the "Revenue" $5 for local $5 for State.
• Requires Fingerprints be destroyed after License is issued.

Give the Isp and LE representatives (socalled) decide between CC and modification.

 

[T.Lex]

One thing that I see is that some of the opposing wittneses stated that they are only enforcing the laws that the legislature passed.

Draft a bill:

• Cuts the "Revenue" $5 for local $5 for State.
• Requires Fingerprints be destroyed after License is issued.

Give the Isp and LE representatives (socalled) decide between CC and modification.

From an incremental perspective, assuming you mean $5 for a lifetime permit, I like that idea.

ETA: errr.... $10. Sorry. Math not my strong suit.

 

[actaeon277]

Tell them if they're worried about loss of revenue from taxing a Constitutional Right, let them tax the 1st Amendment.

Maybe their heads will explode.

 

[chipbennett]

It is a tool to help stop crime. It is not the only tool.

There are dozens, hundreds (depending on how you count), of tools that would help stop crime that we can't use because of the constitution or common decency.

Taking this specific tool out of the toolbox will barely move the needle.

Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.

(That's how that's done, right?)

I would counter that the LTCH law has not stopped a single crime (aside from crimes attendant to/created by the LTCH statute itself), and has not prevented a single criminal from possessing a firearm, much less from using said firearm in the commission of a crime.

 

[2A_Tom]

Control and revenue.

 

[Thor]

Tell them if they're worried about loss of revenue from taxing a Constitutional Right, let them tax the 1st Amendment.

Maybe their heads will explode.

I'm not entirely sure I want to give any politician new ideas about ways to raise taxes...as opposed to their heads exploding they might start thinking of ways to make it happen.

Fees on editorial content...fees on sites that post editorial content...local and state taxes on people posting editorial content...how may we tax thee? Let me count the ways.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Just getting this to the floor for a vote sure is like pulling turkey teeth...WHY does it have to be so very hard to just get a vote?