Indiana LTCH Training Requirements

[IndyGunSafety]

No.

No f*****g way.

My sister in law is 'qualified' to carry in more states than I am but at the range I had to show her how to load her pistol. The qualifying courses are bogus crap and lead to a false sense of security.

If you want to increase reciprocity then make an OPTIONAL second level but don't screw up our system.

While I am against madatory training, your statement that qualifying courses are "bogus crap" is at best inaccurate.

The NRA's Basic Pistol Course is the required course in several states. I assure you, nobody has ever passed one of my courses unable to load their own gun. People are lining up to take this course and others in the state of Indiana without a law telling them they must do so.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

People are lining up to take this course and others in the state of Indiana without a law telling them they must do so.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Change the culture, change your world.

Making training cool will change the Indiana gun culture far more than any statute.

 

[Speed Kills]

Christ on friday. I should have known I would have you dudes jumping down my throat for responding in a calm fashion, rather than call some of you dudes a bunch of dildos, tell you your thought process is screwed, and maybe belittle your wives while I was at it....

Why WOULDN'T you want to be trained, that's all I want to know. I've grown up around guns my entire life, yet I'm still signed up for my Utah carry course in two weeks, as well as my application in for my LTCH. Why?

First off, because I feel it's the right thing to do, to learn more about how to LEGALLY AND SAFELY carry a concealed firearm in public. I WANT to better myself. And I believe that this is a standpoint that anyone should have in life applied to anything at all, rather than a "I knows it all, don't need no dern stinkin' trainin' i tell ye whut" type of approach. Which seems to be the approach you gents are saying is proper, for whatever reasons you may have, correct?

Second, I need it to carry into Ohio, which I work in, and spend a fair amount of my time in. But it plays second fiddle to what I feel is right to do from an educational standpoint. Maybe my mind will change AFTER I take the class.

I have a lot of friends (older than me) with children, who I hope to god (just a saying, I didn't capitalize that word on purpose) never offer them any type of "training" with a weapon. But, in a "father/mother knows best" approach, what about them? What they may be learning may not be safe/legal/etc., but they may not know any better, and since training is not necessary, they never learn any better? Or, ever think that not everyone's parents are in to guns? Forbid we pick up something So I guess we should all be sheep and follow in our parents' footsteps then and not have a gun because they didn't? Or go blindly into the night applying for an LCTH, with no regard for training, simply on the basis of wanting to carry a weapon?

The fact of the matter is, If more people would volunteer themselves for training, I wouldn't take the standpoint I do. Period. If everyone would train in some way or another, And I think that's complete and utter BS. If you don't want to learn and better yourself, I don't know why you're stuck on this rock anyways.

You guys have fun ripping that apart, telling me I'm not a good American, neg repping me, or whatever belittlement you feel necessary.

 

[Z-Glock23]

I have 2 weeks until I am going to apply for my lifetime LTCH. And I don't agree with having to take training courses to be eligible to obtain your license. All that would do is cause a major backup in the time and process to get one. It would take forever just to get a open class to take part in. I think it should be up to the person themselves if they wanted to take courses after or before they obtain there LTCH if they want to better themselves in shooting and safety, it should not be a requirement!

 

[Scutter01]

Why WOULDN'T you want to be trained, that's all I want to know. I've grown up around guns my entire life, yet I'm still signed up for my Utah carry course in two weeks, as well as my application in for my LTCH. Why?

I think you need to re-read the thread. No one is against training. They're against mandatory training. And if you read carefully, it's because that mandatory training is used as a pre-requisite for exercising a Constitutional Right, and THAT's what people are offended by. Mandatory training is the first step in government gun control.

 

[Speed Kills]

I understand that 100%.

If you WANT to be trained, then MANDATORY training shouldn't be a problem, now should it? Get where I'm going with this?

Any other explanation needed can be referred back to my other post.

 

[Joe Williams]

I understand that 100%.

If you WANT to be trained, then MANDATORY training shouldn't be a problem, now should it? Get where I'm going with this?

Any other explanation needed can be referred back to my other post.

If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind the cops showing up and looking through your house, right? Mandatory searches shouldn't be a problem, since we are all for catching people with illegal items, and we all obey the law. For example, drugs are a problem in today's society, and by allowing the government to conduct periodic searches, you are protecting our children from drug dealers. You want to protect the children, don't you?

You never answered my question. What other rights do you wish to remove from the Constitution, and turn to privileges? What we have to go through now is already an infringement. Why would a free citizen who believes in the Constitution want to increase that infringement?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I still think the better course is to require states to honor the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Law, there is a far easier regime, simply enforce the licenses of all states via full faith and credit clause. We could tie it to federal funding (highway money) of some type to ensure compliance in Illinois or New Jersey.

I've a question regarding this, from my limited understanding a state does not have to recognize licenses and such that they do not honor/issue for their residents. ie There are several states that allow gay marriage, IN does not have to honor those marriages because we don't allow it here. Or pre-civil rights days, there were states that didn't allow interracial marriages and wouldn't recognize ones from states that did, I believe that was upheld as Constitutional. Wouldn't the same apply for carry permits/licenses in IL, WI and DC? Or for another scenario Drivers licenses, IN for drivers under 18 are restricted from driving during certain times with some exceptions(starting July 1), how would that work for a driver from another state without those exceptions if they were in IN?

I voted that yes, I do feel there should be some training in place to receive an LTCH. Not for the fact of being recognized by more states (that'd be a nice byproduct, but not my basis), but the sheer fact that any training is good training, and most people simply won't take the initiative if they don't have to. Think, at 16, you're not turned loose into a car with no type of training (at least anymore), and I'll speak for my idiot generation, since I'm a young dude, and say that it's 100% for the better. Imagine what would happen if you were to turn kids out today with no formal driver's training. Granted, it'd be on a much larger scale as the LTCH, considering there's more people that drive than carry, but still.....

And I'd say that the juggalo chasing after someone with a loaded gun thread would be enough to justify saying so as well. I'm sure he's not the only one out there with that mentality, and JUST MAYBE with some specialized training, instances like that could be kept to a minimum.

Remember, just because YOU have common sense, and could properly drive a car, carry a handgun, etc. without training, doesn't mean everyone else can.

And you will have the same problems with formal training, how many kids do you see that forget everything they were taught almost as soon as they get their DL? You don't think it would be the same with firearm training?

And they don't require a new test when you renew your DL except for vision, for a LTCH would you be required to pass a test or retake training every time? And how would that work for the lifetime?

According to your logic, since some people cannot safely carry/use firearms without training there should be mandatory training, correct? How about those that can't even with training? Since some can't shouldn't they just ban carrying altogether? Just because you can drive a car, carry a handgun, etc with training, doesn't mean everyone else can.

 

[Speed Kills]

And you don't think that it'd be 100000x worse out there if said kids had no mandatory, only voluntary formal driver's training, and were left with the option to simply teach themselves?

Riiiiggghhhhttt......

According to my logic, you should want to be trained, therefore, it shouldn't be an issue for training to be mandatory. Sorry that I simply made a few statements addressing some of the points brought up, as they were not the basis of my whole thought process.

 

[jeremy]

Speed Kills,

Why are so argumentative? No one has took that tone with you.

Some of us have lived in countries that have mandatory training in firearms. I myself have lived in several countries personally with required training. All the Mandatory courses I have been forced to attend by Governments for Civilian Carry have been a joke.

Let us look at the Drivers Training System that the US has in place. Pretty poor actually in all reality. Few "drivers" at the completion of this course are properly trained to handle anything other than the very basic driving situation.

Do you really think the G-men will come up with a firearms training program that is actually anything more than a revenue source for them?! We all ready have good training academies within the US that one can choose to attend. And even tailor the training to what they feel they need to work on or specialize in.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And you don't think that it'd be 100000x worse out there if said kids had no mandatory, only voluntary formal driver's training, and were left with the option to simply teach themselves?

Riiiiggghhhhttt......

According to my logic, you should want to be trained, therefore, it shouldn't be an issue for training to be mandatory. Sorry that I simply made a few statements addressing some of the points brought up, as they were not the basis of my whole thought process.

As of right now that is how it works, there is no mandatory training required formal or informal. Starting in July there is a required 50hrs of supervised driving required to get your DL but it doesn't need to be formal.

And yes I agree you should want to be trained. I also think you should want to know about the issues and the politicians stances on them before you vote. And you should want to know enough about speaking and writing to get your point across before you do. Do I think any of them should be mandatory? NO.

Do you think someone should have to have required training to speak/write, vote or belong to the religion of their choice or none at all? Should they want to be? I think yes, should they be required imo NO.

 

[rambone]

Just one more regulation.... then we will be safe. Just one more law, then we will stop infringing on your rights.

If you guys are going to help the anti-gunners chip away at our gun rights, please stop labeling yourself things like "strong 2nd Amendment supporter" or "believer in the right to keep and bear arms."

Lets not kid ourselves. You believe in "the privilege to keep, and maybe bear arms, with enough obligatory fees, waiting periods, and training courses." You believe that this privilege has been endowed to us by our Government, and is not an innate right of a citizen.

Some people get it, some don't. Every generation since the early 1900's has handed their children less freedom than their parents had. One "common sense" gun-control law at a time. The next step will be banning open-carry, banning cop-killin' JHP rounds, banning anyone who had ever visited a doctor for depression, banning the elderly and crippled, banning carry outside the home, etc. Take your pick. Any way you slice it, government keeps growing more and more powerful and restrictive.

Pick a side. Government-rule, or a free society. The Constitution did not support both.

 

[Z-Glock23]

I agree with Jeremy, no one has taken an argumentive tone with anyone on here. We all just discuss our opinions and talk in a civilized manner. And with the driving statement, you don't have to attend a formal drivers education program to be eligible to get a drivers license. I am a young guy too, and I didn't have to take drivers ed, I chose to because I personally thought I should. But if I wanted to my parents could have been my only teachers and I would just have had to wait longer and then go to the BMV and test out with a written and drive test. As well with the license to carry, I don't think that training is a bad idea at all, but it should be the persons choice. I'm not saying if you have no experience with firearms that you should get your license and start carrying, cause thats a bad idea as well. But carrying itself is a HUGE responsibility, and you have to be confident in yourself and take that responsibility. If you are able to that, you should be well able to go out and get the training you need.

 

[Speed Kills]

I give up. I was told my thought process was "screwed," waded through the cynicism to keep posting, only to get told I'm being argumentive. I'm obviously on the course of a lost cause with you fellas.

I've spoken my piece, let the discussion move forward without my input.


Moderators can feel free to delete my posts on this topic and simply leave my vote instead, if they feel I'm being "argumentive."

 

[ATM]

Those who are rich should want to financially help out those less fortunate.

Shouldn't that then became mandatory and the government be allowed to dictate the redistribution for you?


Oh, wait... that's not a great example...

I need something more hypothetical.

 

[rambone]

The goal of discussion is to change minds, and hopefully unite our own members against a constant barrage of further restrictions of our rights. The progression of Government infringement on the 2A has been undeniable. But it occurs at such a slow pace that people seem to not care, or not realize what is happening.

 

[youngda9]

By some of your logic (Speed Kills, ironically) we should have much more manditory drivers training since over 40,000 people die EVERY SINGLE YEAR in this country from automobile accidents.

Not sure how many die from citizens errant SD shots at bad guys....but you can probably count them on a couple of hands.

If you want to save lives focus your attention elsewhere and leave all of us alone that are exercising our CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS of self protection.

 

[MTC]

I belong in that 70% class and want NO more regulation. Period!

All they actually do is make it more difficult for someone to legally own a firearm. This is the real reason for all gun control laws, licensing and registration schemes, short of outright prohibition and confiscation.

As far as mandatory training it should begin at home with your parents. I was shooting before I was in school as a young child. I on my own continue to seek out training.

Personally I think we should take a step back a hundred years. Destroy the National Guard system, bring back the Militias and resume under the older course of the Swiss model again.


Just my $.02, and apparently your opinion does vary from mine... Oh well... Got to love that 1st amendment, at least until someone decides I should have to attend training and registration before I am allowed to speak...

^^^^
Someone who understands the meaning of the words in the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, and will not betray his oath or sell out his countrymen for thirty pieces of silver, or advocate more nanny-state control over who, and what, one may carry, and under what conditions, all for the convenience of carrying his sidearm into a more restricted state.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think it's interesting that the people who propose mandatory training who presently carry either already get training themselves without a law to mandate it... meaning such a law is unnecessary... or do not do so and practice hypocrisy, IMHO.

 

[public servant]

I think it's interesting that the people who propose mandatory training who presently carry either already get training themselves without a law to mandate it... meaning such a law is unnecessary... or do not do so and practice hypocrisy, IMHO.

But unfortunately...how do we convince states like Ohio that we are worthy of carrying into their states? You have to admit...it sure would be nice.