Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[KG1]

What's wrong with training? If it's free I know some people I would like to enroll. Some people are un safe.

Training good.... Goverment mandated training bad.

 

[OWGEM]

Can anyone point me to a link corrolating mandated training to accidental firearms injuries/deaths?

 

[Manatee]

At Heller v. 2816

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

​

 

[SteveM4A1]

At Heller v. 2816

I think most of us have read this. Is there something you wanted to add about it? Do you agree or disagree with it?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think most of us have read this. Is there something you wanted to add about it? Do you agree or disagree with it?

I don't know about Manatee, but it reminds me of the warning from Thomas Jefferson about the judiciary becoming too powerful such as to become a de facto oligarchy.

 

[printcraft]

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

When you are done playing the victim card go make me a sandwich.

The last one had too much mayo on it. Perhaps mandatory sandwich training is in order.

 

[Manatee]

I think most of us have read this. Is there something you wanted to add about it? Do you agree or disagree with it?

I have mixed feelings about the whole training issue. On the "for training" side, I can see where a standardized set of rules might allow us to get to 50 state carry at some point. Even though I like much of the Indiana approach as it stands, we don't have photo ID on the LTCH or training requirements which will be impediments to national CCW. On the downside, I don't think we should need a license of any sort to transport firearms for any reason that is not criminal. IF you assume that a license of some sort is unavoidable, I don't have a problem going the extra step to demonstrate that you have a minimum level of understanding of the laws regarding self-defense and can hit a target with a handgun at some reasonable distance (21 feet).

Having held a Florida CCW in the past (my first CCW), I felt the instruction session was valuable. The course made me seriously consider whether carrying a handgun was worth the potential risk of courts, law enforcement and loss of wealth. Despite those risks, I did decide to carry. The "practical" section of the course was worthless. We fired one round at a target approximately 12 feet away. There was really no requirement to hit the target. But, the instructors did help newbies understand their firearms better. After the course was complete, the instructors spent some time with a couple of folks who obviously needed more care and feeding.

Be that as it may, I think if you accept that Indiana has a right to license you to carry a handgun, you don't have a leg to stand on if they also require you to attend a training session prior to the issuance of that license. Once you open the box on licensing, it is a done deal.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I don't know about Manatee, but it reminds me of the warning from Thomas Jefferson about the judiciary becoming too powerful such as to become a de facto oligarchy.

I think Scalia could have just stated the first line and been done with it. We all know that rights are not unlimited, nor should they be. One's rights cannot violate another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. The rest of the paragraph I agree with you though. But in a way, he is again just stating what is already obvious. One CAN have their rights restricted, as long as they have had due process of law. Unfortunately, as you know (and is evident even in Scalia's statement), that same due process of law can restrict one's rights even when another's most basic rights have not been violated (licensing, for one).

I know Indiana doesn't have a right to license me, or to require mandatory training. That is where I stand on the issue.

 

[Manatee]

I used to be of the belief that you could own a fully-armed F-16 if you could afford to maintain it. Scalia seems to have restricted that right.
Anyway, unless you're willing to incur the cost to fight the licensing requirement, what we "know" isn't "what it is".

 

[SteveM4A1]

I used to be of the belief that you could own a fully-armed F-16 if you could afford to maintain it. Scalia seems to have restricted that right.
Anyway, unless you're willing to incur the cost to fight the licensing requirement, what we "know" isn't "what it is".

That's for sure, and unfortunately, I'm a poor man that could never win that fight.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I said good day.

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

You know... I try very hard to be fair and open-minded. The first part of your post struck me as it did others; playing the victim card. It seemed disingenuous, as you're obviously intelligent and well-read. Whatever I might think about your powers or failures of perception and your critical thinking skills, I have to give you credit for your intelligence. Whether or not women had the ability to exercise the privilege of voting, and it is indeed a privilege, not a right, has nothing at all to do with one's view of the Constitution, unless the change wrought by the 19A was one you experienced personally. Considering that your parents were likely toddlers, if that, when that Amendment was ratified, it is fair to say you did not experience it even vicariously, unless perhaps by one of your grandmothers' recollections.

All of that said, it is laughable, even ridiculous, to consider that ATM posting an image of Gene Wilder, dressed as Willy Wonka, pointing a pistol at the artist/"camera"/viewer is equivalent to ATM pointing an actual firearm, especially at a person whose threat-level is limited to tickling his funnybone with the inanity of her argument. By all means, however, if you think he has pointed a gun at you, doing so is a crime in Indiana. If you believe a crime has been committed, you are welcome to contact the closest prosecutor and attempt to have him charged with it. I've even quoted the post, above, in case you wish to use it for evidence.

As for you being "finished"... I would agree that you are. After a post like that, I don't imagine there is a single soul on INGO who would take your posts any more seriously than a knock-knock joke. As I said, I pride myself on being open-minded, but not to the extent that my brains fall out.

Thus, I will echo his sentiment, parodying your own, and tell you, "Good day, madame."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

I thought I'd come back to this thread. Not as much anger as the I 65 thread.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have mixed feelings about the whole training issue. On the "for training" side, I can see where a standardized set of rules might allow us to get to 50 state carry at some point. Even though I like much of the Indiana approach as it stands, we don't have photo ID on the LTCH or training requirements which will be impediments to national CCW.

Personally I believe that if you want to carry in another state you bear the burden of fulfilling their requirements not me. Indiana recognizes all other state's licenses/permits. I don't travel much and avoid places I am not welcome when I do.

On the downside, I don't think we should need a license of any sort to transport firearms for any reason that is not criminal. IF you assume that a license of some sort is unavoidable, I don't have a problem going the extra step to demonstrate that you have a minimum level of understanding of the laws regarding self-defense and can hit a target with a handgun at some reasonable distance (21 feet).

If you see no problem then you do it.
BTW my arbitrary distance is 25 yards.

Having held a Florida CCW in the past (my first CCW), I felt the instruction session was valuable. The course made me seriously consider whether carrying a handgun was worth the potential risk of courts, law enforcement and loss of wealth.

So are you also for standardized federal self defense, castle, and all carry laws. That would make it easy for what you call 50 state carry. Because the course will be really long and complicated with a 150 question to make sure you know all the differences from state to state.

Despite those risks, I did decide to carry. The "practical" section of the course was worthless. We fired one round at a target approximately 12 feet away. There was really no requirement to hit the target. But, the instructors did help newbies understand their firearms better. After the course was complete, the instructors spent some time with a couple of folks who obviously needed more care and feeding.

Be that as it may, I think if you accept that Indiana has a right to license you to carry a handgun, you don't have a leg to stand on if they also require you to attend a training session prior to the issuance of that license. Once you open the box on licensing, it is a done deal.

Most here realize that Indiana has no Constitutional authority to require license. We also realize that until we are successful in repealing IC 35 47 2 we will have to comply with it. As for state mandated training, that would be a further infringement and step backward for freedom.

 

[Manatee]

Can't quite figure out what you did there since it's all in one color. Since I travel a lot, the lack of a LTCH would be more of an inconvenience than the way it is now. (see any CCW reciprocity map for VT).

 

[2A_Tom]

Fixed it sorry for the inconvenience i caused for you.

So you think I should have to do it for your convenience.

not sorry for standing for right.

 

[Manatee]

I grok what most of you guys are saying. My politics are pretty much center-mass.

Which means: If you try to force your politics on me….I aim for…..

 

[2A_Tom]

We just want our freedom. That is my politics.

You are free to enjoy whatever level of slavery you desire. You seem to want Gubmint mandates imposed on us for your convenience/conscious sake.

Who in this conversation is trying to force their politics on someone?

 

[IndyDave1776]

We just want our freedom. That is my politics.

You are free to enjoy whatever level of slavery you desire. You seem to want Gubmint mandates imposed on us for your convenience/conscious sake.

Who in this conversation is trying to force their politics on someone?

I say:

INGO said:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to blue falcon again.

 

[printcraft]

Something tells me that people that are for mandatory training are also for "common sense" gun laws.

 

[2A_Tom]

Self defense is an unalienable right. I would say a God given right. But I don't think I'm allowed to here.

Using common sense the founders included the 2nd amendment in our Constitution.

That is all the common sense gun law we need.