Latest Journal Gazette column--Constitutional Carry

[youngda9]

I'd love to see Constitutional Carry in IN and keeping a Larry only for carry in other states. That Larry should not cost more than a minimal administrative/processing fee ($5?), or retaining use of ones already issued.

I agree...and then I want a refund on my lifetime LTCH, minus the $5 fee

 

[Roland]

Im not fully inclined to agree, i still believe in issuing permits, that way we can be sure no felons/criminals will try to claim they are law abiding and carry a gun on them. HOWEVER the process really needs to be sped up, i can go out right now, buy ANOTHER handgun and get the background check done in 15 minutes, so could someone explain to me why its taken six months for my permit to get to me?

 

[youngda9]

^^ felons and criminals do not follow the laws by definition. Your logic is quite flawed.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Im not fully inclined to agree, i still believe in issuing permits, that way we can be sure no felons/criminals will try to claim they are law abiding and carry a gun on them. HOWEVER the process really needs to be sped up, i can go out right now, buy ANOTHER handgun and get the background check done in 15 minutes, so could someone explain to me why its taken six months for my permit to get to me?

A. Felons cannot possess firearms by federal law. Violent felons cannot possess them under Indiana law. There are also laws pertaining to the use of a weapon during the commission of a crime so I think we already have that aspect taken care of.

B. Aside from that what other person do you want to see their Natural Born rights taken away from?

 

[NIFT]

Im not fully inclined to agree, i still believe in issuing permits, that way we can be sure no felons/criminals will try to claim they are law abiding and carry a gun on them. HOWEVER the process really needs to be sped up, i can go out right now, buy ANOTHER handgun and get the background check done in 15 minutes, so could someone explain to me why its taken six months for my permit to get to me?

Felons and criminals constantly claim they are law abiding. Go to any prison, and you will find it chocked full of innocent people! Permits and licenses mean little or nothing to criminals, who, by definition do not obey laws.

Do you need a permit or a license or permission from a governmental entity to exercise your right to free speech?
Do you need a permit or a license or permission from a governmental entity to worship God?
Do you need a permit or a license or permission from a governmental entity to exercise your right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself?
Do you need a permit or a license or permission from a governmental entity to exercise your right to vote?

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) of the United States' Constitution is not a bill of privileges subject to the permission, control, and permission of government, and the United States Supreme Court, in its recent Heller and McDonald decisions, has confirmed:
1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right (not a privilege) and,
2. The Second Amendment to the United States actually applies to the States of the United States. Who'd a-thunk it?!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Im not fully inclined to agree, i still believe in issuing permits, that way we can be sure no felons/criminals will try to claim they are law abiding and carry a gun on them. HOWEVER the process really needs to be sped up, i can go out right now, buy ANOTHER handgun and get the background check done in 15 minutes, so could someone explain to me why its taken six months for my permit to get to me?

Sorry to pile on, Roland...but another way to add to what NIFT, TF, and youngda9 said above is to consider what you posted in the context of that old quote--those that would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

 

[jd42k]

Nice article.

How true if you travel a short distance to the east you can become a felon by crossing the state line.

 

[canav844]

When AK, AZ, and WY went to Constitutional Carry, they all kept their carry permits precisely so that their residents would have some recognition/reciprocity with other states. By the way, the AZ out-of-state permit will give you the most additional states with the least cost and hassle, and it does not require a photograph!

This is what I'd like to see eliminate our requirement, but not the permit, yes I'd still need an out of state permit to get through Ohio, but it wouldn't cross off states like CO, FL and MI that honor our permit, but won't honor any non-resident permits, so the folks with a UT and FL permit and all that training but like in VT are screwed when they go to such states.

Of course I'd much prefer a SCOTUS ruling saying that the Constitution makes firearm regulation purely the domain of the Federal government and the 14th amendment makes it so that the 2nd is incorporated to the states; and have 50 state constitutional carry; but until that happens I don't want to see us become casualties when we travel just for being on the leading edge of a movement.

 

[NIFT]

This is what I'd like to see eliminate our requirement, but not the permit, yes I'd still need an out of state permit to get through Ohio, but it wouldn't cross off states like CO, FL and MI that honor our permit, but won't honor any non-resident permits, so the folks with a UT and FL permit and all that training but like in VT are screwed when they go to such states.

Of course I'd much prefer a SCOTUS ruling saying that the Constitution makes firearm regulation purely the domain of the Federal government and the 14th amendment makes it so that the 2nd is incorporated to the states; and have 50 state constitutional carry; but until that happens I don't want to see us become casualties when we travel just for being on the leading edge of a movement.

Agree with all but abdicating more absolute power to the Feds, as it is guaranteed to be corrupted. It will be decades before some sense of order evolves in the handgun carry arena, but, as much as I like what is in HR 822, the downstream potential for such legislation to be bastardized, corrupted, and used against law-abiding gun owners is of great concern.

"Constitutional Carry," although a longer and messier alternative, is superior because it eliminates both the Fed's involvement and, eventually, the license requirements.

 

[Roland]

Just reread this, and good point about trading freedom for security.

 

[rugertoter]

That was a good article NIFT, thanks for posting it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I tried in 1996. No wanted wanted to help make the bread, but now everyone wants to eat it!

Here's photo of Kirk working on the Rex Early campaign and explaining to INGO members the advantages of giving money to Rex Early:

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Do you worry of a peaceful, law abiding citizen carrying a firearm? Do you think your worry will prevent a criminal, or would-be criminal from doing so? How does placement of some restriction, defined mostly by words, lead to some desired outcome? It's already illegal to shoot someone without cause. Can you really prevent it by making it "illegaler"? Step back and think about it.