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

[JBusch8899]

You never had to worry about them running around because they were hung.

Hung? I believe you instead meant, hanged.

One running about as such, would be a rather pornographic endeavor.

 

[jeremy]

The LTCH is in the same realm as Property Taxes...

 

[Ashkelon]

We don't need a test case on this specific issue. That would only cement the position of a bad statute being given legitimacy with a rubber stamp by the Court.

What needs to happen is a legislative repeal. In order to do that there must be some revenue replacement. When you add up the fees and the jobs at the ISP for processing and conducting hearings etc. you can see it is a little cottage industry of regulation. Those folks aren't going to lose their jobs or sense of purpose quietly.

I would assume any attempt at repeal would be heavily lobbied against by the ISP and in turn any legislator that attempts to introduce a repeal measure would be classified anti law enforcement. Which in Indiana means finish your term cause you are about to be unemployed at the statehouse.

I don't like it but I just can't think of any way to get rid of it.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

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.

because in 1787 Felons were hanged and the mentally ill locked up and left for dead, think before you post.

 

[SavageEagle]

Well DUH it's unConstitutional. So is a permit for a Protest or Rally. But you don't see anyone up in arms over that.

 

[downzero]

because in 1787 Felons were hanged and the mentally ill locked up and left for dead, think before you post.

Have you studied legal history?

Do you really think we had institutions to lock up every mentally ill person in 1787?

 

[Vince49]

Not wanting to jack the thread here but thought this might be of interest to those discussing this topic. As most of you know the same Indiana code being discussed here requires that the superintendent either issue or denie the license within 60 days, this is the law. If you follow the thread on here under current LTCH waiting time you know that they are not in compliance. This is my correspondence and their response just received this morning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince49
For what it's worth and for all the good it will do, I sent this letter to the ISP this morning. Waiting for a response. Something tells me that my application may fall behind a desk and not be found for quite some time.


I applied for a personal protection License To Carry a Handgun on 04/13/2010 through the offices of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Dept. Your office cashed my money order in the amount of $75.00 on 05/04/2010. What possible explanation is there for the excessive amount of time that it is taking to perform a simple background check and issue the license? I am a U.S.Army veteran and former commissioned officer, so I know my history and that numerous background checks have been done previously. This delay is very detrimental to the credibility of your office and speaks volumes to the lack of efficiency existing within the Indiana State Police organization. I have made several telephone calls to the firearms section and have not received any useful or credible information as to the reason for the delay.My application number is:0129172291 Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Vincent J Helmer Jr.

This is the response I just received from the ISP.

Application‏
From: <img id="P___794803020" webimdisplaystyle="inline" style="display: none;"> Michael, Butch (BMichael@isp.IN.gov) Sent: Fri 6/25/10 9:15 AM To: helmervj@hotmail.com
.ExternalClass .ecxEmailQuote {margin-left:1pt;padding-left:4pt;border-left:#800000 2px solid;} [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif] We are showing your application received the same day as your e-mail indicates. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Applications that are completed properly and have no other problems routinely take from 6 to 8 weeks to process from the time the section receives it; however, the section is currently running at approximately 10 weeks. Be aware that some local agencies take a week or more to process the application before they forward it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Some money orders have a phone number on the stub that will tell you when it was cashed. Add 11 weeks (to allow for postage, etc.) to the date the money order for the state fee (the larger amount) was cashed. If you believe that you have exceeded this timeline, reply directly to this email and provide the date the money order was cashed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If your license was valid when you applied for a renewal, you can carry a copy of your application with your expired permit and continue to carry a handgun as long as you remain a proper person under statute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If you inquire again, please make sure to include your name as written on the application and your date of birth.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ATTENTION: If you applied online and completed your fingerprints through the L1 service, you must also go to your local law enforcement agency to complete the application process and pay a local fee. If you have not been to a local police agency to do this, your application has not been received by the Indiana State Police. If you used L1 and went to the local and completed at least two weeks ago, please advise this in your next inquiry.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Mark S.(Butch) Michael, Sergeant[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Indiana State Police [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Firearms Section[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]100 N. Senate Ave.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Indianapolis, In. 46204[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Office: 317-232-8269[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fax: 317-233-9730[/FONT][/FONT]

So as I suspected the Superintendent is exempt from complying with IC 35-47 but we are not.

 

[JBusch8899]

because in 1787 Felons were hanged and the mentally ill locked up and left for dead, think before you post.

Trolls are incapable of such. Tis' the reason why I have blocked this particular "individual" from my view.

 

[jeremy]

Trolls are incapable of such. Tis' the reason why I have blocked this particular "individual" from my view.

Here let me help you with that...

Have you studied legal history?

Do you really think we had institutions to lock up every mentally ill person in 1787?

What does legal history have to do with this fact?! It would actually fall more under social studies than any other area I believe.

You are right on your second point, kinda maybe... We did have very few mental Institutions in the late 16th Century. Most people with problems were left to their own devises, at least until someone came along and gave them the cure for Stupid anyway.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Awesomeness. Thanks dude.

Josh

You're welcome.

 

[JBusch8899]

Here let me help you with that...

Yeah, thanks for that piece of [strike] newsworthy waste of bandwidth[/strike] .

What does legal history have to do with this fact?! It would actually fall more under social studies than any other area I believe.

Are you attempting to argue with a troll/moron? What are you attempting to gain?

You are right on your second point, kinda maybe... We did have very few mental Institutions in the late 16th Century. Most people with problems were left to their own devises, at least until someone came along and gave them the cure for Stupid anyway.

Too bad that the same cure couldn't be utilized for a few specific individuals here on INGO.

 

[jeremy]

JB that ain't nice I am just trying to share the joy of some of these posts with you... And you get all grumpy on me.

Actually I do enjoy occasional witty banter with trolls. It keeps me on my toes that way. Plus some of the points they come up with... You just can not make up stuff like that.

 

[Bill B]

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!

Mine has nothing to do with firearms...except that it is retaliation because I knew the law and barney fife didn't. Anyone wanna donate about $3k to my legal fund?

 

[hunterft6]

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)

Exactly, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be considered a "fundamental right", like many of the other enumerated rights. The standard of review would then be "strict scrutiny" making it tougher for the state to justify regulations and restrictions of the right.

 

[JBusch8899]

Exactly, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be considered a "fundamental right"[STRIKE], like many of the other enumerated rights[/STRIKE]. The standard of review would then be "strict scrutiny" making it tougher for the state to justify regulations and restrictions of the right.

FIFY. All rights are fundamental.

 

[T-rav]

Hung? I believe you instead meant, hanged.

One running about as such, would be a rather pornographic endeavor.

I did mean hanged.

 

[hunterft6]

FIFY. All rights are fundamental.

I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but that is not the courts' take on the situation.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Have you studied legal history?

Do you really think we had institutions to lock up every mentally ill person in 1787?

The mentally ill were far and few between in 1787 as there was no fluoride in the water, chem trails in the air and no fall out boy telling 12 year old girls it's ok to cut themselves.

And if you had a mentally retarded/unstable child you let it live in the barn with the animals, you didn't need mental institutions, there was no way to "evaluate" someone with a mental defect, it was simply, oh you're different, let's hide you from society.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Because God and gave us rights and freedoms, not the Government. Our brave Men, and Women are sworn to uphold them. The Government likes to think they gives us rights and freedoms, that way they can change them or take them away. All you can do is stay true to what you believe in. That's something no one can take away from us.