INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[Michiana]

Trust me I completly understand what you are saying

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.

Because a person did their time does not mean that they are trustworthy carrying a deadly weapon in public. You can't keep everyone who is put in jail or prison in there forever because they "might" commit another crime but you also don't need to approve of every one of them walking around the mall or sitting in some bar, or being around your or my family with a handgun on them.

In my opinion people who commit a violent felony crime with a firearm should never be able to own one again, period. People with a record of DUI's who drive drunk and kill someone with their car should never be allowed to drive again. People who commit sex crimes against small children need to be locked up for an long time and when released NEVER allowed to be around children again. We have enough laws on the books already, the problem is the judges don't do their job.

 

[jsgolfman]

In one breath you state you can't lock someone up because they might commit a crime and in the next you say its ok to take away their rights because they might commit a crime.

 

[Michiana]

Got ya!

In one breath you state you can't lock someone up because they might commit a crime and in the next you say its ok to take away their rights because they might commit a crime.

Good thing I am about finished with reading Glenn Beck's new book.

 

[public servant]

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.

I didn't release them. Blame the judges and juries that did. I have no problem keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives. Society, however...balks at footing the bill to house them for the rest of their lives. Some actually believe they are rehabilitated once they leave prison.

If you have a LTCH then you know committing a felony will likely cause you to lose the permit. Should have thought about that before hand. You lose your right to carry a firearm because you chose to...you knew it would happen if you got caught. Consider it a lifelong probation.

Place the blame where it belongs...besides everywhere else. Stop shedding tears for them and make them responsible for their own actions. They beat the hell out of their wife...too bad. They steal a car...too bad. Can't leave the blow alone? So sorry...you loose.

That's why they do the things they do. Because they know someone will feel sorry for them and cut them a break.

 

[public servant]

In my opinion people who commit a violent felony crime with a firearm should never be able to own one again, period. People with a record of DUI's who drive drunk and kill someone with their car should never be allowed to drive again. People who commit sex crimes against small children need to be locked up for an long time and when released NEVER allowed to be around children again. We have enough laws on the books already, the problem is the judges don't do their job.

You aren't the only one who shares this opinion.

 

[jsgolfman]

I didn't release them. Blame the judges and juries that did. I have no problem keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives. Society, however...balks at footing the bill to house them for the rest of their lives. Some actually believe they are rehabilitated once they leave prison.

If you have a LTCH then you know committing a felony will likely cause you to lose the permit. Should have thought about that before hand. You lose your right to carry a firearm because you chose to...you knew it would happen if you got caught. Consider it a lifelong probation.

Place the blame where it belongs...besides everywhere else. Stop shedding tears for them and make them responsible for their own actions. They beat the hell out of their wife...too bad. They steal a car...too bad. Can't leave the blow alone? So sorry...you loose.

That's why they do the things they do. Because they know someone will feel sorry for them and cut them a break.

That's my point. There are some crimes that should be life sentences. Keep them in. However, once they are released, their rights should be restored.

 

[public servant]

That's my point. There are some crimes that should be life sentences. Keep them in. However, once they are released, their rights should be restored.

Then we simply differ in opinion. Like I said...consider it lifetime probation.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

How on earth did they have there guns confiscated for reckless use, and still manage to retain the permit?

 

[crazzy]

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.

perhaps this will help you understand. "sticks and stones will break my bones [and guns may kill me] but names will never hurt me!" so, letting them potentially slander again [and, if they do, lock them up again] is probably not life threatening. but, if they have committed a violent crime then once 'free' it behoves society to attempt to restrict their access to the most efficient tool of violence - the gun. yes, criminals will get guns if they really want them; however, that possession should NOT be sanctioned by society via issuing the felon a PERMIT to carry such an implement. and, YES, once you have violated the sanctity of another's life via any violent crime, YES, you DO lose the right to be armed [legally] in society. for some things, there is NO going back. as it is, we OFTEN release these felons long before their official 'sentence' has been server due to errors and 'overcrowding'. GOD forbid we should PERMIT them to carry in our midst - EVER! peace, crazzy

 

[dburkhead]

Then we simply differ in opinion. Like I said...consider it lifetime probation.

While I agree that the restriction of rights as part of the sentence can and sometimes should extend beyond the period of actual incarceration any such restriction needs to actually be part of the sentence--"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law" (Fifth Amendment, emphasis added). And, as such should be just as amenable to modification as any other part of the sentence--neither more nor less.

Prohibition of exercise of rights can be restricted as part of a criminal sentence. There's no Constitutional bar to that. The eighth would come into play if the prohibition is excessive for the crime in question, but that's the only real Constitutional issue on that. However, that's only if it's actually part of the sentence, either explicitly or implicitly, and should be as amenable to suspension, commutation, etc. as the other.

OTOH, retroactively applying those restrictions to people who had been sentenced before such restrictions were put in place is, or should be, a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws (which is not even an Amendment but in the very body of the Constitution).

 

[Thumper]

Only 5.5 percent in my zip code.Come on people.

 

[mrjarrell]

My zipcode wasn't even listed. Guess we're outside the system.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Because a person did their time does not mean that they are trustworthy carrying a deadly weapon in public. You can't keep everyone who is put in jail or prison in there forever because they "might" commit another crime but you also don't need to approve of every one of them walking around the mall or sitting in some bar, or being around your or my family with a handgun on them.

In my opinion people who commit a violent felony crime with a firearm should never be able to own one again, period. People with a record of DUI's who drive drunk and kill someone with their car should never be allowed to drive again. People who commit sex crimes against small children need to be locked up for an long time and when released NEVER allowed to be around children again. We have enough laws on the books already, the problem is the judges don't do their job.

This is where the whole permit/license system falls apart, though. Whether they are approved for a LTCH or not, if they choose to carry, they're going to carry. Zoub, no insult to you here, just a comment on something you said; that whether it is lawful for you to be armed or not, you will take the chance of running afoul of that law to avoid being unarmed at a time you might need that firearm. Personally, I see little difference here between those two points of view. Both will be armed if they so choose, the law to the contrary notwithstanding. The big difference is in the expected use based on history: the person denied the LTCH is more likely to choose to (re?)offend. Zoub, from my understanding from the posts of those who've met him, can be expected to use his firearm only in defense. However, consider the example I've used before: The guy at 17 who goes joyriding with his friends... he may not even have driven the car or done anything at all except be with them, but if he's the only one caught, he's going to have a felony rap, probably as an adult. For the sake of the discussion (and round numbers), let's just say that he serves two years after his conviction at 18, making him 20 and out of prison. Fast forward three years. Our boy has really done well. He's gone to school, gotten an Associates degree, gotten married, and the missus has a bun in the oven. He's 23, but he has that felony rap for a non-violent act (albeit a property crime) of which he was a part.

Given this example, why should he not be able to defend his home, his wife, and when junior comes along, his baby from the lowlife POS who sees his missus and decides he wants a piece of her and some of her husband's hard-earned cash? Conversely, even if a lack of LTCH actually stopped any criminal from obtaining or carrying a firearm, no law prevents his access to any number of other weapons. The problem is not the gun in his hand. The problem is not the knife on his belt. The problem is the mope carrying them. I take no issue with anyone being armed even with a firearm so long as his actions consist of defensive uses.

Dick, you hit the nail squarely on the head here (the part from "In my opinion" on). Punish the scum-sucking mopes who commit the crimes. Punish them harshly and memorably, and these crimes will stop, or at the very least, decrease in frequency. I can't agree with restrictions on things because there are so many more things that can be used in their stead.

For those, like dburkhead, who point out the conflict with the 8A, I say that if the punishments become more frequent, they will not be "unusual", and to do in return to them what they've done to their innocent would-be victims... Well, if they thought what they were doing was cruel, why did they do it? If anything, the law would be less cruel, because the criminal knows in advance that there will be some end to the attack other than his/her own death.... of course, there are some things worse than death, too.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Zoub]

This is where the whole permit/license system falls apart, though.

It falls apart just like mandatory sentencing does too. Is self defense a right or a privilege? Obviously most of us say it's a birth right but we have to operate like it is a privilege.

The current system is designed to roll up as many people as possible and never let them out, never permit them to carry and this will be the future tactic. Oh look soldiers have PTSD, take away their rights. Keep adding to the list of those who are banned. No thought, discussion or debate, just take away their rights. Same way mandatory sentencing takes the judge and jury out of the equation on determining punishment. We have brains but then we become too afrraid to use them, so we mandate them away.

This is why Liberals really can't debate.

The movie Minority Report nailed, it is what we have to prevent from happening.

As for todays "climate" one of my Attorneys said it best: Before 9/11 an accident was not illegal, now it is. Ask the Eagle Scout suspended from school for 20 days. At some point this country will end up in a civil war and it will involve shooting. Sane people can only tolerate so much stupidity. The fight will be to determine who is sane and who isn't.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I didn't release them. Blame the judges and juries that did. I have no problem keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives. Society, however...balks at footing the bill to house them for the rest of their lives. Some actually believe they are rehabilitated once they leave prison.

If you have a LTCH then you know committing a felony will likely cause you to lose the permit. Should have thought about that before hand. You lose your right to carry a firearm because you chose to...you knew it would happen if you got caught. Consider it a lifelong probation.

Place the blame where it belongs...besides everywhere else. Stop shedding tears for them and make them responsible for their own actions. They beat the hell out of their wife...too bad. They steal a car...too bad. Can't leave the blow alone? So sorry...you loose.

That's why they do the things they do. Because they know someone will feel sorry for them and cut them a break.

That's my point. There are some crimes that should be life sentences. Keep them in. However, once they are released, their rights should be restored.

Agree on this, but we need to take things one step further.....

In order to discourage people from commiting crimes and having 3 hots and a cot with play and relaxation for 24/7/365 we need to discourage people from EVER committing a crime.

To do this the ACUL needs to back off and let law enforcement and the court system allow the re creation of hard labor chain gangs with minimal luxuries available to inmates.

No TV...newspaper and books only.
No mattress but a canvas cot style bed.
Give them food of substance, but nothing of quality.

ect...ect... ect... you get what I saying.

Prision/jail should not be a place that they enjoy, it should be a place that are rehabilitated and that they never want commit another crime and have to come back to.

We all agree that people have slipped through the LTCH system, it just needs tightened up a bit with better record checking and and multi dept co-operations.

Maybe introduce a probationary permit to people that the local level has questioned on their ability to hold that permit. Have it 6-9 months or a year with someone just stopping by and asking questions to family could be the answer.

Lets hear some solutions to improve and tighten the system by legal gun owners who perhaps are more tougher and stringent on ourselves than the public to prevent undesirables rome obtaining a LTCH permit.

Thoughts, questions, answers to improve?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

but, if they have committed a violent crime then once 'free' it behoves society to attempt to restrict their access to the most efficient tool of violence - the gun. yes, criminals will get guns if they really want them; however, that possession should NOT be sanctioned by society via issuing the felon a PERMIT to carry such an implement. and, YES, once you have violated the sanctity of another's life via any violent crime, YES, you DO lose the right to be armed [legally] in society. for some things, there is NO going back. as it is, we OFTEN release these felons long before their official 'sentence' has been server due to errors and 'overcrowding'. GOD forbid we should PERMIT them to carry in our midst - EVER! peace, crazzy

You mention violent crime and you also mention felon, the two are not necessarily the same. There is a long list of non-violent crimes that are/can be felonies(theft/possession of stolen property/prostitution/contributing to the delinquency of a minor/drugs etc). There is also a long list of violent crimes that are not. Should all felons be forever banned from owning/carrying a firearm? How about all people who committed a crime of violence? A guy gets into a fight when he's 18 and gets arrested and convicted for battery he serves his sentence fast forward 10 years, no other crimes happily married with kids, should he be denied using a firearm to protect himself and his family? How about if in the course of the fight he put the other person in a choke hold with no injury done? The reason I put that in is because it is a felony. Or how about this one, a felony that is committed with a firearm, your at your home and your 17 year old buddy/nephew/neighbors kid comes over and sees your new shotgun and asks to check it out. Being responsible you call the parents and get their permission so you hand it over to them. Guess what, under IN law you just committed a felony.

IC 35-47-10-6
Dangerous control of a firearm
Sec. 6. An adult who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly provides a firearm to a child for any purpose other than those described in section 1 of this chapter, with or without remuneration, commits dangerous control of a firearm, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the adult has a prior conviction under this section.

What I just described does not fall under sec 1, and while I have never heard of anyone being arrested let alone convicted for it in a case like this, it is still the law.

While I agree that the restriction of rights as part of the sentence can and sometimes should extend beyond the period of actual incarceration any such restriction needs to actually be part of the sentence--"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law" (Fifth Amendment, emphasis added). And, as such should be just as amenable to modification as any other part of the sentence--neither more nor less.

I agree but would like to add a bit, IMO it is also unconstitutional under the bills of attainder clause art 1 sec 9. While it is not strictly a bill of attainder, it is a bill of pains and penalties. Which has been found by SCOTUS to fall under the bill of attainder clause. From Cummings v State of Missouri, 71 U.S. 277

It has been decided that bills of pains and penalties, which inflict a milder degree of punishment, are included within bills of attainder, which refer to capital offences. It has been said by an accurate writer10 that in cases of bills of attainder, 'the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, weighing the enormity of the charge and the proof adduced in support of it, and then deciding the political necessity and moral fitness of the penal judgment.'

Then we simply differ in opinion. Like I said...consider it lifetime probation.

Then why not treat it as such? Have it applied at sentencing in each case on the merits of it rather than a blanket coverage that applies to all?

And have the means put in place so in the future the person can have it removed with clear guidelines put in place for it?.

 

[crazzy]

i have no argument w/ the concept of having the judge and/or jury [as appropriate] declare, as a part of the sentencing, that the offender is forever barred from LTCH and/or even possession. get that concept into the laws of the 47 odd states which do issue LTCH permits and i will support it. until that happens [which means for a VERY long time, if ever] we are forced to rely on someone's judgement. here in IN, that's the ISP dude who reviews the app. and for now, i'm good w/ that. peace, crazzy

 

[IndyBeerman]

Plainfield
Zip 46168
% rate is 8.5% with a pop of 17,048, and permit holders being 1,449 for a


Where I used to live
Mooresville
Zip 46158
% rate is 12.8% with a pop of 17,059, and permit holders being 2,153 for a 12.6% rate.

Looks like P-field needs to play catch up with my old home and more rural Mooresville.

 

[finity]

I didn't release them. Blame the judges and juries that did. I have no problem keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives. Society, however...balks at footing the bill to house them for the rest of their lives. Some actually believe they are rehabilitated once they leave prison.

There are wonderful conservative footholds in the world that do exactly what you suggest...Iran, China, Korea...great places to live because of their extremely low crime rate, I guess.

This is why Liberals really can't debate.

Yur rit...us libruls is jus two stoopid to bee aibl too think....

From reading some of these posts by others it seems to me a lot of the self-proclaimed conservatives/libertarians also have a problem with "thinking", too. It's all in what you're for or against so that you're willing to take away those rights of others.

At some point this country will end up in a civil war and it will involve shooting. Sane people can only tolerate so much stupidity. The fight will be to determine who is sane and who isn't.

Sanity has never been determined by who wins a fight. It never will. I guess you missed the lesson about "might doesn't make right".

i have no argument w/ the concept of having the judge and/or jury [as appropriate] declare, as a part of the sentencing, that the offender is forever barred from LTCH and/or even possession.

So would you still be OK with it if the judge/jury declared that the convicted person had their rights restored as soon as their sentence was over? Or is it only OK if the judge/jury made the sentence harsher? If there are circumstances that make the crime more heinous therefore deserving of a harsher sentence shouldn't there be other circumstances that make the crime LESS severe as well? So you are OK with their judgement as long as they make the sentence longer/harder but if IN THEIR JUDGEMENT the crime warranted a less harsh sentence based on the circumstances of the crime then that should not be allowed. I think you are missing the point of how the American legal system works. You know "jury of your peers", "no cruel or unusual punishments", "fair & impartial" that kind of thing.

until that happens [which means for a VERY long time, if ever] we are forced to rely on someone's judgement. here in IN, that's the ISP dude who reviews the app. and for now, i'm good w/ that. peace, crazzy

So what if Paul Helmke (or Sarah Brady) was chosen as the next ISP dude(ette) who's judgement was required for YOU to get YOUR LTCH? Still good with that?

 

[crazzy]

Originally Posted by crazzy
i have no argument w/ the concept of having the judge and/or jury [as appropriate] declare, as a part of the sentencing, that the offender is forever barred from LTCH and/or even possession.
So would you still be OK with it if the judge/jury declared that the convicted person had their rights restored as soon as their sentence was over? Or is it only OK if the judge/jury made the sentence harsher? If there are circumstances that make the crime more heinous therefore deserving of a harsher sentence shouldn't there be other circumstances that make the crime LESS severe as well? So you are OK with their judgement as long as they make the sentence longer/harder but if IN THEIR JUDGEMENT the crime warranted a less harsh sentence based on the circumstances of the crime then that should not be allowed. I think you are missing the point of how the American legal system works.

ummmm, oh contraire. YOU missed the point! as it stands, the judge/jury have not got a damn thing to do w/ whether or not a convicted criminal is prohibited from LTCH; i am willing to give them that responsibility.

as for what would happen if an idiot [u see, ALL anti-gunners are, by definition, unconstitutional idiots :-) ] got into the drivers seat at the ISP, there is recourse for those who are unblemished to overturn a denial. yes, i am presuming that the decision maker is rational and acting in the best interests of the law and our citizens; not w/ a personal anti-gun aganda. the dude has a boss who has a boss and, ultimately, we, the people, elect the BOSS - Gov. of the state. when our elected officials fail to act in accord w/ our interests/wishes, it is our DUTY to see them UNelected. wait till '10. i'm betting that there is a MAJOR shakeup in conrgess b/c of the horror which this rubber stamp bunch has wreaked upon us in following the 'change' foisted upon us by our socialist/leftist/racist/unamerican excuse for a president. but, hey, do NOT ask me how i really feel! peace, crazzy