INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[Robert Richardson]

Sorry...I've had professional dealings with a large percentage of the 15 individuals named in the article. And none of them should ever have been allowed to legally carry a firearm...IMO.

Hopefully ISP will now begin to use the "proper person" clause that has been available to them to keep permits from being issued to those that don't deserve them.

I think ISP should be following the recommendations of local LE as to whether or not the permits should be issued...as long as the local LE can justify the recommendation...not "just because we say so". Politics should have no place in it...based only on facts.

I'm not foolish enough to believe these criminals would not have carried a weapon without the permit. That's why judges and juries need to start sending these mopes to prison for a long, long time when they are caught illegally possessing firearms. But you also have to have the general public backing up the decision. It costs taxpayer money to keep them in prison. If you want to get tough on crime...you'll have to agree to pony up the costs involved. And start putting the pressure on local prosecutors to stop plea bargaining the charges down.

Someone mentioned being outraged that the Star spread these people's pictures and personal info all over the pages of their paper. Nothing the Star printed wasn't a matter of public record. Pictures, criminal history, arrest reports, court records... Don't like your stuff thrown out there for the world to see? Stay out of the system. But believe me...these 15 don't care who knows. Most of them are career criminals.

I don't like the Star...but they weren't too far off the mark with this article. It's the Star...so you know it's going to be written left of center. I didn't see anything in it that should be of major concern for responsible gun owners and "proper persons" who hold permits. And they won't lose a dime over litigation because of it.

I think the pressure has been put on the ISP to stop rubber stamping these permit applications. In a perfect world...we wouldn't need the permit process. All the dangerous crooks would be locked away. We don't live in a perfect world.

Of course...if you want to treat a LTCH permit like the Nobel Peace Prize...we can just continue handing them to everyone.

And if the pieces of were still locked-up where they belong, we would not have to worry about them having a LTCH would we?

 

[cosermann]

Liberty is a dangerious thing folks. History has shown there is no sustainable middle ground. If you want the screws tightened to the point where you have a false sense of security, don't come crying to me if/when you can't legally obtain or use effective means to defend you and yours.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Indy Star is reporting the facts and they are that undesireables are slipping under the radar and getting permits they should not be getting from the Indiana State Police. If the local and state law enforcement people cooperate and weed out these few rejects every gunowner will benefit. I read INGO posts from admitted (former??) pot heads and dopers who have LCH's with no outcry from members so obviously many of us also look the other way. You reap what you sow.

All right, Dick... First off, "undesireables" is exactly who the LTCH was supposed to prevent from being armed... but originally, "undesireable" was synonymous with any minority group... Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews.... you name it. Are you really sure you want to go there? Note as well that if the ability to lawfully exercise one's rights is denied to anyone, the precedent is set to later deny that ability to anyone else... or everyone else. Take your own advice: You reap what you sow.

How is ISP supposed to choose to whom a license should be issued and still remain "shall issue"? Surely you don't suggest that it be denied on the basis of the commission of a crime of violence that has not yet (and may never) happen?

Additionally, since this seems such an issue for you, and anyone who's read your posts knows to whom you're referring, let me ask you: Have these horrible "dopers and pot heads" here on INGO committed any crimes with their firearms? Are you aware of any wrongdoing on their parts that would indicate that they have even so much as spat upon the sidewalk (to say nothing of a real, violent act against the person or property of another?

Your posts consistently seem to indicate that you think no one should be allowed to own, let alone carry firearms unless they have Dick's Personal Seal of Approval; that that arbitrary standard should be universally applied (or better, that only LEOs and military should be armed. This attitude baffles me. I'm an intelligent man, but I cannot wrap my mind around how a gun owner, a man who makes his income on the buying and selling of firearms, a man who at one time stood with a weapon and defended the Constitution under which we all live can now stand so diametrically opposed to it's principles, can from a business perspective cut his own throat, and from a personal perspective be so closed-minded and hate-filled that he cannot see that any- and every adult has the right to defend him- or herself against those who would do him or her harm. Every. Single. One.

You point up the previous (and question without any evidence to do so the current) use of drugs by some members here. Allow me to remind you that alcohol, tobacco, and yes, believe it or not oxygen are all drugs. What a man (or woman) puts in his or her body is no da*n business of yours or anyone else's. If they commit a crime of violence to do so, address it. If while under the influence of those drugs which are addictive or mind-altering, they act in a way that does harm, punish it. From your phrasing as to the past use of those things by some people, it would seem that you think that such past use should forever completely disqualify them from the right of self-defense.

Sir, this attitude is so foreign to me, I am having difficulty keeping my words civil, but I will not be provoked to a lack of courtesy. You have the right to your opinions, certainly. You do not have a right to deny the rights of others.

Thank God for that.

Oh, and BTW, this comes from a man who does not and has never used, let alone abused, alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, or any other addictive substance voluntarily.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I really hate when people say stuff, but won't use names.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I really hate when people say stuff, but won't use names.

If names are used, it's a personal attack and will get deleted as well as infracted. Sometimes, that can happen even without the names, depending on how thinly veiled the attack is.

Personally,<removes mod hat for this sentence> I think it's better to leave such things completely unsaid. <replaces mod hat>

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsgolfman]

@BoR

 

[Michiana]

Sorry it bothers you I do not always agree with your thinking.

Bla-Bla-Bla

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, one of your classic “twists someones post around to give you another soapbox in which to spout off”. My post is very clear, I am saying that the state police needs to start reading and listening to the reports from local leo’s when they shine the light on people who should not be considered for a license to carry a gun in public. These people can still have a gun in their home for personal protection without a license. As for my comment on pot heads on INGO I am not talking about anyone in particular and especially not the one I believe you think I am.

I do not make my living selling guns; this is a part time job/hobby for me and I have no problem finding and keeping repeat customers. Everyone does not think like you nor do they disagree with most of my posts. We are all entitled to our opinions; I would fight for your right to express yourself and hope you would do the same for me. Because I am a gun owner/FFL/military veteran is not reason for me to condone allowing the licensing of every person who breaths to carry a firearm in public.

 

[wally05]

Bill, one of your classic “twists someones post around to give you another soapbox in which to spout off”. My post is very clear, I am saying that the state police needs to start reading and listening to the reports from local leo’s when they shine the light on people who should not be considered for a license to carry a gun in public. These people can still have a gun in their home for personal protection without a license. As for my comment on pot heads on INGO I am not talking about anyone in particular and especially not the one I believe you think I am.

I do not make my living selling guns; this is a part time job/hobby for me and I have no problem finding and keeping repeat customers. Everyone does not think like you nor do they disagree with most of my posts. We are all entitled to our opinions; I would fight for your right to express yourself and hope you would do the same for me. Because I am a gun owner/FFL/military veteran is not reason for me to condone allowing the licensing of every person who breaths to carry a firearm in public.

Sorry, Michiana. When the ISP starts investigating the background of people's actions past a simple criminal background check, you're getting into muddy waters and definitely puts a threat to "shall issue." That just opens it up to problems.

If they've done stuff and haven't been caught, leave it be. If they have an official criminal record, then go off that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, one of your classic “twists someones post around to give you another soapbox in which to spout off”. My post is very clear, I am saying that the state police needs to start reading and listening to the reports from local leo’s when they shine the light on people who should not be considered for a license to carry a gun in public. These people can still have a gun in their home for personal protection without a license. As for my comment on pot heads on INGO I am not talking about anyone in particular and especially not the one I believe you think I am.

I do not make my living selling guns; this is a part time job/hobby for me and I have no problem finding and keeping repeat customers. Everyone does not think like you nor do they disagree with most of my posts. We are all entitled to our opinions; I would fight for your right to express yourself and hope you would do the same for me. Because I am a gun owner/FFL/military veteran is not reason for me to condone allowing the licensing of every person who breaths to carry a firearm in public.

I hardly need to twist your words for a "soapbox", you do a fine job of posting infringements upon liberty, no "twisting" required, and as for "spouting off", yes, I express my opinions. I also said that I recognized your right to speak yours. I suppose that was just "spouting off", too.

ISP should listen to local LE, yes- when they have a specific conviction or a "charge of information" for recent past misdeeds. To do otherwise quickly leads to "may issue".

Also: I did not say that you made your living selling guns, I said your income. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "part of your income", but your finances are not my concern- I was remarking on what appears to me to be hypocrisy.

You're right, not everyone thinks like I do. I recognize that and honor the fact that we are all individuals and choose what is important to us. Liberty vs. Security, Freedom vs. Authority, Minimalist vs. Dictatorial government just to address three. I don't really care who agrees or disagrees with what you or I have to say... it's not like INGO is a contest for who has the longest urine stream.

Finally, I also am a gun owner and a FFL, albeit a C&R licensee. I am not a military veteran; one of my regrets. Nonetheless, I also do not support the licensing of every person who breathes to carry a firearm: Personally, I don't think the LTCH is appropriate or necessary or even Constitutional, but I suppose that those with black robes and power are more dedicated to statism than to an actual reading of the letter of the law.

There are quite a few states where the carry of a firearm can happen without a license or permit. Their crime rates, by and large, are fairly low, IIRC. Restrictive licenses, no matter who issues them, do nothing to decrease crime, unless we have been transported to a fantasy world where the criminals care nothing about the rights of others to their lives and/or property, but do somehow care about the law forbidding them to have a gun to take the lives or property of their victims.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

ISP should listen to local LE, yes- when they have a specific conviction or a "charge of information" for recent past misdeeds. To do otherwise quickly leads to "may issue".

...but your finances are not my concern- I was remarking on what appears to me to be hypocrisy.

You're right, not everyone thinks like I do. I recognize that and honor the fact that we are all individuals and choose what is important to us. Liberty vs. Security, Freedom vs. Authority, Minimalist vs. Dictatorial government just to address three.

...I am not a military veteran; one of my regrets. Nonetheless, I also do not support the licensing of every person who breathes to carry a firearm: Personally, I don't think the LTCH is appropriate or necessary or even Constitutional, but I suppose that those with black robes and power are more dedicated to statism than to an actual reading of the letter of the law.

There are quite a few states where the carry of a firearm can happen without a license or permit. Their crime rates, by and large, are fairly low, IIRC. Restrictive licenses, no matter who issues them, do nothing to decrease crime, unless we have been transported to a fantasy world where the criminals care nothing about the rights of others to their lives and/or property, but do somehow care about the law forbidding them to have a gun to take the lives or property of their victims.

Blessings,
Bill

Thank you for articulating a fraction of my views on this issue, especially the
highlighted section. You may not have served, but just the same.

 

[Zoub]

Perception is Reality.

Change Reality and you change Perception.


The reality is some people beat the current system and the Star caught it. Stop that from happening and then what does the Star have to write about?

Ignore all the fluff and buff and good guy morales clause crapola and personal judgements. If the State cops would be consistent in their application of the laws, the problem is resolved.

If you are a Father and you have a daughter whose life is threatened by a career criminal and he gets a gun legally, you would not be happy. It would make no sense to you. Your perception would be the system is failing. The reality then follows that the system must be changed. At this point, you can forget logic.

As I said I am not affraid that the Star got some facts right. That is reality. Change reality and you are left with the perception the system is working. We here know it is crap.

All we need is consistent application of the laws as they exist. We should demand it because we are forced to live buy them and sadly...........

It can be a crime to carry a gun without criminal intent but it is my intent to never go unarmed in my life time. I feel that is my God given right.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

All we need is consistent application of the laws as they exist. We should demand it because we are forced to live buy them and sadly...........

I think the major argument to be considered here, however is going to be based on this one line.

What constitutes as a proper application of the laws as they exist that can be applied as a whole to a changing nation, and to be defined solidly and consistently on a group of peoples that can be so different.

Okay, absolutely you can state some things that make sense: 1) If they have been convicted of a violent crime committed with a firearm, they should not own a firearm.
2) If they have been convicted of a violent crime, they probably should not be allowed to legally carry a firearm.

These are things that I think most people here can agree on.

Has there been a break-down in communication from the local law enforcement to the state law enforcement? Maybe, but no definitive proof on that. My instincts tell me yes.

Are their vague terms used to determine how the state 'shall issue' a LTCH? Yes, just as there is a term that does have very straight-forward definitions as set forth by judges.

But here's the question, and the primary concern, and something that's been popping up lately on the forums. How do you provide a law with such a strict penalty for disobedience that is fair and can be applied across the board justly?

The answer, so far as I'm concerned, is that you can't. Take, for example, the 'Zero Tolerance' law used in schools today for any sort of weapon. It's a hot topic recently. If a student is found in possession of a weapon, regardless of intent of use of the weapon, he or she is immediately suspended for five days with further punishment pending based upon a council's decision. My example is shown here of just how that one rolls out. And that's exactly what people are asking for with gun rights. You want a law that is clear cut and concise? You're ready to burn people for mistakes.

The best idea, in my opinion, is to just not have a law. Let whoever wants to carry, carry. Unless they prove they cannot carry. Now, if I had stabbed someone with my knife at the school, on purpose or on accident, then I certainly should not be allowed to have that knife--as I do not know how to use it responsibly (assuming I was not defending myself justly). Same thing with guns. You make less laws, you make less criminals. People with a history of gun crime, well, give them very harsh consequences for breaking the law of not being allowed to own a gun. People who have never had an issue should not be the ones to suffer for another's negligence.

 

[crazzy]

but, u do hafta wonder why the ISP wud grant permits OVER the objections of the IMPD which were based upon CONVICTIONS. i favor the permit system - although, i must say that in AK, open carry is legal. permit, schermit. CARRY. if u screw up, u go to jail. and no one blinks when u go thru town w/ a large frame semi on yur belt. AK wud b a nice place to live ..... if the temps ever got to, say, 80 or so. lol peace, crazzy

 

[jsgolfman]

I'll repeat myself again, if you have completed your sentence are you still a criminal? If you can't be trusted with your rights, why are you not still in prison? If you have been convicted for slander and spent time in prison, should your right to speak be revoked?

 

[crazzy]

I'll repeat myself again, if you have completed your sentence are you still a criminal? If you can't be trusted with your rights, why are you not still in prison? If you have been convicted for slander and spent time in prison, should your right to speak be revoked?

problem is, our 'justice system' sucks! completed your sentence?? like the braindead idiot who was sentenced to LIFE for rape of a child and let out in 7 yrs. then kidnapped and raped the girl for, what, 14 years! w/ his 'wife' as his assistant. can felons be 'cured'? i wont bother u w/ stats on repeat offenders who 'did the time'. sure, there are those who MAY 'go straight'; but, for my safety and the safety of those dear to me, no convicted felon gets to carry a gun - EVER! period! when u screw up bigtime [felony] u sacrifice some rights, bigtime. as in FOREVER! when u decide to break the rules you can no longer expect to be protected by those rules.

 

[dburkhead]

Letter in today's Indianapolis Star

I got a call a couple of days ago to confirm that I wrote the letter to the editor for possible publication. Well, as of this morning, my letter isn't in there but this one is:

Your Oct. 11 front-page "exposé" of individuals who somehow obtained handgun permits against all common sense and existing law will almost certainly bring the anti-gun lobby out in force.


These cases represent a breakdown in the system, but should not be construed as an argument to disarm citizens in general. I personally maintain a handgun carry permit, even though I have never actually carried my weapon. We must continually strive to prevent the erosion of the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.


Benjamin Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Thomas Wolfe, MD
Greenfield

 

[jsgolfman]

problem is, our 'justice system' sucks! completed your sentence?? like the braindead idiot who was sentenced to LIFE for rape of a child and let out in 7 yrs. then kidnapped and raped the girl for, what, 14 years! w/ his 'wife' as his assistant. can felons be 'cured'? i wont bother u w/ stats on repeat offenders who 'did the time'. sure, there are those who MAY 'go straight'; but, for my safety and the safety of those dear to me, no convicted felon gets to carry a gun - EVER! period! when u screw up bigtime [felony] u sacrifice some rights, bigtime. as in FOREVER! when u decide to break the rules you can no longer expect to be protected by those rules.

I understand the system is flawed, but that wasn't my question. You did answer it though. Your answer is yes, once released you are still a criminal. If that is the case, why release them? Also, as to the other part of my question, why not take away their right to speak, worship, etc.?
If they can't be trusted, why let them go at all? Anyone convicted of a violent crime, a crime committed with a weapon, sexual crime, etc. forever lose the right to protect themselves. If you ever break a rule of society, thats all she wrote.

 

[Michiana]

If they can't be trusted, why let them go at all? Anyone convicted of a violent crime, a crime committed with a weapon, sexual crime, etc. forever lose the right to protect themselves. If you ever break a rule of society, thats all she wrote.

Don’t you have this somewhat twisted; society needs to be protected from these types of people who have shown a criminal nature, not the other way around?

 

[jsgolfman]

Apparently it's not registering. If they can't be trusted, don't release them. If they can be trusted to be released, restore their rights.

 

[LPMan59]

Apparently it's not registering. If they can't be trusted, don't release them. If they can be trusted to be released, restore their rights.

no,the system releases them to make more room for drug users and addicts. they spend more time in prison than child-molesters and rapists....makes sense to me!