Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[Jeepster48439]

Can you folks in Indy get rid of her at the next election?

That would require a significant change in the voting populace within her district. Unfortunately, it probably isn't going to happen.

 

[TTravis]

OK, then you tell me. Why does Ohio not honor our LTCH? I thought it was because our requirements are not the same as theirs.

Do we know this or think we know this?

Do we have an e-mail, telegram, gorillagram from another state saying that the reason they "look down" on Indiana's LTCH is because of training?

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, then you tell me. Why does Ohio not honor our LTCH? I thought it was because [STRIKE]our requirements are not the same as theirs[/STRIKE]we do not infringe upon people's rights as egregiously as they do.

FIFY

 

[Indynic]

I am all for training, but not requiring it. Some people need the training, others don't.

What would be the effect of such a requirement?
I guess more states would allow us to carry with our Indiana LTCH because we would meet "their" requirements.

I don't think much else would change as far as safety or crime is concerned. It would have the effect of having less
people wanting to get their LTCH.

You say something here that you may not realize....Maybe this is her intent....making it difficult, resulting in less people wanting their permit is back door gun control.

 

[jwh20]

DO NOT take it for granted that this will go nowhere! Make sure your State Senator hears from you on this and any other anti-gun legislation no matter how trivial or well meaning it may sound. I suggest something like:

Dear Sen. [XXX],

It is my understanding that Sen. Breaux has introduced SB 45 in the Indiana Senate to add some training requirement to applicants for the Indiana License to Carry Handgun. I OPPOSE this idea and urge you to to the same.

I would support this concept under one condition, that a TEST demonstrating knowledge of candidates and the issues is required to be taken and passed before any person may vote in an election in Indiana.

I'm sure that Sen. Breaux would vehemently oppose any such legislation since in her radical mindset, voting is a protected right while the right to keep and bear arms is not.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

 

[RobbyMaQ]

An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.

 

[MisterChester]

You say something here that you may not realize....Maybe this is her intent....making it difficult, resulting in less people wanting their permit is back door gun control.

It very well could backfire if this is the case. This would work in an anti-gun state, but not here. It may very well encourage more people to get one if they start to see the right slipping away from them. I don't have evidence suggesting that this would happen, but I think it's in the realm of possibility.

 

[IndyDave1776]

An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.

This is exactly why I have such a big problem issue with tolerating the .gov redefinition of words. How is the Constitution to have any meaning if we allow the .gov to change definitions such that the words mean whatever they want them to mean? The use of the word 'regulation' is a prime example. In circa 1790 parlance, it meant to facilitate/cause the proper operation of that which is regulated. Today, 'regulation' is used as a synonym for 'restriction' which completely twists the Constitution and introduces serious problems with both the Second Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause. Also, we see similar twisting applied to the General Welfare clause when promoting the general welfare in founder-speak meant maintaining an environment conducive to the well-being of the people through their own efforts. Today, we have legions of leftists arguing that it represents a constitutional mandate for redistribution. This is also why I take the position regarding marriage that I do not object to any combination of people contractually pooling their worldly affairs but do not agree with allowing the redefinition of any word by the government. It works just like fiat currency--as soon as it has no intrinsic value, it has no value whatsoever because that value is arbitrarily controlled and changed by people who actions we are largely unable to control, especially after it has been passed to the Federal Reserve or nameless, faceless bureaucrats by means of incredibly vague laws which allow them to fill in their own blanks with nearly zero accountability for whatever they decide to do.

 

[MisterChester]

An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.

I don't think that at all. It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think that at all. It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms.

I will have to get back with you since I got scolded for giving out too much rep today.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I definitely agree with Dave on the definition today vs 1770's. Doesn't help the training requirement being proposed, but puts my mind at ease re: other rules and regulations of how, when, where we can carry. rep inbound

 

[MisterChester]

We must not forget about the context of the 2nd amendment of the time it was written. The people that wrote this had just finished a war against a tyrannical state "militia" of sorts. They recognized that time may come again in the future. They made it a right of the people, instead of the militia, so that the militia can't take the right to keep and bear arms away from the people. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Who says you have to have a drivers license to own a car? How about to drive it on your personal property where you arent endangering others' lives?

I dont see training requirements for the ability to CARRY as all that bad. Now to be able to POSSESS or BUY a gun? Thats a different story. If they try that sh** I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

I just dont see how being properly trained and educated to use a deadly weapon is all that evil.

It's not evil at all. Being required by law to do it is what's evil.

And yes, its not a quote* but with rights come responsibilities. We are all responsible for being competent with our firearms.

You have your views, I have mine.

*needed a disclaimer since somebody here got his panties in a wad because he thought I was quoting a similar statement and I "got it wrong".

Have you gotten training?
If not, why not? Do you need a law to make you do something you think you have a responsibility to do?
If yes, imagine that: No one required you to do it, you did it because you chose to do it, all by yourself.

I am all for training, but not requiring it. Some people need the training, others don't.

What would be the effect of such a requirement?
I guess more states would allow us to carry with our Indiana LTCH because we would meet "their" requirements.

I don't think much else would change as far as safety or crime is concerned. It would have the effect of having less
people wanting to get their LTCH.

Maybe a voluntary on-line training that once completed would shorten the time to get your LTCH might make sense.
That way people would want to do it. I do feel that LTCH holders need to read and understand the state laws for firearms and self defense.

Some need it? I'd argue that all need it. No one, however, needs to be forced to do it.

Supposing Indiana offered a second license, maybe as an endorsement on your LTCH, that would be the itraining needed for reciprocity with other states. Completely voluntary of course, like opting to get a Utah license. You cojld still get the no training pink paper, or a training reciprocal green/orange/fuschia whatever.

They tried that last year. It failed miserably... didn't even get heard in committee. Much better (though harder) to convince other states to change THEIR law, rather than to change ours to codependently seek their approval.

That's the ONLY benefit I see of them requiring training. I took it upon myself after I purchased my first handgun and obtained my LTCH to get training before I started to carry. I don't think it should be required, though.

There is no benefit to requiring training. You yourself are the perfect example: You sought it on your own, no requirement necessary.

We need to be more like a few other states. Kentucky for example, you need no permit/license to open carry, but if you wish to carry in other states or carry concealed you must take a training class and get a permit/license.

Right idea, wrong example: I'd go with Vermont or maybe Arizona. No permit required, period. Available if you wish. I don't think training should ever be a requirement, though.

First, as far as the relationship to Travon's case goes, I believe Florida has a training requirement....
Second, before we change any Indiana laws we need a study comparing our statistics ( murder rates, accidents, etc.) with states with stricter laws.
Unless there is strong evidence that suggests that training makes people more responible or much better shots it's pointless.
I would agree to get training if we changed to a two tier system and could gt prior agreement from most of those states that require training, including Illinois....as it sets now, we can only carry in the land of Lincoln if we aquire their permit at a cost of $300 ,not including paperwork and in state training
( $150-$250 more)...
Actually ,I would like to find State Senators willing to propose legislation that recipricates terms with our neighbor to the west. Illinois residents should show us proof of training and pay $300 to aquire an Indiana LTCH....any ideas how to push this idea?

You were going great right up to the last couple of sentences.
Example: You allow your kids to watch whatever they want on TV. Your neighbor does not. Your neighbor will not allow your kids to play with her kids unless you change your house rule and don't let them watch "The Simpsons". It's just one show, right? No big deal, right? Heck, might even make your kids act more respectfully toward you. She calls it "common sense TV regulation".
See the parallel? Your neighbor has no right to control what happens in your house. You, OTOH, can tell her that she has a right to her opinion. Your kids could even tell hers at school that if they want to play together, they need to push her to change her rule. It might not work, but THEY live there, and they have the ability to "lobby" for change where you do not.

More to follow.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

OK, then you tell me. Why does Ohio not honor our LTCH? I thought it was because our requirements are not the same as theirs.

Our problem is that we don't know. No one has a letter, an e-mail or a gorilla gram from Ohio saying what the problem is. No one has sent an envoy or rhino dressed as Ambassador Spock to Columbus to find out what the problem is.

We don't know, yet some are acting as if they know the problem and how to fix it.

An interesting development... While debating this, someone pointed out that such training requirements might be included in the first bit of the 2nd amendment;
"A well regulated Militia,...".
To me, this could bring a slew of problems as to what is defined/considered 'regulated'. But it is an argument I cannot just dismiss/ignore nonetheless.
Someone help my brain here, it's beginning to hurt a bit.

1. Statement of purpose in the Second Amendment does not define the right just as the statement of purpose in the First Amendment does not define the right in the First. NAACP v. Alabama.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. A well-trained militia is the goal. Getting to the goal cannot be used as a stalking horse by the government to interfere with the right.

Assume arguendo that the Second Amendment read, a well-educated populace being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed.

The government cannot then restrict the right. The government could build public libraries (public shooting ranges), encourage book clubs, not tax books, make book purchases tax deductible, etc.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

2. A well-trained militia is the goal. Getting to the goal cannot be used as a stalking horse by the government to interfere with the right.

Assume arguendo that the Second Amendment read, a well-educated populace being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed.

The government cannot then restrict the right. The government could build public libraries (public shooting ranges), encourage book clubs, not tax books, make book purchases tax deductible, etc.

Putting the cart in front of the horse did it for me! Thanks Kirk!

 

[Mgderf]

Who says you have to have a drivers license to own a car? How about to drive it on your personal property where you arent endangering others' lives?

I dont see training requirements for the ability to CARRY as all that bad. Now to be able to POSSESS or BUY a gun? Thats a different story. If they try that sh** I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

I just dont see how being properly trained and educated to use a deadly weapon is all that evil.

Exactly what part of, "..shall not be infringed." is unclear to you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right idea, wrong example: I'd go with Vermont or maybe Arizona. No permit required, period. Available if you wish. I don't think training should ever be a requirement, though.

I started to use Vermont but didn't because they have no permit/license at all. I think a state should offer one just so that one may get one for traveling to other states. I think they only have 4-6 states that recognize their right to carry, Arizona being one of them.

 

[KG1]

Our problem is that we don't know. No one has a letter, an e-mail or a gorilla gram from Ohio saying what the problem is. No one has sent an envoy or rhino dressed as Ambassador Spock to Columbus to find out what the problem is.

We don't know, yet some are acting as if they know the problem and how to fix it.



1. Statement of purpose in the Second Amendment does not define the right just as the statement of purpose in the First Amendment does not define the right in the First. NAACP v. Alabama.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. A well-trained militia is the goal. Getting to the goal cannot be used as a stalking horse by the government to interfere with the right.

Assume arguendo that the Second Amendment read, a well-educated populace being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to own and carry books shall not be infringed.

The government cannot then restrict the right. The government could build public libraries (public shooting ranges), encourage book clubs, not tax books, make book purchases tax deductible, etc.

In layman's terms. The government cannot restrict your right to keep and bear arms because you haven't been "properly" trained in their use.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Guys start sending emails to your elected officials. Make phone calls. Dont just post on here. I have already sent out multiple emails regarding SB 45 AND SB 46.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Our problem is that we don't know. No one has a letter, an e-mail or a gorilla gram from Ohio saying what the problem is. No one has sent an envoy or rhino dressed as Ambassador Spock to Columbus to find out what the problem is.

We don't know, yet some are acting as if they know the problem and how to fix it.

How soon we forget Kirk, I posted this on 7-26-2010 in a thread about Ohio permit in Indiana:

Yup, sent a e-mail to the Ohio AG asking why about 8 months ago, on of his assistants sent me a number to call and talk, he basically was saying since Indiana does not require a training session to obtain a permit that we are all idiots and and fools.

Ohio's never getting another $$$'s from me.

He specifiecally told me since Indiana did not meet same the requirements requiring training, this was never going to happen unless Ohio changed their law.

What we need to do is have our Indiana AG drop (or mention that we will) Ohio or any other state that does not allow reciprocity with Indiana.

Fight fire with fire, it's time to put a finger on the top of other states residents foreheads with the thought that they will loose there right to carry here, create the movement from within their own state.