You are correct.I am pretty new to Indiana but it is my understanding that a veto override takes a simple majority. Please correct me if I am wrong. Jim.
You are correct.I am pretty new to Indiana but it is my understanding that a veto override takes a simple majority. Please correct me if I am wrong. Jim.
Did anyone ask this student to provide examples of potential, unintended consequences?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 ??
Even if Holcomb vetoes it, apparently (TIL?) an override only requires a simple majority in Indiana.It may get there, but I expect he would veto.
It will take an override of the POS.
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!Did anyone ask this student to provide examples of potential, unintended consequences?
You are up early Dad! I had that link copied, we made national news.
"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."
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!
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.I understood his question the same way.
It is asking to prove a negative, essentially. What possible consequences do you potentially envision?
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.)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.
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.It is asking to prove a negative, essentially. What possible consequences do you potentially envision?
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
The GA did the same thing about Sunday sales of alcohol - abuse will be rampant, DUIs galore, etc., etc.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Opponents worry that system won't be in place by that March 2022 start date, or ever.
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)?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.