Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[Jeepster48439]

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.

The training requirement that "might" be prescribed in the preamble of the Second Amendment would be a mandate to the States to provide training to all its firearm owning citizens in marksmanship, weaponry, discipline and tactics as its responsibility to maintain a militia and properly defend the State against a tyrannical central government.

Unfortunately, most of the States abdicated this responsibility to the Feds when they agreed to merge their militias into the National Guard.

 

[actaeon277]

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




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.

So, if they required annual training, near perfect marksmanship, $50 registration per gun per year, and knowledge of useless gun trivia from 1865, we should alter our requirements also.
Yes, I know, I went a little overboard.
So where do we draw the line.
The last 3/4 of a century or so we've been bending. When does it stop?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Beerman, can you post that e-mail that you received? Or, was it just a phone call? Can we get something in writing.

I really just want to send rhino to Columbus dressed up as Ambassador Spock.

Indiana's universal recognition statute has nothing to do with our Attorney General. Indiana's universal recognition statute is found at 35-47-2-21(b).

 

[TTravis]

We need three different levels of LTCH.
1. What we have now in Indiana
2. National - Carry anywhere in US (requires NRA type training)
3. James Bond 007 International License to Kill

 

[IndyDave1776]

We need three different levels of LTCH.
1. What we have now in Indiana
2. National - Carry anywhere in US (requires NRA type training)
3. James Bond 007 International License to Kill

You earned a chuckle, but I will settle for one type of carry: Uninfringed constitutional carry everywhere in the good old USA.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I know you are a lawyer and want a specific reference.
I don't have a reference for you but it was my understanding that some states don't want to honor our LTCH because:
1: We allow people to get LTCH without training, and their state requires training.
2: We do not have a picture on our LTCH.

This has been discussed on INGO before.

Training, even if not required could be noted or stamped on the LTCH, and a picture would be easy enough.

All I am saying is that some states look down on Indiana LTCH because we do not meet their requirements.

Don't get me wrong. I would like to be able to carry in any state with my Indiana LTCH as it is. I would like
to be able to carry anywhere without a LTCH. I do wish other states wold have our policy of recognizing everyone.

There are 20 states that do not recognize the IN LTCH. Some specify it's because our rules are not as stringent as theirs. I was told by our own ISP that West Virginia would not recognize ours, but would PA's because while neither required training, PA's laws were more strict than ours.

The photograph on the license is not an issue in any state that I am aware of. If you know differently, please share. (and to save you a little time, TN's "facially valid" does not mean it requires a picture, it means that to look at the license, it has not expired and is otherwise valid to carry a covered weapon)

Of note, WA state will not recognize our LTCH solely because we issue it to people of ages 18, 19, and 20. It matters not that those citizens would be disallowed carry in their state, our whole LTCH is in their law, invalid because it is issued to those under 21.

Bunnykid is correct. Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a criminal offense (with certain exceptions) unless you have paid permission from your masters.

It is a criminal offense. The right is still a right. It is infringed, but still a right. A right does not become something else because of governmental action or inaction.

I would suggest instead, "Your right to carry a handgun in Indiana has been and continues to be infringed."

I am not interested in abrogating my Rights any further than they already are and especially not just to appease another state. Those other states could just as easily offer a non-resident permit that satisfies all of their training and ID requirements but they don't. What makes you think appeasing them will suddenly make them accept our license?

Or better yet, they (and WE!) could pass Constitutional Carry.

Go to this socialist's site and check her out SB 46 and 47. This woman is a mini Sheila Lee Jackson, in other words a brainless liberal socialist. Can you folks in Indy get rid of her at the next election?

I think you mean SB 45 and SB 46. SB47 is equally offensive for its own reasons, but it came from a different legislator.

(I have no objection to people learning Black history. I have objection to it being required when everyone else's specific history is not, and since we cannot offer everything from Armenian to Zimbabwean and male history and female history (herstory?*) and Catholic and Lutheran and Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu histories.... I cannot support a specific class in Black history.



*For those who read this word here, I add this image:

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

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

40,000+ people die every year at the hands of "trained" and "licensed" motorists operating "deadly weapons." How is requiring training going to change an outcome? An outcome I am not even sure needs to be changed. How many deaths and accidental shootings occur because of the use of a firearm for self defense? Do we really have a problem with LTCH holders causing harm to others? What crime or problem is this proposed legislation attempting to solve? And after you've answered that, tell me how it will actually work.

There isn't a licensing scheme out there that does anything more than indicate its owner jumped through the required hoops and paid the required fees. It does not guarantee competence. It does not signify an ethical philosophy.

So, yes, a government that operates on the assumption that it has the authority to control the exercise of our rights is evil.

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

I will probably catch some flack for this, but I disagree. I have a general responsibility not to cause deliberate harm to others without cause, but I disagree with the premise that I have to avoid all accidents as well. I want to. And I personally think that I should. But there is no justifiable authority the state has to mandate such. I am not convinced that "negligence" is criminal but for the fact that the state has said it is.

Furthermore, what level of training is going to be enough? Is proficiency with the firearm in the form of a minimum score on a state-approved target sufficient? Perhaps we should also be required to participate in scenario training. And if training is good, more training is better. We should be required to train yearly or every 6 months.

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.

Wrong angle. Who cares what is happening in other states? The only comparison that needs be made is the one before and after the implementation of such a law. What problem is this law supposed to solve and does it actually solve it?

 

[jwh20]

Do you know why we are one of the few states where you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Because the motor rights advocacy grous are very vocal and exercise their right to VOTE...they make no soft stance about their rights

We, as responsible law-abiding firearm owners need to be respectful yet forceful in our demand of our rights.

Let them know in plain English that their jobs WILL be in jeopardy at election. I tell them that I will vote a rparty lines and Vote for anyone who opposes them ....one thing I have found is that more than social justice, more than individual freedoms and liberties...what they care more about is staying in office....take that from them with sound of your voice, the words of your pen, and your vote

Well put. As a motorcycle enthusiast I NEVER ride without my helmet. But I DON'T NEED the government to tell me I must wear one!

 

[dmarsh8]

You earned a chuckle, but I will settle for one type of carry: Uninfringed constitutional carry everywhere in the good old USA.

Uninfringed constitutional carry everywhere in the good old USA.
This^^^^

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Should we also fight to repeal testing requirements for drivers licenses too?

(apply purple as you see fit)

Oh, it's you again. Hello, Mrs. Brady, how have you been? I've missed you.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Beerman, can you post that e-mail that you received? Or, was it just a phone call?

My initial contact of asking about Ohio granting reciprocity was an email back to me with a phone #number to call.

The email sent to me is long gone, wish I had saved a printed copy of it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ok, thanks for responding, beerman.

 

[StuBob]

Just wrote my state senator. Thanks for posting.

 

[Amishman44]

I'm not sure where I stand on this...right vs individual responsibility while doing so? I've been to the range where people (not in training) couldn't hit the side of a barn from 3' even when it wasn't moving! I've seen guys who's rounds ricochet'd off the ceiling, the floor, side walls, etc. I've had friends who have left the same range and came back later rather than shoot with the idiots who were shooting while they were there.

The ability to own and carry a gun for personal protection is a right, one that shall not be infringed. However, it's also a responsibility...to be used appropriately! Not everyone knows and understand the laws, rights, and responsibilities of gun ownership...and definitely all do not show respect for others in the process. Educating people is a large part of continuing to develop responsible (and, hopefully, mature) gun owners! But at what point does 'required' education infringe on the right to self-defense? Tough balance...not always an easy answer!

 

[gun_nut]

Stick: Pass a law mandating training for LTCH permit
Carrot: Offer lower LTCH fees for applicants who have passed a certified training course.

This does not account for current holders of LTCH nor does it deal with what type of training course. I don't like legislators mandating laws (especially one that deal with my rights).

GN

 

[Scutter01]

I'm not sure where I stand on this...right vs individual responsibility while doing so? I've been to the range where people (not in training) couldn't hit the side of a barn from 3' even when it wasn't moving! I've seen guys who's rounds ricochet'd off the ceiling, the floor, side walls, etc. I've had friends who have left the same range and came back later rather than shoot with the idiots who were shooting while they were there.

The ability to own and carry a gun for personal protection is a right, one that shall not be infringed. However, it's also a responsibility...to be used appropriately! Not everyone knows and understand the laws, rights, and responsibilities of gun ownership...and definitely all do not show respect for others in the process. Educating people is a large part of continuing to develop responsible (and, hopefully, mature) gun owners! But at what point does 'required' education infringe on the right to self-defense? Tough balance...not always an easy answer!

No, it's a very simple answer. If there is a government requirement to fulfill before you are allowed to exercise a Right, then that Right is "infringed". That's what infringed means. And once the government has infringed once, it sets the stage for further infringements. We've already seen it time and time again. All Rights come with responsibilities, but why do we only think that it's OK to have the government pass restrictive laws about this one?

Be responsible. Get training. Get proficient. Do not allow your government to mandate it by law.

 

[Scutter01]

Stick: Pass a law mandating training for LTCH permit
Carrot: Offer lower LTCH fees for applicants who have passed a certified training course.

This does not account for current holders of LTCH nor does it deal with what type of training course. I don't like legislators mandating laws (especially one that deal with my rights).

GN

What?! NO! You're going to give up a Right in exchange for a couple of bucks off of your LTCH? You would sell my Rights and yours for chump change?! What kind of reasoning is that? You could make the LTCH free and it will still end up costing more than before the law was passed! If the State really wants people to get trained, then they should do what Kirk says and incentivize it via tax breaks rather than mandate it as a condition of licensing. The State (or rather, Sen. Breaux) does not want people trained, though. She wants to erect a barrier between you and your guns.

 

[gun_nut]

What?! NO! You're going to give up a Right in exchange for a couple of bucks off of your LTCH? You would sell my Rights and yours for chump change?! What kind of reasoning is that? You could make the LTCH free and it will still end up costing more than before the law was passed! If the State really wants people to get trained, then they should do what Kirk says and incentivize it via tax breaks rather than mandate it as a condition of licensing. The State (or rather, Sen. Breaux) does not want people trained, though. She wants to erect a barrier between you and your guns.

How is that giving up a right? It would not be mandatory; you could still get your LTCH without training.

Personally, there shouldnt even be a LTCH permit. Why do I need to have a permit to excercise my 2A right?

Assuming you have a LTCH (and I do as well) we both have paid a fee (or sold our rights for chump change)

I was trying to say they could encourage training with lower fees.

 

[Scutter01]

How is that giving up a right? It would not be mandatory; you could still get your LTCH without training.

Personally, there shouldnt even be a LTCH permit. Why do I need to have a permit to excercise my 2A right?

Assuming you have a LTCH (and I do as well) we both have paid a fee (or sold our rights for chump change)

I was trying to say they could encourage training with lower fees.

We already discussed it further up-thread, but the gist is that if they have two different levels of licensing, it's just a line-item bill away from removing the one that doesn't require training. And I agree that you shouldn't even need an LTCH, so then why would you want to add more pointless, ineffective, and potentially dangerous bureaucracy on top of what we have now? Why don't we ask them to remove the LTCH requirement altogether instead of asking them to help us take a step backwards? If you don't want to go that far, why not just ask to have the fees lowered?

I just don't understand this overwhelming desire that gun owners have to help the anti's hobble us. We've spent far too long "making deals" where we get nothing in return. I'm done making deals. It's time to start demanding our Rights back in full, with no compromise.

 

[jagee]

I also have the right to free speech (including reading/writing), but it is required that I go to school to learn vocabulary and how to read/write. I (my parents) have the option to enroll me in public or private school, or home school; but schooling of some kind is required. Is my right being infringed on because they are making me go to school so I can properly use my freedom of speech?

Firearms should be treated similarly. There are many different options of training available, and you should be able to chose which one you prefer, but learning how to properly exercise your right is not an infringement of that right. IMO