INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[finity]

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.

Oh, come on...you just get through ranting about how felons have given up the right to self-defense with a gun FOR LIFE (which is generally how it is now) & then turn around & say that you would be OK with the judge/jury determining IF the convict should lose their right to self-defense with a gun or not? If that were the case then there would likely be MORE, NOT LESS, felons who kept their gun rights intact (which I would be OK with).

You know as well as I if a jury did, in fact, give a felon his gun rights you'd have all the tough-on(-some)-crime people (including you it seems) howling about how bleeding heart liberal judges & juries were causing crime to sky-rocket by not giving harsh enough sentences.

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.

Or, why don't we just have an objective criteria that every ISP dude HAS TO FOLLOW so that we don't have to worry about someones politics where a basic right is concerned. By the time our "recourse" has run its course many people could have their rights trampled & in the case of LTCH some people could be dead for lack of adequate means for self-defense. Nah, I think we should keep the current system but fix the obvious problems (unless the other option is to have no LTCH requirement - I'd vote for that too)

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.

I think you may be PRESUMING too much (the Germans in the 1930's probably PRESUMED the same thing).

Believe it or not but there are honest people out in the world who HONESTLY believe that it IS in the best interest of our citizens to not allow people to carry guns - they're wrong but they exist. It's not always some kind of communist plot to take over the world.

 

[ralphb72]

Some kool member kept putting links to INGO in the comment section of the articles.

 

[crazzy]

follow along

finity, you need to understand that the different positions proffered were relevant to differing scenarios being addressed.
under current law - any felony is supposed to prohibit the actor from EVER getting a LTCH and, [i think] even from owning a gun at home. i support enforcement of the current law.
when someone suggested that all felons are not created equal; as, for example, a non-violent felon and that perhaps current law is too severe on those, i accepted the postulate that, if the laws were to be revised, i would be comfortable w/ the concept that - given the NEW laws which define which felonies ARE violent - judges/juries could asses guilt/innocence of those violations and lay down sentences which include restrictions as a part of the sentence for guilt of violent actions.
when someone suggested another scenario, i indicated support for the system [as is] where a dude at ISP determines whether the felon is a threat of violence based upon analysis of his convictions for prior offenses; and, in the event that the people disagree w/ his assessments, we have recourse via the vote to have that individual replaced. and, BTW, in some states [not sure about IN] when denied by the 'system', the applicant may pursue redress via the courts [as in NJ]. i do NOT support decision at the local level since that would, of necessity, result in dozens of differing opinions and executions.
i consider 'SHALL ISSUE' to be the ideal situation and the ISP may have made some errors; that does not exonerate the permit holder from adherence to the strict laws regarding USE of the weapon.
i believe that my position should be quite clear on this issue, at this point.
peace, crazzy