INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[10ring]

I like to see a hard hitting investigation on how many people are issued drivers licenses and go out and drink and drive.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Looks like about 8% have LTCH's here in Seymour...gonna have to work on that.


Regarding to the article, it was difficult to determine the intended slant of the author, and his objective.

I read it a couple of times, and I think I interpreted it to be much like Zoub did - that the system has some weak points that need to be improved, but it shouldn't be scrapped.

Sometimes I interpret things in a positive way (even when they are negative), but I don't really see the traditional left wing liberal "all guns are bad" overtones here.

What I do see is a very moderate "some bad people do bad things with guns" tone. Am I all for keeping guns away from bad guys? Yep! Do I think we'll ever be perfect. Nope! It sounds like 99.99+% is pretty darn good at this point, and if they make a few tweeks and get a bit better, then good deal.

It will be interesting to follow the progress on this thread and story.

I'm not. I'm all for keeping bad guys away from guns. And knives. And pointy sticks. And rocks.

And depending how bad they are... from air.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DRob]

The Star readership

I think it's clear that the Star's readers are not only uninformed but to call them "readers" is a stretch. I'm amazed that nobody here has pointed out the following:

Of the 4 bad guy LTCH holders the Star chose to highlight, 3 had their permits revoked in 2007 or 2008. The 4th is shown as "Convictions: None Found" and his permit was issued a month ago.

Don't get me wrong. I do not think any of these guys should be toting a gun, certainly not with a LTCH. I also am not fan of the Star but I wonder just what case they have made with this article. Sure there are always some who slip through the cracks but apparently not many. Although I am sure it wasn't their intent, maybe we should be thanking the Star for pointing out the fact that a very large majority of LTCH holders are apparently law abiding citizens!

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Criminals are always going to access and carry handguns without regard to laws prohibiting their doing so without a license. The state would probably be better off scrapping the permit system and allowing the free carry of a firearm for those not convicted of a felony, without a permit. (ala Vermont) I would like to see this coupled with severe and mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm, however. Carrying a gun without criminal intent shouldn't be a crime. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should send you to prison, not get you a slap on the wrist and probation.

If the state is going to maintain a permit system, and thus give official endorsement to citizens carrying handguns, they need to better define "proper person" instead of handing out the permits willy nilly to anyone with a pulse. Otherwise, what's the point? Scrap the system and start focusing on real consequences for criminal acts, instead of the catch-and-release BS that passes for the criminal "justice" system these days.

^^This, exactly. Very well said, making complete logical sense. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening is minimal to nonexistent for that very reason.

I also have to wonder how many numbnut idiots out there would raise a stink because "...I spent $125 to get a Lifetime LTCH and now they don't even require that!" (Totally missing the point that the rights of gun owners would have increased as a result)

By the way, "Mr. Bond"... you earned yourself a rep.

Thanks for stating it so well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[stilllearning09]

To: Circulation Department, Indianapolis Star
I wish to cancel my subscription to the Star effective immediately (Sunday, October 11, 2009.). Your article in today's Sunday Star "Should Men like these be alowed to carry a gun?" highlights 4 men who should have never been allowed to obtain a license to carry permit. But, it does not reflect the thousands of responsible, law abiding citizens that choose to own and carry handguns. If you are going to do a story on the Indiana LTCH policy, you should show both sides of the story. If you think that sensationalizing the story gains your readership, be advised that you have now LOST one subscriber.

I just fired this off to the Star with a cc to the Michael Kane, the president . I'll save $10.00 a month.

 

[ATF Consumer]

The state would probably be better off scrapping the permit system and allowing the free carry of a firearm for those not convicted of a felony, without a permit. (ala Vermont) I would like to see this coupled with severe and mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm, however. Carrying a gun without criminal intent shouldn't be a crime. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should send you to prison, not get you a slap on the wrist and probation.

I like the way you think...this would also remove the constitutional infringement placed upon us to obtain the permission to carry, as it is already our right to carry...why do we need to be finger printed and get a silly pink paper that says it is ok?

 

[DCR]

My second post. Maybe I come from a more middle of the road political position than most here. I didn't see anything wrong or threatening about the article. It wasn't about the 4 guys who are pictured on the front page. They're just the sensational examples that the media use to make their point. It wasn't against the right to bear arms or the LTCH or against law abiding citizens.

The crux of the article, it seems to me, were the 456 times they found local police were against issuing the permit, but the ISP went ahead and did it anyway. The article was about using discretion and the ISP errs on the side of not using it. The ISP admits some get through the cracks. The paper points out that some of these guys are dangerous, and by the way you made 456 mistakes.

The system has a flaw in it and it should be fixed. I don't think anyone here wants felons to have a permit. And I'm guessing everyone here is of good reputation and community standing. I don't feel offended, except maybe I can see someone feeling that their permit is now tainted a bit.
That's the part they left out of the story.
2¢

 

[Hammer]

I just sent an email to the NRA about this article and a link to it.

I think the system is flawed, but the article is very biased. Which is no surprise.

 

[jsgolfman]

So, a question, if you commit a crime and complete your mandated sentence, are you still a criminal?

 

[mrjarrell]

So, a question, if you commit a crime and complete your mandated sentence, are you still a criminal?

Not in a just society that truly believes in freedom. In todays America......

 

[rpcblast]

heres the thing about the local/state police thing: As I recall, indiana is a "shall issue" state, not a "may issue" state. If someone has a record that is a clear, direct criteria for not allowing or rejecting a permit, that is one thing, and that person should not be issued a permit. However, just because local PD feels "iffy" about aperson, does not give the state the right to not issue a permit solely based on that. I would not want this to be used as a justification for going back to "may issue", since we were one of the first "shall issue" states(1980 i believe).

Now, I will admit, I did not read all of the article, just the postings here. And there are some things about indiana law that I dont know(I am new to all this). But, I do know how knee jerk reactions can happen. Just to restate, if someone has a documentable reason for denying(nothing iffy, just something that matches pretty much to the letter a valid reason for denying as set forth by indiana law), then they should be denied, and if ISP is letting those slip through, then perhaps they just need to work on there procedure. However, just because the local PD thinks someone is a lil bit...out there(for lack of a better example), is not a valid reason to deny a permit(based on my understanding of indiana law post 1980)

 

[Lucas156]

Whats the Indystar? lol
The bottom line is the Indystar doesn't care if any police agency enforces these laws better. They would much rather impose more gun laws on the law abiding. THAT is the bottom line.

 

[Lucas156]

My second post. Maybe I come from a more middle of the road political position than most here. I didn't see anything wrong or threatening about the article. It wasn't about the 4 guys who are pictured on the front page. They're just the sensational examples that the media use to make their point. It wasn't against the right to bear arms or the LTCH or against law abiding citizens.

The crux of the article, it seems to me, were the 456 times they found local police were against issuing the permit, but the ISP went ahead and did it anyway. The article was about using discretion and the ISP errs on the side of not using it. The ISP admits some get through the cracks. The paper points out that some of these guys are dangerous, and by the way you made 456 mistakes.

The system has a flaw in it and it should be fixed. I don't think anyone here wants felons to have a permit. And I'm guessing everyone here is of good reputation and community standing. I don't feel offended, except maybe I can see someone feeling that their permit is now tainted a bit.
That's the part they left out of the story.
2¢

Maybe if more people had the common sense to protect themselves and carry a gun we wouldn't have to worry about the poeple who are actually carrying. Whats that country with an almost 0% crime rate where citizens (not subjects) are required to carry a gun?

 

[SirRealism]

Criminals are always going to access and carry handguns without regard to laws prohibiting their doing so without a license. The state would probably be better off scrapping the permit system and allowing the free carry of a firearm for those not convicted of a felony, without a permit. (ala Vermont) I would like to see this coupled with severe and mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm, however. Carrying a gun without criminal intent shouldn't be a crime. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should send you to prison, not get you a slap on the wrist and probation.

If the state is going to maintain a permit system, and thus give official endorsement to citizens carrying handguns, they need to better define "proper person" instead of handing out the permits willy nilly to anyone with a pulse. Otherwise, what's the point? Scrap the system and start focusing on real consequences for criminal acts, instead of the catch-and-release BS that passes for the criminal "justice" system these days.

Well said.

There are three guys, John, Mike and Fred.

Fred commits a crime.
Fred applies for and receives his LTCH.
Fred commits another crime.

Mike commits a crime.
Mike applies for his LTCH and is denied.
Mike commits another crime.

John commits a crime.
John commits another crime.

I don't see a big difference here. Am I missing something? To me, the difference is purely statistical. It might be relevant if they could prove that Fred is more likely to commit a crime than Mike, because he has a license. I highly doubt that, though.

 

[Bill of Rights]

All right... line by line, then:

Should these men have been allowed to carry a gun?
By Mark Alesia, Heather Gillers, Tim Evans and Mark Nichols
Posted: October 11, 2009
Should these men have been allowed to carry a gun? | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

One Indiana man pressed the barrel of a loaded handgun into the chest of a woman holding her 1-year-old son.

Another's handgun was confiscated by police three times -- twice for shooting in public. A third man was arrested for allegedly dealing crack cocaine and later was accused of beating his girlfriend.
But it's not merely those actions that concern law enforcement officials and others on both sides of the polarizing handgun debate. It's what happened next.

In each of these three cases, the person later applied for a permit to carry a handgun in public. And in all of these cases -- and hundreds of other questionable ones uncovered by The Indianapolis Star -- the Indiana State Police granted that request, often over the objections of the local police department and even though, in some cases, it appears the State Police had a legal obligation to deny the permit. It seems that the Star is trying to take ISP to task for not checking more thoroughly. Personally, I agree that local chiefs should not alone be able to deny a LTCH. Rather, if they voice an objection to this person being issued one, ISP should be asking why. Individual, case-by-case, not wholesale denial because it's coming from Gary or Ft. Wayne or other similar anti-rights locations.

Even worse, many of those people committed subsequent crimes, some with the guns they were legally permitted to carry. Is the Star asking ISP to have a crystal ball and predict the future?

One such person held his wife captive for four days in their home, threatening to shoot her and four children. Another man pressed a gun barrel to the head of his live-in girlfriend, threatening to kill her and leaving "a very noticeable round circle mark." A third man reached toward his gun and threatened to kill police during a domestic-dispute call. And each of these need to be punished to the full extent of the law, so long as no person innocent of any such criminal behavior is in the slightest bit inconvenienced (i.e. punished) for the actions of another over whom he had no control.

Over the past few months, The Star has examined the gun-permit process, focusing on about 450 permit holders with dubious backgrounds from Marion and Lake counties. Those counties were chosen because they are large ones where records are most accessible electronically. and likely because they are the closest to two large cities with significant crime rates, one of which is notoriously strict about guns, requiring even people who have done nothing wrong who have a gun confiscated to do more to get it back than they had to do to get it in the first place, while the other allows no guns whatsoever except to police and politicians. In addition, between those two counties, they found 450 or so LTCH holders "with dubious backgrounds" out of 65,552 total LTCH holders. That, for those of you keeping score, is less than 7/10 of one percent of LTCH holders, and equal to 44/1000 of one percent of the total population of 1,023,610 of those two counties.

In broad terms, The Star found a system that breaks down in numerous ways, enabling people with troubled and often violent pasts to legally keep a loaded gun in their waistbands and on their passenger seats. Not that not holding an LTCH would stop them. If they commit a crime, bust them. If they don't, who cares what they have? They can lawfully carry a butcher knife, too... or just, you know, drive the car in which that passenger seat is found into a crowd of people on a sidewalk.

More specifically, The Star's investigation found:
State law says a person must be of "good character and reputation" to obtain a permit, but the State Police have not denied a request based on that legal requirement since at least the 1980s. Back to demonizing ISP

State law says a person should be denied a permit if there is a "reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violence." However, State Police often are unaware of extensive police and court records involving violent behavior. Why are they unaware of these things?

State and federal laws prohibit felons from carrying handguns, but State Police grant permits to those convicted of felonies that are treated as misdemeanors under alternative-sentencing plans.
Because they have not been convicted of felonies.

There is a disconnect between state and local police on who is responsible for thoroughly investigating applicants, which results in the State Police often failing to receive pertinent information.
Not sure who they're blaming here. Doesn't sound like ISP or local police, anyway. Lawmakers, maybe? Oh wait, I know.. this is where that centralized database they later refer to figures in.

The Star sought comment from Gov. Mitch Daniels but was referred to the State Police. "I don't think I would characterize it as flawed," said State Police Maj. Doug Shelton, commander of the records division that oversees the permitting process. "Are there things we can improve on? Sure. Absolutely. "And I think you've found a few of those examples."
The agency is looking into revoking the permits in some of the troubling cases identified by The Star, and State Police Superintendent Paul Whitesell acknowledged a need for better communication with local police. But he, too, generally defended the process. Not unusual. Gov. Daniels' office routinely refers any question on this topic to ISP. I would be more worried if Maj. Shelton tried to say there was nothing on which his division could improve.

In permit process, few are denied In Indiana, a permit is not necessary to have a firearm at one's home or place of business. Nor should it be. Why would you have to have a state-issued permission slip to possess an item for which you've paid at your own home? Or, for that matter, anywhere you go?

But if a person wants to take a handgun out in public, he or she must apply for a "carry permit." The application is reviewed by local law enforcement, which makes a recommendation to the State Police. The state agency ultimately grants or denies permits.

There are about 300,000 active permits in Indiana. In 2008, State Police decided on 77,429 applications, including renewals. Of those, 1,278 were denied (about 1.6 percent). So 98.4% of those applying got them

No one has illusions that permit denials will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Permits are intended, however, to provide some restrictions on who can carry handguns in public -- based on past behavior and other factors that could pose a danger to others -- while also allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Groups as divergent as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association favor "behavioral" restrictions on gun possession. Wait, what? If permit denials don't and won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then "permits" are intended to provide some restrictions on which law abiding, peaceable citizens can carry handguns in public, while doing nothing to affect criminals in the slightest. Yes, of course... that makes perfect sense.

"The one thing the NRA has always fought for is that every criminal who abuses a firearm, who uses a gun to commit a crime, has gun charges filed," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA's national office. "They should not be plea bargained or dropped."

Indiana has three basic requirements for getting a permit.

The person must be of "good character and reputation," be a "proper person" and, generally, be a U.S. citizen.

"Proper person" was narrowly defined in state law in 1983. It contains 10 disqualifiers, including drug and alcohol abuse -- both of which are specifically defined -- and a conviction showing "an inability to safely handle a handgun."

But what is not defined -- and what seems to give State Police the most leeway to issue denials in the interest of safety -- is the "good character and reputation" clause, which dates to the 1930s. Oh, I see.. If it gives ISP the most leeway to deny, then it should be abused to do so.

"They didn't put that in there for nonsense," State Police attorney Jerome Ezell said. "But, boy, who defines that?"

Nobody, it turns out.

And because it's not defined, State Police admit to instead using the definition of "proper person" to address questions about character and reputation.

"Although the (character and reputation) standard is vague, the legislature deemed it important enough to make it a prerequisite for receiving a license," said Indiana University law Professor Ryan Scott. "The statute not only permits but compels the superintendent to evaluate character and reputation." Which he does; they just don't like the fact that he uses the "proper person" guidelines to do so.

Simply ignoring the requirement, Scott said, "would run afoul of the statute." Which is why he doesn't ignore it.

Leslie Duvall, a former state senator who co-wrote the 1983 gun law that defined "proper person" but left "good character and reputation" undefined, said legislators intended to leave State Police with discretion in evaluating people for carry permits, and "they should be using it."
But Shelton, the State Police commander, said, "I really had never given it thought . . . because we rely on that 'proper person' definition." Any bets on this being taken out of context or, if in context, on Shelton wincing inwardly as soon as he said it? Anyone wonder what was left out in the ". . ." in there?

But doing so means some people with extensive criminal histories -- who have been flagged by local police -- get gun permits. People such as Tony Thomas.

"At some point . . .
enough is enough"

Tony Thomas had five misdemeanor convictions, including battery and resisting law enforcement, before receiving his permit in 2006. How long before?

Indianapolis police recommended disapproval based on false statements on his application. But State Police allowed Thomas to resubmit the form because his criminal record was not "on its face" a disqualifier under the "proper person" provision. Any bets that the record was not on its face a disqualifier because the convictions were many years earlier?

Seven months later, police said, Thomas held his wife in their house for four days, threatening to kill her and their kids. Police confiscated numerous weapons, including five loaded handguns. Again, are they expected to foresee the future?

Thomas, who couldn't be reached for comment, later was convicted of domestic battery. Two years after the incident, the state revoked his permit. So they probably suspended it immediately and revoked it when the conviction was handed down.

Such situations anger Indianapolis police officer Miguel Roa, who said he was on duty last year when his life was threatened by a gun permit holder with a dubious past.

"You can have an extensive criminal history and still have (a permit)," Roa said. "At some point you should say enough is enough." Was Officer Roa threatened with a gun? This was not stated. I suppose it wouldn't really count if the threat was made with a knife, a rock, or bare hands. IMPD guys, if you could verify or deny this bit, it would be appreciated.

Bill Owensby, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police, said most officers are staunch defenders of gun rights.I am impressed to see this printed by the Star.

But, he said, "if you've got three or four or five arrests such as battery, even if they're misdemeanors, even if they're just arrests and not convictions, then yes, I think they should invoke ('good character and reputation')." If you've got three or four or five arrests for battery, why have you not been convicted? If you're convicted, you need to stay behind bars until you're no longer a threat... not that anyone can predict the future.

But Arulanandam, the NRA spokesman, worries about putting too much stock in a vague requirement for good character and reputation.

"Our concern would be if that stipulation is being exploited to deny people their permits," he said. "To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that has been a problem so far." Well, no, not in Indiana, anyway, but in other states, restrictive, anti-rights states, it certainly has. In California, the local sheriff can deny a permit for any reason or no reason. Likewise in Iowa, NJ, and MA, among others. They call it "may issue".

Just what is
"good character"?

But the question is valid: Without guidance, where would -- where should -- the State Police draw the line? How about at "proper person"? A nice, objective standard.

For example, is a person convicted of receiving stolen property or gambling or soliciting a prostitute a person of good character and reputation?Well, that depends: receiving stolen property does not address doing so knowingly, does it? Soliciting a prostitute should not be a criminal act, as there is no victim. It's a business transaction: He gets what he wants and she gets what she wants (and from that sentence, I defy you to say which is the prostitute!) As for gambling... really? Are they really going there? So if you buy a lottery ticket or have a weekly poker game, you should be able to be denied a LTCH?

Scott, the IU law professor, said State Police could create an administrative definition of "good character and reputation." A court challenge likely would follow that could provide guidance. Another option: Lawmakers could clarify the meaning. So ISP should develop a definition intended to cause more delays in the court system and more expenditure of taxpayer monies.... or we should have the liberal solution to most problems: more laws! There ya go, Sparky... Good job...

State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said the recommendations of local police should weigh heavily. Hmm.. Because he knows that the Gary police chief and Lake Co. Sheriff would deny 100% of them if they could? Would he feel likewise if he had a good, solid conservative libertarian in office?

"They should have some authority to say, 'I don't want to forward this application on' for whatever reason," he said. "By virtue of them being closer to the community, they know this person is not of sound character, but the State Police wouldn't know because they are so far removed."And what about those he doesn't know, but just doesn't want to issue to? Even though he knows nothing of them, he could still misuse/abuse his power.

Even the brother of one man who got a permit despite two battery convictions -- police report he twice struck women in the face -- questions the decision by State Police.

"I'd probably say no," Lawrence Oats, 59, Indianapolis, said when asked if he thought his brother, David Oats, should have a permit. "He might get mad and try to hurt somebody." Yes, he might. And so might you, but if you were outside your own home, you'd have to choose a knife or your bare hands or some other tool to hurt someone. David Oats struck two women in the face. If he didn't use a gun to do it, why is this an issue? What did those women do before he struck them? If one of them threatened him with some other weapon and all he did was an open-hand smack on the face, I'd say he showed amazing restraint. Note that I do not know anything about David Oats except for what is in this article. Again, IMPD guys, if you can confirm or deny, based on publicly available police records, some light on the issue would be welcome.

David Oats couldn't be reached for comment.

Using the "good character and reputation" requirement might be one way to get at another potential problem: Sometimes a felony conviction is not really a felony conviction, allowing the offender to get a permit to carry a gun.

William Gammon, the man accused of threatening to kill police officer Roa, had five misdemeanor convictions, including two for disorderly conduct, and in 1998 he was convicted of a felony charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. But that felony was reduced to a misdemeanor.
In 2006, he received a carry permit. And since Disorderly Conduct is a Class B misdemeanor unless at an airport or a funeral, these are irrelevant. Further, the charge can be levelled for:

IC 35-45-1-3
Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.

so "an unreasonable noise" should disqualify someone from a LTCH? His OWI was in 1998. So, rapid math here, conviction in 1998, serve two years (max?), charge reduced after five years good and lawful behavior... it sounds like they want a denial for any crime at any time in anyone's past, even someone other than the applicant.

Last year, Gammon's girlfriend called police to report that he was drunk and banging on her door. When Roa arrived, Gammon said he had a gun in his jacket pocket -- and a "(expletive) gun permit," according to the police report. Gammon reached toward his pocket and, the report said, threatened to kill Roa and another officer. While I don't think Gammon necessarily is telling the truth, I also don't think Roa is necessarily telling the truth. I would want to see far more evidence than "my word against his".

The police report said, "I believe this to be a safety issue towards police and the public and would strongly advise to invalidate his gun permit."

Gammon, who denies threatening Roa, contested revocation of his permit in a hearing last month. He told The Star, "Every time you get in the littlest trouble -- 'Oh, he doesn't deserve to carry a gun.' " A decision is pending.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Chief Michael Spears said legislators should reconsider alternative misdemeanor sentencing as it relates to gun permits. Just because a felony conviction was later reduced, he said, "doesn't mean it didn't occur."I wonder if the libbies over there at the Star would feel likewise about someone who violated, say, the law about "deviate sexual conduct". By that definition

IC 35-41-1-9 "Deviate sexual conduct" defined
Sec. 9. "Deviate sexual conduct" means an act involving:
(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.

there would be quite a few criminals out there. In fact, having placed urinary catheters in patients under physician orders, I could be charged with this, as could any parent who has ever assessed his or her child's rectal temperature.

State Sen. Johnny Nugent, R-Lawrenceburg, a gun-rights advocate, disagreed:

"If a court reduced it to a misdemeanor, then it's a misdemeanor."

Applicants' records often not shared

But misdemeanor convictions can be a strong predictor of future violence. Research by Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency room physician and director of the Violence Policy Research Program at the University of California-Davis, found that "handgun purchasers with just one prior misdemeanor conviction -- and no convictions for offenses involving firearms or violence -- were nearly five times as likely as those with no prior criminal history to be charged with new offenses involving firearms or violence." You don't suppose there might have been any bias in his study, do you? What was his sample size? Who funded his study? What was his methodology? How did he control for other variables?

The Star's investigation also found examples where applicants seemed to violate another provision that would disqualify them: that they not have a "propensity for violence."

Brandon Kennedy had misdemeanor convictions for battery, criminal confinement, criminal trespass and public intoxication. Moreover, police documented two incidents in which he fired his gun in the air in public: in 2004 in a White Castle drive-through lane at 4 a.m., and a year later at the scene of another shooting. Criminal trespass and public intoxication indicate nothing about a propensity toward violence, nor does firing a handgun into the air. Is it possible that the one in 2005 was intended to stop the crime in progress?

Local police recommended against granting the permit. But State Police granted it.

The issue wasn't State Police reluctance to determine good character or that they thought Kennedy didn't have a propensity for violence. They granted the permit because, while local police knew of these incidents -- and The Star was able to discover them -- State Police never knew. Again, why not?

There is no comprehensive, centralized law enforcement information available to provide more than just a list of charges and dispositions on an applicant. So the details in police reports that might raise character issues or show a propensity for violence are not known to State Police unless local police provide them or the State Police dig them up.Oooooooohhhh, so that's the solution! All information in one main database. There's no possibility for abuse in that, is there?

In interviews with Indianapolis police and State Police officials, each department seemed to expect the other to initiate the exchange. And the State Police said they consider IMPD among the best agencies in the state on gun-permit issues.By what criteria? Best at preventing? Best at reporting? More information is needed. I will say that if the onus is on ISP to issue or not, I think they should be the ones asking about run-ins with police.

Whitesell, the State Police superintendent, said his agency asks local police agencies for reports, but IMPD Deputy Chief Bryan Roach said he had never heard that request. Roach didn't know reports could be considered as part of an application.Which may mean he's never read the requests or that he's "stretching the truth", or it means that Whitesell is doing the latter... Somehow, I doubt Dr. Whitesell is being anything less than truthful. It is very possible that Chief Roach simply has not seen that request. I cannot say, but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.

"If you're asking if we pull up reports," Roach said, "no, we don't do that."

Indeed, said State Police spokesman Lt. Jerry Berkey, local agencies rarely forward police reports to the state. And if so few do it, perhaps it's not clearly requested?

Whitesell is aware of the disconnect. He is developing a handbook to help local police identify information State Police should use in deciding permit requests. Good, proactive solution.

In the case of Kennedy, who twice fired a gun in the air in public, State Police attorney Ezell said, "That would be one we would be very interested in."

Jim Tomes, Evansville, director of the pro-gun rights 2nd Amendment Patriots, generally opposes any licensing requirements. But if they're going to exist, he said, people such as Kennedy should be excluded. "My concern is why the Indiana State Police would allow that guy to get a handgun license," Tomes said.

Jim Tomes' response to this article was as follows:

Here is the IndyStar article about Indiana Handgun licensing. My comments are on the last page. Out of a 30 minute interview the reporter managed to take everyone of my hard stands on gun rights and concoct them into a couple of sentences that you would expect to come from the mouth of Sarah Brady.

I'm not surprised being it was the Indy Star, but it's a good example of why we must be ever alert to the threats we face.

Kennedy, who disputed the White Castle incident but admitted to firing his gun at the scene of the shooting, says he is responsible enough to carry a gun. Asked why, he pointed out that even the State Police seem to have confidence in him.

"The (IMPD) already told me, 'No, you shouldn't be able to get it,' " he said. "But the State Police say 'yes.' State has the final say-so."

​

So let's recap: It's all ISP's fault for not listening to local LE, but only when they recommend denying the LTCH. LTCHs should be denied if the citizen has ever had any run-ins with the law, if they have ever solicited a prostitute, or if they've ever bought a lottery ticket, and ISP should be able to foretell the future.

Or, in a nutshell, "it's a liberal paper: It doesn't have to make sense."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I like the way you think...this would also remove the constitutional infringement placed upon us to obtain the permission to carry, as it is already our right to carry...why do we need to be finger printed and get a silly pink paper that says it is ok?

UnConstitutional infringement, and where Agent 007 said "scrap the permit system, it appears to me he addressed that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...we were one of the first "shall issue" states(1980 i believe)....

IIRC, try 1865.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe if more people had the common sense to protect themselves and carry a gun we wouldn't have to worry about the poeple who are actually carrying. Whats that country with an almost 0% crime rate where citizens (not subjects) are required to carry a gun?

You're thinking of Switzerland, and while not exact, you're pretty close. The crime rate is very low there, yes, and the citizens are issued a full-auto rifle as a part of their militia service. They keep the rifle and a battle pack or two of ammo at home in the event that they are mustered out and need to rejoin their unit. There are efforts to control guns there, too, BTW, but so far, they've been mostly unsuccessful.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jd3772000]

Front page...

 

[esrice]

Nothing like some mugshots to play on people's bias'!