IC 35-47-2-1 §1(a) is a violation of Article 1 Section 32

[MTC]

Indiana Constitution

ARTICLE 1
Bill of Rights

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

**********

IC 35-47-2-1
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

____________________

Yes or No.
You do not need to explain or justify your vote.

 

[XMil]

Of course it is a violation. You don't have the right bear arms in Indiana, it has become a privilege.

 

[eldirector]

I was actually thinking about this on my drive home from Dayton yesterday. I don't really mind proving (once) that I am a law-abiding citizen and resident of this state. What I DO mind, is that our constitution specifically limits the powers of the State, but they choose to ignore it and place limitations on my rights.

Sec. 32 does not say "only at home" or "not at schools" or "not where a town doesn't want you". It says that the State does not have the authority to disarm you.

So, why do we give them the authority?

 

[SSGSAD]

Govt's are always making exceptions, that is how they make money...

 

[Bill B]

so who wants to be the test case?

 

[jedi]

so who wants to be the test case?

Well Bill B since you asked and you aren't you not in a case yourself right now I say we all vote for you!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The key is to change the standard of review for right to arms cases from reasonable to strict scrutiny.

Matthews v. State, 148 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 1958) (Indiana Supreme Court holds that license provision is reasonable regulation of right to arms)

Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (latest court of appeals case to reaffirm Matthews)

 

[downzero]

How are other fundamental rights regulated in Indiana? Is there any precedent for any sort of heightened scrutiny?

 

[MTC]

Instead of rolling the dice on an expensive court case or drawing straws to see who will risk a blot on his record by being the test case, a more obvious and appropriate choice would be to seek redress through one's elected representatives in the legislature. A tall order and not easily accomplished, but if it were decided by enough of the people that a given statute is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwanted, then it can be addressed by repeal, replacement, or striking of sections from the code.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Why did you make it so everyone can see who voted for what?

 

[indykid]

You have a right to bear arms, just not keep them on your person without paying the fee to the state. Think of it this way, if you do not have a valid Indiana ok to keep a firearm with you, so if you are mugged, you pull one out of thin air. You are now bearing it which is legal per 32. Once you are done protecting yourself, you must again make it vanish into thin air because you cannot keep it.

Yep, more laws violating our rights in order to make money and control us.

 

[singlestacksig]

the code in question aplies to a sub set of arms. you are allowed to carry around a loaded rifle without a LTCH.
the LTCH wil be issued if you apply..
Maybe the fee, or tax, part is unconstitutional.. but requiring the LTCH for a handgun is the same as voter registration..

 

[downzero]

Not really, because some people will be denied permits. In 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was written, it would have been unheard of--and scorned--to suggest that felons, the mentally ill, etc., should be denied the use of arms.

Under the original meaning of these constitutional guarantees, the license would likely be completely unconstitutional unless it was freely given to anyone who asked for one. A modest fee probably wouldn't present a constitutional problem, either.

 

[singlestacksig]

then the list of prohibited pe sons is unconstitutional.. but the LTCH law is not.
yes, the way it is issued needs to be ooked at; say the local CLEO sign off requirements..
if it is a town where the CLEO only takes applications in person by appointment & has only 1 appointment a year...

 

[MTC]

Why did you make it so everyone can see who voted for what?

Fixed.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Fixed.

Awesomeness. Thanks dude.

Josh

 

[T-rav]

Not really, because some people will be denied permits. In 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was written, it would have been unheard of--and scorned--to suggest that felons, the mentally ill, etc., should be denied the use of arms.

Under the original meaning of these constitutional guarantees, the license would likely be completely unconstitutional unless it was freely given to anyone who asked for one. A modest fee probably wouldn't present a constitutional problem, either.

They also handled murders and violent criminals a bit differently back then too! You never had to worry about them running around because they were hung.

 

[SedahDrol]

I voted yes because handguns are arms, by requiring a license to posses one in public violates the constitution. now if Indiana was an open carry without a license state then they would avoid violating the constitution, because you still maintain your right to bear your arms.

 

[downzero]

I actually didn't vote, because I know nothing about how a court might answer such a question.

I suspect that the answer is "no," unless you're someone who would be denied a permit under the law in some manner in which presents a constitutional question.

 

[JBusch8899]

right..........for the defense of ..........the State.

I am under the impression that law compels service within the militia when so called.

I would speculate that if an armed response was needed, with such a declaration from the Governor, the LTCH requirement of it's citizenry would be conveniently not enforced for those carrying a handgun. As such, it would seem rather hypocritical for the state to require it's citizenry to possess a LTCH, for one to carry of a handgun for personal protection.

Of course, hypocrisy, enforcement, as well as the existence of basic unfairness of specific laws are all too common.

Is the statute then legal? Probably. Is it lawful? While not a jurist, nor a historian of Indiana government, I would surmise that such intent would have not have been considered by the Framers of our state's Constitution. As such, it is my belief that a violation exists.