So you attend the fair unarmed?

[Alamo]

Ever seen a morbidly obese woman ride a mechanical bull for 1.58 seconds?

I have.

An updated version of "seen the elephant?"

 

[gregr]

I don't attend the state fair for that exact reason.

I won`t attend the fair because I must be disarm, and now, I`ve added the reason that they`ve mandated vendors have nothing that has, or has to do with the confederate flag, because they deem it to be "offensive". I just cannot tolerate this liberal, PC garbage.

 

[SMiller]

If it makes anyone feel better the Florida state Fair has a special line for armed citizens so you can skip the metal detectors, just show "gun permit" (Florida's writing not mine...) and walk through the gates.

 

[Trigger Time]

If it makes anyone feel better the Florida state Fair has a special line for armed citizens so you can skip the metal detectors, just show "gun permit" (Florida's writing not mine...) and walk through the gates.

So,that's what a free state looks like. Very cool.
Although no permits are truly free

 

[Tactically Fat]

So,that's what a free state looks like. Very cool.
Although no permits are truly free

Florida does not allow open carry. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Also a mandatory 3-day waiting period to buy handguns. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Individual counties, cities, and municipalities have the ability to pass laws that add or lengthen the waiting period for any type of firearm. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Have to be 21 years old to legally carry (again, concealed) a handgun. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any/all police stations are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Polling places are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district. We're more free than FL.

Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms. We're more free than FL.

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose. We're more free than FL.

Colleges and Universities are off-limits. We're more free than FL.

Those are the major differences in freedoms between Florida and Indiana. As you can see, we enjoy MANY more firearms-related freedoms than Florida does. Many.

Where Indiana still gets it wrong, though, is the IAC banning carry at the State Fair Grounds during the State Fair. I'd not trade places with Florida's laws at all.

 

[Trigger Time]

Florida does not allow open carry. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Also a mandatory 3-day waiting period to buy handguns. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Individual counties, cities, and municipalities have the ability to pass laws that add or lengthen the waiting period for any type of firearm. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Have to be 21 years old to legally carry (again, concealed) a handgun. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any/all police stations are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Polling places are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district. We're more free than FL.

Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms. We're more free than FL.

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose. We're more free than FL.

Colleges and Universities are off-limits. We're more free than FL.

Those are the major differences in freedoms between Florida and Indiana. As you can see, we enjoy MANY more firearms-related freedoms than Florida does. Many.

Where Indiana still gets it wrong, though, is the IAC banning carry at the State Fair Grounds during the State Fair. I'd not trade places with Florida's laws at all.

Oh i know, Indiana has better gun laws than most. But I'm not going to settle until we get 100% of our rights restored.
Constitutional carry
Carry in state government buildings
Constitutional carry
Carry in schools
There's more I'm just waking up though

 

[SMiller]

Florida does not allow open carry. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Also a mandatory 3-day waiting period to buy handguns. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Individual counties, cities, and municipalities have the ability to pass laws that add or lengthen the waiting period for any type of firearm. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Have to be 21 years old to legally carry (again, concealed) a handgun. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any/all police stations are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Polling places are off-limits. I'd say that we're more free than FL.

Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district. We're more free than FL.

Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms. We're more free than FL.

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose. We're more free than FL.

Colleges and Universities are off-limits. We're more free than FL.

Those are the major differences in freedoms between Florida and Indiana. As you can see, we enjoy MANY more firearms-related freedoms than Florida does. Many.

Where Indiana still gets it wrong, though, is the IAC banning carry at the State Fair Grounds during the State Fair. I'd not trade places with Florida's laws at all.

All state weapon laws are BS!

Are you sure about the 3 day wait on firearms in Florida? I was thinking you showed you "CCW" and walked out with weapon?

 

[traderdan]

I believe that I heard someone say on WIBC that some group of the State police...as well as the Indiana Sheriffs Association oppose constitutional carry because it does not allow the them to "vet" the citizens who do desire to carry a handgun. Is this true?

 

[Trigger Time]

I believe that I heard someone say on WIBC that some group of the State police...as well as the Indiana Sheriffs Association oppose constitutional carry because it does not allow the them to "vet" the citizens who do desire to carry a handgun. Is this true?

Yep. They **** on the constitution and are a disgrace to the uniform they wear

 

[traderdan]

Yep. They **** on the constitution and are a disgrace to the uniform they wear

That is pretty sad....SURELY no one on this website supports them...

 

[Cameramonkey]

I believe that I heard someone say on WIBC that some group of the State police...as well as the Indiana Sheriffs Association oppose constitutional carry because it does not allow the them to "vet" the citizens who do desire to carry a handgun. Is this true?

They dont want the responsibility of making the decision as to whether you are a proper person or not. If we are required to have a LTCH, as soon as it is presented, they can assume we are GTG. (can but dont have to)


Without said requirement, they will need to do the legwork themselves on the side of the road. OK, dispatch returns no priors, warrants, etc. The person is proper. What about when someone with a gun has a prior. Now the officer has to figure out if that prior would prevent him from being a proper person.


From what I understand they want to rely on the ISP to do all the legwork so they can be "lazy" when they interact with us. OK, not lazy, just one less decision to make.


Think of it as a wristband system at a brewfest. Assume they give out wristbands to those over 21. What if the ticket counter didnt check ID and tag you? Each and every brewery booth you encountered would then be tasked with the hassle of checking your ID before serving you. They wouldnt like it and would prefer to simply look for a tag, and know immediately whether you could be served or not. One less job they have to do.


At least that is how I see it. Originally it was because of loss of revenue from the permit fees, but they have fixed the bill so its a zero impact bill. (or whatever they call them)

 

[lonehoosier]

They dont want the responsibility of making the decision as to whether you are a proper person or not. If we are required to have a LTCH, as soon as it is presented, they can assume we are GTG. (can but dont have to)


Without said requirement, they will need to do the legwork themselves on the side of the road. OK, dispatch returns no priors, warrants, etc. The person is proper. What about when someone with a gun has a prior. Now the officer has to figure out if that prior would prevent him from being a proper person.


From what I understand they want to rely on the ISP to do all the legwork so they can be "lazy" when they interact with us. OK, not lazy, just one less decision to make.


Think of it as a wristband system at a brewfest. Assume they give out wristbands to those over 21. What if the ticket counter didnt check ID and tag you? Each and every brewery booth you encountered would then be tasked with the hassle of checking your ID before serving you. They wouldnt like it and would prefer to simply look for a tag, and know immediately whether you could be served or not. One less job they have to do.


At least that is how I see it. Originally it was because of loss of revenue from the permit fees, but they have fixed the bill so its a zero impact bill. (or whatever they call them)

So are you saying we need to pin our LTCH to our shirt when we are carrying? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your analogy.

 

[wcd]

perhaps Indiana could take a look at TN HB 1024 the parks bill that was passed takes away the local municipality's ability to dictate or prohibit carry in parks. Our fair grounds are considered parks. That sure torqued a lot of liberals off when that one passed.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So are you saying we need to pin our LTCH to our shirt when we are carrying? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your analogy.

No, I'm saying they are against it for 1 or 2 reasons.. reduced revenue or they want someone else to vet those who are allowed to carry so they don't have to (and can rely on a pink permission slip). That's all.

Or or they are unamerican facists who want to be the only ones with guns.

 

[traderdan]

No, I'm saying they are against it for 1 or 2 reasons.. reduced revenue or they want someone else to vet those who are allowed to carry so they don't have to (and can rely on a pink permission slip). That's all.

Or or they are unamerican facists who want to be the only ones with guns.

Why do we need to be "vetted"? It is our right to defend ourselves...as much as it is our right to breathe. Until an individual proves to be a threat, the carrying of a firearm should bring that individual under NO scrutiny at all.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Why do we need to be "vetted"? It is our right to defend ourselves...as much as it is our right to breathe. Until an individual proves to be a threat, the carrying of a firearm should bring that individual under NO scrutiny at all.

I dont disagree with you.

 

[stephen87]

So are you saying we need to pin our LTCH to our shirt when we are carrying? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your analogy.

I am not for scarlet letters. This has already turned out poorly a couple of times in history. Pass.

 

[chipbennett]

If by "friendly reminder" you mean having your gun confiscated on sight, perp walked (or driven in a golf cart) by ISP to your car and having your firearm unloaded and placed in the trunk and told to leave and not come back, you are correct.

The risk response for this is "accept" for me. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with accepting that hazard, especially if it means that I retain a means of mitigating far greater risks.

I have never (since being of-age) been to the Indiana State Fair disarmed. Concealed meant (and still would mean) concealed. Of course, I also haven't *been* to the Indiana State Fair in years. It is too hot, too crowded, too expensive, and too lacking in anything worth the hassle. So, an unjust IAC is no longer of consequence to me.

 

[stephen87]

The risk response for this is "accept" for me. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with accepting that hazard, especially if it means that I retain a means of mitigating far greater risks.

I have never (since being of-age) been to the Indiana State Fair disarmed. Concealed meant (and still would mean) concealed. Of course, I also haven't *been* to the Indiana State Fair in years. It is too hot, too crowded, too expensive, and too lacking in anything worth the hassle. So, an unjust IAC is no longer of consequence to me.

Been one time since starting to carry. I did not carry because I thought IAC was "law of the land." I have not since been back, while not working.

 

[HoughMade]

perhaps Indiana could take a look at TN HB 1024 the parks bill that was passed takes away the local municipality's ability to dictate or prohibit carry in parks. Our fair grounds are considered parks. That sure torqued a lot of liberals off when that one passed.

In Indiana, local governments cannot prohibit carry in parks or fairgrounds. The issue here is when the fair is run by a private entity. The State Fair is a matter of state law (or rather, state regulation) and the local governments have nothing to do with it.