LTCH test/class?...what do you guys think?

[finity]

As I've mentioned before (as has been pointed out, this isn't the first time the idea of mandatory testing has been brought up), the only way I'd support testing is something like the Alaska option. In Alaska one does not need a permit to carry a handgun, but the government provides permits specifically so that Alaskan residents can carry in other States. So an optional "test endorsement" on the license which may allow reciprocity with a few other States might be viable.

On the safety side of things, frankly, I'm pretty much of the opinion that the kind of people who won't get training on their own are also the kind of people who won't benefit from a short training class and test. They're mostly the kind of people where the class will be in one ear and out the other and the answers to the test will be forgotten before the ink has dried (or the pencil dust has settled) on the test. This opinion is supported by the fact that Indiana, with no training requirement, does not have a significantly* higher rate of accidents than states with a class/testing requirement.

Supporting bad law, that does not work for its stated purpose, is generally a bad thing. As for being in line with other States, well, Obama claims he wants to bring the US more in line with the rest of the world and most of the participants on this board appear to think that's a bad thing. Same principle.

Wow, it's almost like I would have said exactly the same thing - Oh wait I already did just two posts up.

I must still be on his 'ignore' list.

(Sorry, dburkhead. I couldn't resist.)

 

[finity]

Ok, I'll post up but I already know I'm in the minority. And here's a little background on my opinion. I am a commercial pilot. Which means I have become VERY accustomed to regulation and changing regulation. I experience pre employment testing and recurrent (every 6 months) testing to maintain my status as commercial pilot. It's like breathing. Now when the constitution was written airplanes did not exist so it's not a "right" like many post up here. So the claim is it's not apples to apples. However, I'll say that an airliner can be and has been used as a weapon of mass destruction. Even when not used for evil intent and accident can cause mass casualties. Many smart people in aviation have studied for decades on how people learn and how people follow (or don't follow) regulation. The system is not perfect. But everyone involved pretty much agrees that having a one sentence reg book saying "Do the right thing" does not work.

As I get into gun ownership and soon to carrying I am kind of amazed there is no demonstration of knowledge for use of force. The threads on this forum by GunLawyer are fantastic and I want to take his class because I thirst for knowledge. But I know not everyone is like that. We see this in aviation too. People who do the minimum and have a poor respect for dangerous things usually end up with trouble at some point. Not right away all the time but it's like a ticking time bomb.

The scariest thing for me is to get the LTCH, begin carrying after being a law abiding citizen for decades and then run afoul of the IC just because I misunderstood some aspect of the law. A good class and a good test (they are possible) could keep me on the law abiding side of things. And I hate seeing other law abiding citizens lose that status because they didn't know what they didn't know. And maybe they don't have hours to spend reading here to get that knowledge.

So, no I don't think regulation for regulation sake is the end all be all. But I'm not scared of it either really. I've lived both sides.

And now I expect 25 posts in the next hour to blast me and call me a bleeding heart liberal.

Ok just to get this out of the way - you bleeding heart liberal. (it takes one to know one I guess.)

Anyway...

First, not all rights have to be enumerated to be rights. Just because a right is enumerated doesn't mean there aren't others (see the 9th Amendment). However, I would say that being a commercial pilot is not a 'fundamental right' that could be protected by the 9th Amendment. When you become a pilot, you are asking that people put their lives (or livelyhoods in the case of a cargo plane) in your hands. To ensure some minimum competence a set of training requirements & other regulations were enacted. If you can't show competence, you can't be responsible for the lives of others. A CDL is the same.

Now, I know the argument will be that carrying a gun is similar because you could effect the lives of others through improper use of the gun. While true to some extent, there is a fundamental difference. If you don't get to become a pilot you have the opportunity to be employed in some other line of work. If you can't carry a gun in self-defense you could wind up dead. That's a big difference.

Self-defense, whether from another individual or from your own government IS a fundamental right.

If your concern is that someone might carry a gun & not know what the laws are on use of force, what difference does it make if the person is armed with a gun, a knife, a club, their hands or even a plane? The use of force laws aren't based on the type of weapon used. I agree in that I'm amazed that people would want to carry a gun & not think they need to know the laws associated with it (use of force aside). But to preclude someone from exercising a fundamental right because they MIGHT do something illegal with it is ridiculous. If they do, in fact, do something illegal then prosecute them for it then, not before.

We're lucky in IN. Our gun laws are pretty straight forward (at least compared to other states I've looked at). The biggest problem, that I see, with people not knowing the law is that they don't look at the laws themselves. They rely on others (even LEO's & gun-school instructors) to tell them what the rules are. We see it all the time here. "I was told..." is pretty common.

You want training, get training. Don't require it in order to exercise a fundamental right. The LTCH is bad enough in the first place.

Definitely have tests for all of these.

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Shay]

I want a mandatory 65 hour class (5 hours of range time) and a 200 question written test (with at least 15 essay questions) and a 250 round shooting test (95% score to pass) to weed out the poor, any lower intelligence individuals, badly skilled and other undesirables. It should cost no more than $1500. Mandatory LTCH insurance or some sort of bond would be a great idea too. Annual re-certification would be necessary of course to reconfirm an applicant's commitment and continued lawfulness.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

How about a test to vote?
HELLO ! Florida ! There needs to be a competency test !

Have kids?
Yes again , TOO MANY idiots having kids that shouldn't .

Go to church?
No , church would do most folks good .

Read the news paper?
No again , seems like a lot of folks just look at the pictures anyway .


NO TEST!

IMO , we should have to pass a psych eval and undergo some basic firearms training before we get a license .

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by AFA1CY
How about a test to vote?

HELLO ! Florida ! There needs to be a competency test !

And who decides. We all know how well "competency (in that case literacy) tests" worked during Reconstruction.</sarcasm> (Yes, there are a lot of these in this post.)

Have kids?

Yes again , TOO MANY idiots having kids that shouldn't .

Well Indiana was the first State to have a State-run Eugenics program involving involuntary sterilizations, so there is history on so support that</sarcasm>.

So would you plan on enforcing that? Forced sterilization as was done before? Force-feed birth control pills to unlicensed women of child-bearing age? Force abortions on anyone found pregnant who hasn't passed the competency test?

Oh, look at that. There's the word "force" in all those options. That's just soooooo compatible with a free society </sarcasm>

Go to church?

No , church would do most folks good .

Nation of Islam.
People's Temple
"Reverend" Wright's little flock
Unification Church

Do you really think those would do most folk good or is it only some churches that would do most folk good? If the latter then, once again, who decides?

Remember, anything that government can do for you, it can do to you.

Read the news paper?

No again , seems like a lot of folks just look at the pictures anyway .

Well, that was helpful.

NO TEST!

IMO , we should have to pass a psych eval and undergo some basic firearms training before we get a license .

Because, of course, the government has been so fair and efficient when it comes to testing for anything of a politically hot topic--especially things that are as subjective and "fuzzy" as "psych evals."</sarcasm>

I prefer, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The only "psych eval" required is that one hasn't had a court-order finding one mentally incompetent to look after ones own affairs or "a danger to self and others."

 

[kludge]

Sure.

Right after they reinstate a literacy test for being able to vote.

[/tongue in cheek]

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Absolutely not!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Excellent points. And I would like to see the statistics of people with LTCH who have some illegal charge against them compared to how many LTCH are out there. Is this reported each year?

Last I saw, it was something on the order of 0.2% (no typo: two of every thousand.) and of those revoked permits, there are no stats kept as to for what reason the LTCH was revoked. (for example, all it takes for you to lose your ability to be lawfully armed is for someone to take out a restraining order against you), whether you actually did anything wrong or not, whether or not you had the intention of doing so. Lawyers, correct me if I'm mistaken, but in divorce proceedings, even amicable divorces, lawyers will often advise such orders be taken by default.

I seem to recall, though I don't have stats to this effect, that this figure is lower both numerically and statistically (that is, per capita)than most if not all other groups; lower than politicians, lower than police officers, lower than judges.

We as a whole are a very polite, peaceable group of citizens who obey laws with regard to acts against our fellow citizens. (I rather think we are far closer to average when it comes to such things as minor traffic infractions, but I consider those to be far less relevant)

Hope this is helpful.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[4sarge]

I want a mandatory 65 hour class (5 hours of range time) and a 200 question written test (with at least 15 essay questions) and a 250 round shooting test (95% score to pass) to weed out the poor, any lower intelligence individuals, badly skilled and other undesirables. It should cost no more than $1500. Mandatory LTCH insurance or some sort of bond would be a great idea too. Annual re-certification would be necessary of course to reconfirm an applicant's commitment and continued lawfulness.

I like that LTCH test BUT only for Dental Students and I grade the test

 

[Jeremiah]

I am angry that I had to get a liscense to carry to begin with, Let alone get fingerprinted, If I had to take a test I would have moved perhaps to Alaska.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

I agree, but I stand to profit from a required class. But that's not why I agree. I have plenty of students. It's those that during the course introductions speak of there experience and training (maybe taking the class with their spouse) and then demonstrate CLEARLY that they have NO IDEA how to handle a gun safely that concern me. I see it all the time and it does concern me.

But as others have said, it's a slippery slope! If we give a little they will take 10 miles!

 

[wally05]

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

The main difference (it's a big one) is that driving is not a right, it's a privelege that can be revoked by the state. No tests. If they want to offer some sort of discount for attending the class, then fine, but no required classes. That would definitely turn into something else down the road. The antigunners are never happy. We give them an inch, they'll take a football field.

 

[g00n24]

OK, how about this then...We keep the ltch requirements as they are now for the normal IN ltch (same reciprocity).
And give the OPTION to apply for a permit that has some kind of basic test requirement and live fire requirement, that will GUARANTEE the same reciprocity as a Utah permit or Florida permit. This is a hypothetical so dont get all wrapped up in the crazy BS state legislatures may want to pull (making crazy test questions, making it extremely expensive...). The test would require the basic knowledge of Indiana's code for carrying a firearm, no vague questions about who and when you can shoot, and the knowledge of simple gun safety rules. Also, 25 rounds to be shot at a static target at 21 feet with all shots hitting the target. It also has your picture on it. Price = $150, and lasts 4 years like the old ltch's. Would you guys do it? So, basically anyone saying how outrageous having to apply for a permit and get fingerprinted and show that they are not a felon, would you be in for this kind of approach to getting a license to carry a handgun if it GUARANTEED better reciprocity. (remember this is an OPTIONAL license, so not mandated to carry in the state)

 

[dburkhead]

OK, how about this then...We keep the ltch requirements as they are now for the normal IN ltch (same reciprocity).
And give the OPTION to apply for a permit that has some kind of basic test requirement and live fire requirement, that will GUARANTEE the same reciprocity as a Utah permit or Florida permit. This is a hypothetical so dont get all wrapped up in the crazy BS state legislatures may want to pull (making crazy test questions, making it extremely expensive...). The test would require the basic knowledge of Indiana's code for carrying a firearm, no vague questions about who and when you can shoot, and the knowledge of simple gun safety rules. Also, 25 rounds to be shot at a static target at 21 feet with all shots hitting the target. It also has your picture on it. Price = $150, and lasts 4 years like the old ltch's. Would you guys do it? So, basically anyone saying how outrageous having to apply for a permit and get fingerprinted and show that they are not a felon, would you be in for this kind of approach to getting a license to carry a handgun if it GUARANTEED better reciprocity. (remember this is an OPTIONAL license, so not mandated to carry in the state)

I think you'll find that a number of people are already on record as being willing to support exactly that proposal. I've suggested it myself (and, IIRC, was the originator of that idea the last time the question of class/testing came up on this forum).

Nice to see you coming around.

 

[Shay]

Why not just get the UT permit?

 

[Jeremiah]

Why not just get the UT permit?

This sounds like the answer to your question.

 

[jeremy]

If you guys want to live in a state that requires testing to prove you are smart enough own a firearm then move there...

The Majority here in Indiana actually think that we should not even need a permit to start with...

 

[4sarge]

Why not just get the UT permit?

If you guys want to live in a state that requires testing to prove you are smart enough own a firearm then move there...

The Majority here in Indiana actually think that we should not even need a permit to start with...

The main difference (it's a big one) is that driving is not a right, it's a privelege that can be revoked by the state. No tests. If they want to offer some sort of discount for attending the class, then fine, but no required classes. That would definitely turn into something else down the road. The antigunners are never happy. We give them an inch, they'll take a football field.

Leave the Indiana Process Alone. Obtain a Florida or Utah Permit if you must but the Indiana Law is Clear and works for the rest of us

 

[CulpeperMM]

If you guys want to live in a state that requires testing to prove you are smart enough own a firearm then move there...

The Majority here in Indiana actually think that we should not even need a permit to start with...

+1

 

[Jack Ryan]

OK, how about this then...We keep the ltch requirements as they are now for the normal IN ltch (same reciprocity).
And give the OPTION to apply for a permit that has some kind of basic test requirement and live fire requirement, that will GUARANTEE the same reciprocity as a Utah permit or Florida permit. This is a hypothetical so dont get all wrapped up in the crazy BS state legislatures may want to pull (making crazy test questions, making it extremely expensive...). The test would require the basic knowledge of Indiana's code for carrying a firearm, no vague questions about who and when you can shoot, and the knowledge of simple gun safety rules. Also, 25 rounds to be shot at a static target at 21 feet with all shots hitting the target. It also has your picture on it. Price = $150, and lasts 4 years like the old ltch's. Would you guys do it? So, basically anyone saying how outrageous having to apply for a permit and get fingerprinted and show that they are not a felon, would you be in for this kind of approach to getting a license to carry a handgun if it GUARANTEED better reciprocity. (remember this is an OPTIONAL license, so not mandated to carry in the state)

How about not. Just plain NOT.

Here's a better idea. You guys who don't like the way it's done in Indiana go some place you like better.