anti-gun letter from Rep. Cindy Noe

[Liberty Sanders]

Some weeks ago I participated in an online survey on State Representative Cindy Noe's website. After answering the questions I asked her if she would support repeal of Indiana's handgun permit system since it is clearly unconstitutional in light of the Heller decision.

Today I received a form letter from her office thanking me for my participation in her survey. Appended to the letter was this handwritten note:

We looked at the Heller decision and that dealt with a ban on handguns. Permits, on the other hand, are not unconstitutional (my emphasis).

I just went on Rep. Noe's website and asked her to give me a clear answer to the following questions:

Will you support legislation requiring Indiana residents to acquire a government permit before purchasing, owning, or possessing a book or newspaper, and;

Will you support legislation requiring Indiana residents to acquire a government permit before owning, operating or attending a church?

I await your response.

 

[henktermaat]

Nice, let us know what she says

 

[Bill of Rights]

Some weeks ago I participated in an online survey on State Representative Cindy Noe's website. After answering the questions I asked her if she would support repeal of Indiana's handgun permit system since it is clearly unconstitutional in light of the Heller decision.

Today I received a form letter from her office thanking me for my participation in her survey. Appended to the letter was this handwritten note:

We looked at the Heller decision and that dealt with a ban on handguns. Permits, on the other hand, are not unconstitutional (my emphasis).

I just went on Rep. Noe's website and asked her to give me a clear answer to the following questions:

Will you support legislation requiring Indiana residents to acquire a government permit before purchasing, owning, or possessing a book or newspaper, and;

Will you support legislation requiring Indiana residents to acquire a government permit before owning, operating or attending a church?

I await your response.

The ban or even the license/permit system has no reference in Indiana at this time to ownership, purchase, or possession. Maybe think about rephrasing it when she points that out to you (if she even answers) to ask about legislation requiring a permit to carry a newspaper or book, or to offer a prayer before a meal or any other religious activity?

Hmm... Maybe if we all took a newspaper, rolled it up and stuck it in our belts, we could have a 1A OC event at her office?

 

[Seancass]

There is zero chance that she will respond.

 

[garagegunmaker]

Nice response. Let us know if she responds to your questions.

 

[smoking357]

Great response, Liberty.

 

[Dashman010]

After answering the questions I asked her if she would support repeal of Indiana's handgun permit system since it is clearly unconstitutional in light of the Heller decision.

As much as I don't like a permitting system any more than the next guy, I think the Heller decision says rather clearly that registration systems are constitutional so long as they don't materially burden the right (my words, not the courts) and they aren't arbitrary and capricious (again, my words, reasonably implied). At oral argument, Counsel for Heller, Alan Gura, conceded that they don't have a problem with gun registration and permitting systems so long as they aren't administered in a arbitrary fashion. Since I don't believe Indiana's permit system is, I think it would likely pass constitutional muster rather easily. My

 

[MTC]

'We looked at the Heller decision and that dealt with a ban on handguns'.

Thanks for your efforts. She is correct that the Heller case only dealt with a ban on handguns (ownership and possession in the home, and only in DC at that). It is proper to contact legislators about such issues, but I would not have referenced Heller or any other court decision. When we rely on judges and lawyers to tell us what our rights are, they will use, at the very least, some form of the "compelling state interest" argument to justify the violation of our rights.

(Strict Scrutiny synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary)

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Notice how even in the above definition "infringe" (which equals to violate) was changed to "impinge" (a linguistic substitution possibly employed to dilute its meaning).

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

Unless they tell us honestly, we may never know our representatives' views on these issues, and whether they truly represent our rights and interests. Relying on legal precedent and court decisions allows them to assume an air of legitimacy to hide behind statements like this:

Permits, on the other hand, are not unconstitutional .

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I just want her to sxxt or get off the pot.

Regardless of what Heller said on the subject, I want her to state clearly whether she supports the concept that a constitutional right can be licensed, ever, under any circumstances.

I think we all pretty much agree here that if an activity can be licensed by the state it's not a right, it's a privilege, that can be granted or rescinded at will.

 

[CarmelHP]

Quote:
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.
Notice how even in the above definition "infringe" (which equals to violate) was changed to "impinge" (a linguistic substitution possibly employed to dilute its meaning).

Quote:
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

You misread this, "impinge" in this sense means to touch, there has been no determination of infringement at that point in the analysis. In fact, in the strict scrutiny analysis, unconstitutional infringement is assumed, and it is up to the state actor to show that there is a compelling state interest, to justify the infringement and that it is as narrowly tailored as possible using the least means necessary to serve that interest. If we subject the 2nd Amendment, keep and carry, to strict scrutiny, I don't think carry licenses will meet the compelling state interest or least means necessary test. There is no compelling state interest that I can think of that wouldn't be as well served by less restrictive means.

 

[MTC]

You misread this, "impinge" in this sense means to touch, there has been no determination of infringement at that point in the analysis. In fact, in the strict scrutiny analysis, unconstitutional infringement is assumed, and it is up to the state actor to show that there is a compelling state interest, to justify the infringement and that it is as narrowly tailored as possible using the least means necessary to serve that interest. If we subject the 2nd Amendment, keep and carry, to strict scrutiny, I don't think carry licenses will meet the compelling state interest or least means necessary test. There is no compelling state interest that I can think of that wouldn't be as well served by less restrictive means.

Thank you for clarifying.

Too much exposure to the twisting of words in print and broadcast media, I guess.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Following is the response I received from Representative Noe:

Dear Harry,

I wanted to take this time to address your questions regarding gun permits. You brought up the Heller decision, which dealt with the ban of handguns, and then proceeded to crossbreed that decision with the subject of permits. I was simply pointing out that permits were not a decision point in Heller. After I saw your email and blog posting in ingunowners.com, I wanted to set the record straight.


First and foremost, I own guns, I shoot guns, my family shoots and I have always been an advocate for gun rights. At issue in the Heller decision was a District of Columbia law which banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered gun and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled (sic) or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. (This renders the handgun not immediately ready for self-defense.) The court did not address the constitutionality of handgun permits; rather, the issue was a complete ban of handguns.

The overall holding of the Court in Heller is that the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment, I agree. The total ban on handgun possession in the home would have amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

My initial comment back to you was to simply sort out what Heller did, and did not, rule. As I stated, I am a gun owner and I will continue to advocate for gun rights.

Sincerely,

Cindy Noe
State Representative

The representative has missed the point. I quote the following line from her letter: The court did not address the constitutionality of handgun permits; rather, the issue was a complete ban of handguns.

I beg to differ. The State of Indiana, at the present time, has in place a 100% ban on the possession of a handgun, even openly carried, anywhere outside the confines of one's own home, a restriction which the Founding Fathers did not see fit to enshrine in our constitution. What Indiana DOES have is a system under which the state graciously grants the PRIVILEGE to own or possess said handgun, provided the citizen goes to the state with his hat in his hand and on bended knee to request PERMISSION to own said handgun.

I reiterate that in the State of Indiana there is no right to own a handgun, there is only the PRIVILEGE, which can be either granted by or taken away by the state at its leisure!!!!

Any politician who supports a permit system for possession of a handgun, or allows the existence of such a system in their jurisdiction is a de-facto supporter of a handgun ban.

I also note that Representative Noe failed to address my other inquiry. If the exercise of Second Amendment rights in Indiana requires permission of the state, why are not rights under the other amendments not subject to such permits as well?

This letter answers NOTHING.

 

[E5RANGER375]

did you expect anything less from a politician?? They are great dancers

we gave her the PRIVILEGE of being elected, maybe its time we REVOKE it, and a lot of her collegues, UNLESS, they acknowledge our FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to keep and bear arms without having to go through ANY licensing process at all!!! Also i want to be able to carry in the state house and other government buildings too LEGALY, so how about they work on that one too!!!! I like how she mentioned INGO , thats good, obviously thats what got you a response. They (politicians) know we are a LARGE GROUP of law abiding citizens that VOTE!!!

 

[JBusch8899]

This letter answers NOTHING.

Well, duh.

Do you expect a politician to answer anything, much less in a straight forward manner?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

What the hell...I can dream, can't I?

 

[E5RANGER375]

What the hell...I can dream, can't I?

singing....... to DREAM.... the impossible DREAM ..... da da da da da da da ........

hey i still give you props!!! you still did more than over 90% of voters just by writing a letter!!! more people need to follow your example. thank you!

 

[JBusch8899]

singing....... to DREAM.... the impossible DREAM ..... da da da da da da da ........

hey i still give you props!!! you still did more than over 90% of voters just by writing a letter!!! more people need to follow your example. thank you!

Last time I wrote a letter to my local state rep, I had the police visit me.

There were no overt threats. I just happened to mention that I was a gun owner and shooter, and some of his position upon firearms ownership concerned me.

The reason for the police visit, quote: "It didn't sound right."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Following is the response I received from Representative Noe:

Dear Harry,

I wanted to take this time to address your questions regarding gun permits. You brought up the Heller decision, which dealt with the ban of handguns, and then proceeded to crossbreed that decision with the subject of permits. I was simply pointing out that permits were not a decision point in Heller. After I saw your email and blog posting in ingunowners.com, I wanted to set the record straight.


First and foremost, I own guns, I shoot guns, my family shoots and I have always been an advocate for gun rights. At issue in the Heller decision was a District of Columbia law which banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered gun and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled (sic) or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. (This renders the handgun not immediately ready for self-defense.) The court did not address the constitutionality of handgun permits; rather, the issue was a complete ban of handguns.

The overall holding of the Court in Heller is that the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment, I agree. The total ban on handgun possession in the home would have amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

My initial comment back to you was to simply sort out what Heller did, and did not, rule. As I stated, I am a gun owner and I will continue to advocate for gun rights.

Sincerely,

Cindy Noe
State Representative

The representative has missed the point. I quote the following line from her letter: The court did not address the constitutionality of handgun permits; rather, the issue was a complete ban of handguns.

I beg to differ. The State of Indiana, at the present time, has in place a 100% ban on the possession of a handgun, even openly carried, anywhere outside the confines of one's own home, a restriction which the Founding Fathers did not see fit to enshrine in our constitution. What Indiana DOES have is a system under which the state graciously grants the PRIVILEGE to own or possess said handgun, provided the citizen goes to the state with his hat in his hand and on bended knee to request PERMISSION to own said handgun.

I reiterate that in the State of Indiana there is no right to own a handgun, there is only the PRIVILEGE, which can be either granted by or taken away by the state at its leisure!!!!

Any politician who supports a permit system for possession of a handgun, or allows the existence of such a system in their jurisdiction is a de-facto supporter of a handgun ban.

I also note that Representative Noe failed to address my other inquiry. If the exercise of Second Amendment rights in Indiana requires permission of the state, why are not rights under the other amendments not subject to such permits as well?

This letter answers NOTHING.

I support Constitutional carry; that is, anyone may carry any type of personal defensive device s/he chooses at any time, in any place, penal facilities excepted and safe storage provided.

With that said, I also can see benefits to the "permit" or "license" system, in that without it, we would not know that those who request and/or pay for the gov't document are overwhelmingly law-abiding and peaceable citizens who want only to defend themselves against those who would do them harm. I can see the benefit in the NICS system in that we know that those purchasing through that group of businesses are likewise, law-abiding and peaceable citizens.

I can see as well, however, that we should not need to know all of this, because personally, I would not take issue with former felons possessing firearms for their own defense or that of their loved ones, believing as I do that once your time is served, you should no longer be prevented by man's law from exercising those rights given you by your Creator.

I do not advocate, but I support a permit system as well as Constitutional carry in that I have a LTCH such that I may protect myself and those close to me in the event of criminal attention being focused upon me/us and not be subject to unConstitutional laws that nonetheless, are enforced.

Perhaps another letter to Rep. Noe, explaining to her what you explained here? Acknowledge that she has answered the question she apparently thought you were asking, however, what you really wanted to know was.... etc., etc.

She claims to own and shoot, and further, claims to advocate gun rights. Great! Glad to hear it! Would she like to discuss with you the wording of a bill to end the prohibition on unlicensed open carry? (yes, I know, we should just go for full Constitutional carry, but baby steps are needed here... our current state legislature only passed the two bills they did this year because a) it's an election year, and b) because the one only closed information to publication and the other was essentially meaningless; An employer can (and will) still fire people for violating their "no guns" rules, they'll just have to be smart about it and not state openly that that is the reason.)
Perhaps an end to state-level gun-free zones, including schools of all levels, should be the focus of her bill; Utah has had this in place for over ten years without incident. (admittedly, they made that the case for those with concealed firearm permits, that is, those who had already been background checked. I think it's fair to say that without a permit system, that would not have passed.

I saw a great quote today: The writer had just mentioned that those who believe in gun rights as we do are in the minority, thanks to the media.

When you're in the minority and you push for "all or nothing", you can expect to get "nothing". This is a paraquote, not verbatim. Our ability to exercise our rights as we wish was not taken all at once... we will not gain it back all at once, either. One step at a time, and sometimes those steps will be bigger than others, especially the more of them we take.

Getting people who truly believe in the 2A, and indeed, the Constitution as a whole, as written and as amended, into office is the first, necessary step after getting enough voting citizens to be also thinking citizens who will vote for such a person. Once they're in office, we can focus on getting good legislation passed. (and getting Pat Bauer out of the Speaker's chair, preferably out of the General Assembly entirely would be a great start on advancing good freedom-bearing legislation.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Lars]

To Representative Noe,

If you're actually someone who visits the site, I do welcome you to contribute directly. A wise person once told me. "If you don't want to talk to the press, someone will fill the space for you."

While INGunOwners.com is not the press, the same holds true. People will talk whether you are willing to or not.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Last time I wrote a letter to my local state rep, I had the police visit me.

There were no overt threats. I just happened to mention that I was a gun owner and shooter, and some of his position upon firearms ownership concerned me.

The reason for the police visit, quote: "It didn't sound right."

not suprising. they wouldnt have even gotten a hello out of me. or even the door opened without a warrant