HB 1369 constitutional carry bill introduced for Indiana

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
In one of my classes last week, a new to shooting student who is also an attorney asked if there may be unintended circumstances or in general what unforeseen negatives there may be to this new carry bill. I can’t think of any offhand but maybe someone could weigh in ??
Did anyone ask this student to provide examples of potential, unintended consequences?
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
You are up early Dad! I had that link copied, we made national news.

How do they get away with saying this nonsense, unchallenged?

"I think we are all very strong supporters of the second amendment," said Lafayette Police Chief Patrick Flannelly with the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police. "By repealing processes like this that are good screening mechanisms, we are going to put more guns out on the street, and there are going to be people that should not be carrying them will be carrying them."

The LTCH is not currently involved in any screening process for obtaining a firearm, so repealing the requirement to hold an LTCH in order to carry a firearm will have zero impact on the ability to obtain a firearm.

Further, the LTCH requirement has yet to stop a single person who "should not be carrying" a firearm from doing so. Criminals aren't bothered by such niceties as licenses, and further, post-Pinner, an LEO "LTCH check" is unconstitutional.
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
As I understood @Trapper Jim 's post he was saying the student was asking if there were any potential unintended consequences, not rhetorically, but inquisitively. I think it's a fair question to ask and I am curious now, too!

I understood his question the same way.

It is asking to prove a negative, essentially. What possible consequences do you potentially envision?
 

tsm

Marksman
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 1, 2013
478
28
Allen county
I understood his question the same way.

It is asking to prove a negative, essentially. What possible consequences do you potentially envision?
Tell him 1/3rd of the states already allow it, and then ask him if he can tell which states those are? Odds are he’ll pick the wrong ones which should get the point across.
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
Tell him 1/3rd of the states already allow it, and then ask him if he can tell which states those are? Odds are he’ll pick the wrong ones which should get the point across.
There is a reason I want the people who pose the hypothetical to be responsible for providing the details. The due process burden is on them to prove why the state should be able to infringe upon individual liberty. (And as a practical matter, we know all of the tropes that will get peddled, and can disprove them.)
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
I'm not well-versed enough in this area to answer the student's question, which is why I would hope for someone better educated in this regard to shed some light.
This is essentially asking what, in the entire universe of Bad Things That Can Happen, might happen if the LTCH were no longer a legal requirement as a prerequisite to the lawful carry of a handgun.

It is, essentially, impossible to answer.
 

Lushamania

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 7, 2021
164
28
The Region
This is essentially asking what, in the entire universe of Bad Things That Can Happen, might happen if the LTCH were no longer a legal requirement as a prerequisite to the lawful carry of a handgun.
I'm not on the same page as you; I see the question as a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits, but what are the costs? Simply as a thought experiment, I'm curious.

I just scoped out this South Bend Tribune article on the news from yesterday. Here's some negatives they discussed in the article:

The licenses raise $5.3 million per year to train law enforcement officers, a tab that taxpayers would at least partially have to pick up.
Opponents say police would not have an easy way to check whether someone is allowed to carry a firearm. Nor would there be a check on those who try to carry when they are not supposed to.
The bill would require state police and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to develop a process to enable law enforcement to quickly check whether someone is prohibited from carrying a handgun.
Opponents worry that system won't be in place by that March 2022 start date, or ever.

And so as to make my stance on the matter crystal clear: I am not arguing against HB 1369 and am 100% in favor of it.
 

MCgrease08

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Mar 14, 2013
10,393
149
Earth
This is essentially asking what, in the entire universe of Bad Things That Can Happen, might happen if the LTCH were no longer a legal requirement as a prerequisite to the lawful carry of a handgun.

It is, essentially, impossible to answer.
Not to mention that this is at least the third consecutive legislative session that a Constitutional Carry bill has been up for debate. These tropes of horrible consequences have been discussed ad nauseum over that time and have not borne themselves out in the other states that have moved to CC over the past two decades.

If one were interested in exploring what some might call "negative consequences" there are plenty of claims out there in the world to look into and evaluate based on actual data from Constitutional Carry states.
 

JettaKnight

INGO Homebrewer
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Oct 13, 2010
22,498
113
Fort Wayne
I'm not on the same page as you; I see the question as a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits, but what are the costs? Simply as a thought experiment, I'm curious.

I just scoped out this South Bend Tribune article on the news from yesterday. Here's some negatives they discussed in the article:


The licenses raise $5.3 million per year to train law enforcement officers, a tab that taxpayers would at least partially have to pick up.

Opponents say police would not have an easy way to check whether someone is allowed to carry a firearm. Nor would there be a check on those who try to carry when they are not supposed to.

The bill would require state police and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to develop a process to enable law enforcement to quickly check whether someone is prohibited from carrying a handgun.

Opponents worry that system won't be in place by that March 2022 start date, or ever.

And so as to make my stance on the matter crystal clear: I am not arguing against HB 1369 and am 100% in favor of it.

Some quick counters to those:
1) Rights shouldn't require fees. Taxpayers should be funding police, not a bunch of hidden fees.
2) LEO do have a way to look up felonies, no?
3) Isn't "carrying w/o a license" just a fallback charge? We can convict on this other charge, so we'll just go for the easy carrying w/o a license charge.
4) I don't understand how the BMV got pulled into this.
 

JettaKnight

INGO Homebrewer
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Oct 13, 2010
22,498
113
Fort Wayne
Not to mention that this is at least the third consecutive legislative session that a Constitutional Carry bill has been up for debate. These tropes of horrible consequences have been discussed ad nauseum over that time and have not borne themselves out in the other states that have moved to CC over the past two decades.

If one were interested in exploring what some might call "negative consequences" there are plenty of claims out there in the world to look into and evaluate based on actual data from Constitutional Carry states.
The GA did the same thing about Sunday sales of alcohol - abuse will be rampant, DUIs galore, etc., etc.


There's also a lot of confusion about this. Some induhvidual wrote a letter in the JG worrying about people owning a gun w/o a license. :n00b:
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
I'm not on the same page as you; I see the question as a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits, but what are the costs? Simply as a thought experiment, I'm curious.

I just scoped out this South Bend Tribune article on the news from yesterday. Here's some negatives they discussed in the article:

And so as to make my stance on the matter crystal clear: I am not arguing against HB 1369 and am 100% in favor of it.

Great! So now we have the alleged adverse consequences. I will gladly address them:
The licenses raise $5.3 million per year to train law enforcement officers, a tab that taxpayers would at least partially have to pick up.
HB 1369 already provides an alternate funding mechanism for this $5.3MM offset. Further, regardless of where the funding is applied, requiring payment in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right is a poll tax and, by definition, unconstitutional.

Opponents say police would not have an easy way to check whether someone is allowed to carry a firearm. Nor would there be a check on those who try to carry when they are not supposed to.
The current LTCH does not provide police officers an "easy way to check whether someone is allowed to carry a firearm", nor can police officers currently "check on those who try to carry when they are not supposed to", thanks to the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Pinner, which confirmed that such police activity to be explicitly unconstitutional.

The bill would require state police and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to develop a process to enable law enforcement to quickly check whether someone is prohibited from carrying a handgun.
I fail to see how this is an adverse consequence? The system contemplated by HB 1369 is intended to facilitate the processing and approval of 5-year reciprocity licenses, that are intended to be ATF-compliant/certified as enhanced licenses that can be used as a NICS alternative when purchasing firearms from FFLs. Currently, the 5-year license cannot be certified, because license-issuing agencies cannot readily verify NICS status of applicants. This bill requires issuing authorities to put the system in place to incorporate this NICS check into the reciprocity license-application process.

This is demonstrably a good thing.

Opponents worry that system won't be in place by that March 2022 start date, or ever.
Again, I fail to see how this is an adverse consequence? All it means is that the 5-year license status quo will remain unless and until the system is put in place.
 

Trapper Jim

Expert
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Dec 18, 2012
1,685
12
Arcadia
My student (attorney) was not being negative but was weary of “being careful what you wish for” . The student has witnessed the “crumbling of the foundation by too much remodeling of the house” before in the Indiana Senate. It is over my head and I guess it will be a wait and see experiment.
 

chipbennett

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 18, 2014
7,697
83
Avon
My student (attorney) was not being negative but was weary of “being careful what you wish for” . The student has witnessed the “crumbling of the foundation by too much remodeling of the house” before in the Indiana Senate. It is over my head and I guess it will be a wait and see experiment.
Okay, so let's think about this at a philosophical level: the question contemplates what could go wrong by getting the government more out of the way of law-abiding citizens exercising constitutionally protected rights. How does that "crumble the foundation" (whatever that means)?
 

Pepi

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nov 7, 2010
155
18
Hartford City
I a gun lover, owner and carry. I will have to admit I'm not for just letting anyone carry a handgun. I always picture in my mind my daughter carrying a gun
 
Top Bottom