LTCH Interview Questions?

[dominicandemon]

Quick Update

5 minutes to take my L-1 fingerprints. Next up is to make the drive downtown.

Funny, drive downtown without carrying, not after I get the license.

 

[kludge]

I was interviewed by the Carmel Chief of Police when applying for my LTCH. It was actually a very enjoyable experience. He really just asked me about my knowledge and familiarity with guns.

Is that a requirement for a LTCH? Hmmm... let's see...

"(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;
the superintendent shall issue to the applicant a qualified or an unlimited license to carry any handgun lawfully possessed by the applicant."

​

Nope. Knowledge and familiarity with firearms is not required.

I wonder what (s)he would have said if the person applying had no prior experience with firearms?

 

[Colonel D]

A bit of history.
When I got my first CCW permit back in 1984, there was a place on the application that asked you to list your reason for applying.

I go back to '72 when I got my first license. You had to have a typed letter explaining why you wanted the license. That was in Marion County. Thank God things have changed since then. The license was for two years back then. I was pleased when they went to the four year, and now the lifetime which both my wife and I have.

 

[thekuhnburger]

Is that a requirement for a LTCH? Hmmm... let's see...
Nope. Knowledge and familiarity with firearms is not required.

I wonder what (s)he would have said if the person applying had no prior experience with firearms?

After I talked with him, I got the impression that he had a few training/safety classes that he would recommend. I didn't get the impression that he would turn the person away.

 

[SmileDocHill]

--I had the same interview with Carmel chief. Indiana code determines where you go to officially do your application process. If that turns out to be Carmel the chief does an interview.
--It was a hassle only in the logistical sense because it took a while for me to be able to find a time that I could get that part done (at the time he had set times of the week that he did them).
--Paraphrasing a almost year old memory here but...I got the impression (and remember him explaining it as much) that if he is going to sign off on the app he wants to meet the applicant, and that if someone is going to be able to walk around Carmel with a handgun he'll have the added advantage of having met the person before (& recognize them?). The interview itself felt more like a guy genuinely trying to do a service to the community and checking to see if you need help plugging in to any training classes you might desire. More helping you help yourself than trying to find a way to make you look or feel less than "fit and proper". He seemed more concerned about people like the ones we have all been concerned about...somebody who thinks they are safer and "fit" because they own and carry a gun not taking any consideration into the concept of having any knowledge of safety or training. He mentioned he has talked to people who got their permit, bought a gun and started carrying daily without having ever owned, been around, or shot that or any other gun before and didn't even know the basic operation of the one they carried. My EXPERIENCE at the interview was positive. Before you bash me, I could post a long detailed negative post about my THOUGHTS pertaining to the fundamental issues of requiring the interview.
Keep in mind I had it a while ago so DO NOT formulate any negative thoughts about the Carmel PD or their protocol based on my old man brain trying to remember what I though some other guys motivations were almost a year ago. I don't read minds and even if I did I wouldn't likely remember it correctly 6+ months later.

 

[zibby43]

Is that a requirement for a LTCH? Hmmm... let's see...

"(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;
the superintendent shall issue to the applicant a qualified or an unlimited license to carry any handgun lawfully possessed by the applicant."

​

Nope. Knowledge and familiarity with firearms is not required.

I wonder what (s)he would have said if the person applying had no prior experience with firearms?

He told me that Indiana was a "shall issue" state, but that it made him feel better knowing that when he is signing off on someone as "okay," that the person applying for the license demonstrates that he/she at least knows a little bit about guns.

Let me ask you this question, if you were sitting in the Chief's shoes, and someone came in for the interview, and you asked what that individual knew about guns, and he/she proceeded by responding that he/she had never even seen a gun in person and couldn't tell you the difference between a rifle and a revolver if you laid each in front of them, how comfortable would YOU be with that person carrying a weapon within a matter of weeks (or days with L1)?



I mean, he didn't ask me to demonstrate that I could field strip a 1911 blindfolded in under 30 seconds while hanging upside down out of his window.

I think it is a reasonable question to ask, and if you are applying for your license to carry, wouldn't it be your duty as a responsible citizen to have SOME kind of basic knowledge of handguns, considering that you are planning on carrying one in public?

 

[kludge]

How about someone came into my office to ask permission to exercise a different constitutional right?

"Sir, have you voted before? Do you know the difference between the candidates? You know, I just don't have any confidence that you're going to be 'okay' with this whole voting thing, so I'm denying your application for a voter registration."

But, again, what would he do if the person said, "This is my first gun and I'm a brand new gun owner and know nothing about guns"?

Would the Chief deny him? Can he deny him? What part of the code allows him to do that?

But catch 22... guess what, in the state of Indiana you have to get the stoopid license before you can take your gun anywhere to be able to learn how to use it. So what purpose does the interview serve, really?

The role of the Chief is very clear in the code:
1. ascertain identity and address
2. has had a license before, if so has it been revoked
3. conduct investigation into official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation.
4. get fingerprints
5. forward the information

What the code does not say:

1. Conduct an interview and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation.
2. Conduct an interview and verify the applicant has sufficient knowledge and skill to carry handgun.

It is the Chief's prerogative to take the applications himself (most places a clerk does it) and I don't have a problem with that, but the implication that someone needs a certain level or familiarity is out of bounds, IMO, especially since you can't there from here without the license.

 

[thekuhnburger]

I already had to go to the station to the station to get printed, I didn't mind the extra 5 minutes it took to sit down with him. Let's not argue about whether or not you should even need a license to carry a handgun, that's not the point of this thread. It was questions about the interview process. When I went in he clarified what the license allows me to do and what it does not. At the time, I was 19 years old and he didn't give me any disrespect the way some people would toward a 19 year old wanting to be able to carry a gun. Like I said before, I DO NOT believe he would have turned me down if I had no previous experience with firearms whatsoever. If that were the case I think he would've recommended a training class and sent me on my way. He wants to see people trained in safety... so what? He didn't MAKE me do anything. Is merely explaining what the license allows me to do and encouraging safety a blatant violation of my constitutional rights? There are a lot of things the CPD does that I hate, but this is nothing to make a big deal about.

 

[zibby43]

How about someone came into my office to ask permission to exercise a different constitutional right?

"Sir, have you voted before? Do you know the difference between the candidates? You know, I just don't have any confidence that you're going to be 'okay' with this whole voting thing, so I'm denying your application for a voter registration."

But, again, what would he do if the person said, "This is my first gun and I'm a brand new gun owner and know nothing about guns"?

Would the Chief deny him? Can he deny him? What part of the code allows him to do that?

But catch 22... guess what, in the state of Indiana you have to get the stoopid license before you can take your gun anywhere to be able to learn how to use it. So what purpose does the interview serve, really?

The role of the Chief is very clear in the code:
1. ascertain identity and address
2. has had a license before, if so has it been revoked
3. conduct investigation into official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation.
4. get fingerprints
5. forward the information

What the code does not say:

1. Conduct an interview and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation.
2. Conduct an interview and verify the applicant has sufficient knowledge and skill to carry handgun.

It is the Chief's prerogative to take the applications himself (most places a clerk does it) and I don't have a problem with that, but the implication that someone needs a certain level or familiarity is out of bounds, IMO, especially since you can't there from here without the license.

You make some great points my friend.

I don't think the Chief would "deny" or would have the "power to the deny" someone for not demonstrating "sufficient" knowledge about handguns. He would probably just express his concern and may give advice for training/education to someone bold enough to apply for a LTCH without knowing the first thing about guns.

 

[dominicandemon]

Received my LTCH today. Thanks for all the help.

The whole process was about 2 weeks, but could have been shorter if I would have taken fingerprints and driven downtown sooner.

 

[chefnick7]

no questions what so ever from any local. not a one

 

[JetGirl]

Nope. No "interview" here.
And as for your "sit down" making the chief "feel better", Zibby43...well that's all dandy - but still doesn't make it right.
DominicanDemon, glad you got your LTCH so quickly.

 

[dominicandemon]

More follow up.

I go to staples to get a few copies made, and they said they can't make copies. (Making copies is highly recommended from all I have read)

So my question is, is the pink piece of paper really an official document?

It seems to be that it is only a piece of paper that requires an LEO for example, to call a person to check to see if the piece of paper is valid or not.

 

[JetGirl]

I go to staples to get a few copies made, and they said they can't make copies.

That's a bunch of hooey.
That's an individual's opinion, not store policy... If you don't have a scanner/printer and pink paper to do it yourself, try Office Max or Kinkos.
I did mine at Staples and I did Mr.Jet's copies there, too!

 

[dominicandemon]

That's a bunch of hooey.
That's an individual's opinion, not store policy... If you don't have a scanner/printer and pink paper to do it yourself, try Office Max or Kinkos.
I did mine at Staples and I did Mr.Jet's copies there, too!

Thanks for the quick reply JetGirl, I will try a few different stores, I can do it at work as well.

Should I go for 100% match pink paper? or something very close?

 

[JetGirl]

Should I go for 100% match pink paper? or something very close?

I'd get as close as you can get.
I can't even tell which one of my copies is actually the original. I doubt anyone else could either.
By the way...copies FIRST. Then sign. Then laminate.

 

[dominicandemon]

I'd get as close as you can get.
I can't even tell which one of my copies is actually the original. I doubt anyone else could either.
By the way...copies FIRST. Then sign. Then laminate.

Cool, thanks. I have yet to sign it.

 

[ATM]

That's a bunch of hooey.

hooey indeed.

 

[bigg cheese]

my local pd asked for money

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Please put your hand here?"
"Do you have your money order?"

That's it.