Indiana Constitutional Carry double edge law...

[380Mike]

I just found out (per my local county's prosecutor) that the Indiana Constitutional Carry goes for everyone, not just Indiana residents. I guess I never really thought about it, I just assumed (I know, bad idea) that it was only for Indiana residents. With Illinois new "Purge Law" coming on the books next year, I can see this could be bad for boarding counties with our western neighbor.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I just found out (per my local county's prosecutor) that the Indiana Constitutional Carry goes for everyone, not just Indiana residents. I guess I never really thought about it, I just assumed (I know, bad idea) that it was only for Indiana residents. With Illinois new "Purge Law" coming on the books next year, I can see this could be bad for boarding counties with our western neighbor.

Do you really think the type I'm guessing you are worried about really care if they are carrying legally? Or even if they would be legal under this Con Carry?

 

[printcraft]

Won’t matter a bit, those that illegally carried before will still illegally carry now.

 

[bobzilla]

Won’t matter a bit, those that illegally carried before will still illegally carry now.

/purple

 

[printcraft]

View attachment 228166

Felons who couldn’t carry prior can’t carry now, nothing has changed.

 

[bobzilla]

Felons who couldn’t carry prior can’t carry now, nothing has changed.

Sorry... not sure how to put Meme's in purple

EDIT: that might work

 

[chipbennett]

I just found out (per my local county's prosecutor) that the Indiana Constitutional Carry goes for everyone, not just Indiana residents. I guess I never really thought about it, I just assumed (I know, bad idea) that it was only for Indiana residents. With Illinois new "Purge Law" coming on the books next year, I can see this could be bad for boarding counties with our western neighbor.

To the contrary: I don't see how anything changes, practically, functionally, or otherwise meaningfully.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I just found out (per my local county's prosecutor) that the Indiana Constitutional Carry goes for everyone, not just Indiana residents. I guess I never really thought about it, I just assumed (I know, bad idea) that it was only for Indiana residents. With Illinois new "Purge Law" coming on the books next year, I can see this could be bad for boarding counties with our western neighbor.

I know I about about to stir up the hornet's nest, but, dude, good grief, what are you talking about?

Purge Law is nonsense. Illinois just eliminated cash bonds as other states, including Alaska, have done. Cash bond is racist twaddle aimed at the unconvicted (due process? due wheelies!) which is why it is mandatory in Texas and an IPAC sweetheart.

Heck, people are out walking around on federal felonies, including gun charges, without paying a dime in bond.

The new statute in Illinois allows prosecutors to hold people if by clear and convincing evidence that they are threats to specific individuals. The Fox News drivel about silly movies is just that, drivel. We should not criminalize poverty.

Oh, the stories I have from my Special Public Defender contract days.

 

[Lpherr]

Won’t matter a bit, those that illegally carried before will still illegally carry now.

I'm betting that some are now carrying legal.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm betting that some are now carrying legal.

How? A prohibited possessor prior to 1 July 2022 is still prohibited.

 

[d.kaufman]

How? A prohibited possessor prior to 1 July 2022 is still prohibited.

Think he's saying some ignored paying the bribe for a ltch (even though they were proper) and carried anyways

 

[Lpherr]

How? A prohibited possessor prior to 1 July 2022 is still prohibited.

I've known people that carried, or had firearms they traveled with, without a LTCH, but were also not prohibited.
They would now be legal.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I've known people that carried, or had firearms they traveled with, without a LTCH, but were also not prohibited.
They would now be legal.

If they meet the requirements in Indiana code 35–47, which look a lot like the requirements to get a license to carry a handgun, then they can legally carry a handgun here in the great state of Indiana. It is a higher bar than not being a prohibited possessor. If I remember correctly there is language concerning misdemeanor convictions for alcohol or marijuana or something along that line.

 

[mmpsteve]

View attachment 228166
/purple

I kinda like this:



.

 

[Lpherr]

If they meet the requirements in Indiana code 35–47, which look a lot like the requirements to get a license to carry a handgun, then they can legally carry a handgun here in the great state of Indiana. It is a higher bar than not being a prohibited possessor. If I remember correctly there is language concerning misdemeanor convictions for alcohol or marijuana or something along that line.

As far as I know, they've always met the requirements to obtain their LTCH, but never applied for it.
I'm sure there were plenty of people that did the same. Indiana laws made it easy to do. I don't remember the exact wording, but you can't be stopped and questioned solely for carrying, and there is no duty to inform during a traffic stop. As long as there isn't probable cause, or you don't step out of line, there wouldn't be much concern. It would just require having the cahunas to do it.

Wouldn't a conviction of marijuana (don't know about alcohol) be considered not a proper person, in the same way as domestic violence?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

As far as I know, they've always met the requirements to obtain their LTCH, but never applied for it.
I'm sure there were plenty of people that did the same. Indiana laws made it easy to do. I don't remember the exact wording, but you can't be stopped and questioned solely for carrying, and there is no duty to inform during a traffic stop. As long as there isn't probable cause, or you don't step out of line, there wouldn't be much concern. It would just require having the cahunas to do it.

Wouldn't a conviction of marijuana (don't know about alcohol) be considered not a proper person, in the same way as domestic violence?

The not being stopped simply for carrying is relatively new, it's from a IN supreme court decision iirc Pinner v state.

For marijuana ltch requirements is 2 or more any one of which is from the last 5 yrs, that is for any drug convictions. alcohol related is 2 or more one of which in the last 3 yrs. DV convictions are federal and state and makes you a prohibited person just for owning.

 

[BigRed]

Won’t matter a bit, those that illegally carried before will still illegally carry now.

There should be a law against that

 

[KellyinAvon]

As far as I know, they've always met the requirements to obtain their LTCH, but never applied for it.
I'm sure there were plenty of people that did the same. Indiana laws made it easy to do. I don't remember the exact wording, but you can't be stopped and questioned solely for carrying, and there is no duty to inform during a traffic stop. As long as there isn't probable cause, or you don't step out of line, there wouldn't be much concern. It would just require having the cahunas to do it.

Wouldn't a conviction of marijuana (don't know about alcohol) be considered not a proper person, in the same way as domestic violence?

If the weed charge was a misdemeanor then no. Only misdemeanor convictions that cause a loss of 2A rights is domestic violence.

 

[FNparabellum]

I just found out (per my local county's prosecutor) that the Indiana Constitutional Carry goes for everyone, not just Indiana residents. I guess I never really thought about it, I just assumed (I know, bad idea) that it was only for Indiana residents. With Illinois new "Purge Law" coming on the books next year, I can see this could be bad for boarding counties with our western neighbor.

Yea its just like most people here are saying. The bad guys dont really care about laws so there guna carry anyhow.

 

[Ingomike]

If the weed charge was a misdemeanor then no. Only misdemeanor convictions that cause a loss of 2A rights is domestic violence.

This case may apply here as well.

SCOTUS knocks back 1st Circuit Anti 2A Decision

Or so says this guy. I never heard of this case before.

www.indianagunowners.com