Indiana LTCH Training Requirements

[Joe Williams]

I wish I had a little more knowledge when I started to carry. I knew nothing of retention or escalation of force and very few of the laws. I really think even just a 1 hour quick safety course with basic laws and retention advice would be acceptable.

Don't need a law to go get that.

 

[dbd870]

Under no circumstances do I support required training to exercise a Constitutional Right.

Agreed. I don't think much of the idea of a license in the first place.

 

[Scutter01]

Agreed. I don't think much of the idea of a license in the first place.

I don't either, and that's why I don't even like the idea of optional training to get a license recognized by other states.

"We'll just do licensing. It's common sense, and it'll keep the criminals from carrying. Everyone else can get one."

"We'll just have optional training. Anyone can still get a license without training."

"We'll just require a quick safety briefing. It'll be free and anyone can still get a license."

"We'll just require a 3 hour class. Honestly, it's common sense. You already have to have a safety briefing. You can't spare three hours to learn how to handle a gun? Anyone can still get a license if they take the class."

You see where I'm going with this, I hope? Or do I have to extend it to its logical conclusion?

 

[TheLoneRaider]

I said no because i have already taken a 8 hour class for my Arizona CCW. If i wanted a Arizona CCW i had to take the class by law. I'm tired of jumping through hoops.

 

[youngda9]

You people who think training should required are trampling over our 2A rights.

There are no issues with licenced IN gun toters that requires attention. Blood is not running in the streets as people get into gunfights over minor arguments. We are a responsible people. We do not neet the state qualifying us to be able to perform our god given right of self defense.

Stop trying to "fix" a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Edit: When I say "You people" I am referring to the people who voted Yes in the poll but apparently didn't bother to type out a rationale in this thread. They remain annonymous.

 

[Comp]

This should be taught in school. Most learned to drive a car in school why not a firearm. The car is far more dangerous than the firearm...

I agree with you 100% its just I had to rush into mine due to fear of personal safety. I just wish I had researched more about the obligation and responsibility of carry. I've been thinking about taking some NRA classes with a girl I know who is wanting to learn about firearms and safety.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I voted no because it is the closest to how I feel. My personal belief is that no license should be needed period.

Making OPTIONAL training as a requirement to get a widely-accepted license sounds good on the surface. The problem is that the work required to change "OPTIONAL" to "REQUIRED" is minimal and can easily be passed by the legislature at any time. Under no circumstances do I support required training to exercise a Constitutional Right.

In another thread I supported a 3 tier system, no license needed, our current requirements, and a training required license. BoR set me straight on that, for the same reasons you posted.

 

[AJBB87]

Principally, I am for as little government intrusion into my life as possible.

However...

I voted yes because I want to be able to carry, legally, everywhere I go. Indiana, Illinois, California, whatever. If it were as simple as taking the 8 hr NRA basic pistol course and being "granted permission ", I would do it.

But wait. People who want to carry in more states already jump through Govn't hoops by doing the whole Utah/Florida thing... So what are we talking about?

If an INGO member has a Utah permit but votes no in this poll, does that make him/her a hypocrite?

How many yes voters (in the poll above) have a Utah/Florida permit?

How long has the Utah/Florida permit been around and how many times has someone or some group tried to use the "required training" to outlaw carrying altogether?

Just wondering and NOT trying to stir

AJB

 

[XDs4me]

I dont believe that we should have to be licensed to carry as long as we are law bidding citizens. But if you look at some of the posts of videos on you tube and such and see all the idiots out there and how they handle guns, A little training couldnt hurt. IMO

 

[public servant]

I honestly just posted this in reference to a gentleman's question regarding not being able to carry through Ohio to get to his destination in Pennsylvania. There was no hidden agenda nor did I mean to imply I was for trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens.

It was merely a question. I personally wouldn't have an issue with a few hours of training to be able to carry nationwide. But I also understand then it's just a foot in the door for other requirements and restrictions.

I also understand it won't keep the criminal element from carrying wherever they want. If there were a way to keep those who would like to see all of us from being able to carry I could support some training...but that would be in a perfect world...and we all know it's not.

But it sure would be nice to carry from coast to coast and not have to lock it away in certain states. With a little luck...one day. I've changed some of my views from being here over the last almost 2 years. In my opinion...and it is merely my opinion...the thought of some of my neighbors and family carrying a gun terrifies me. But because each is a law abiding citizen and a proper person...they have that right.

Anyway...carry on...and don't read more into the question than there is. It's merely that. A question.

 

[clt46910]

While I believe that we should not need a LTCH to carry a firearm, the choices was to leave the present system in place or require more training to gain wider acceptance.

I would be for a three tier system. Leave the present system as it is, but add another type license for those that want to take farther training and get a higher grade license.

 

[public servant]

I would be for a three tier system. Leave the present system as it is, but add another type license for those that want to take farther training and get a higher grade license.

Now see...I could live with that. Forgive my ignorance on the matter...but are there any states that have such a system?

And while I'm on the subject...as long as Indiana does have a LTCH, I would like to see it as more of an official means of ID including a picture...perhaps along the lines of a driver's license. Something more permanent.

 

[singlestacksig]

how many of those youtube posters are lawful firearms owners? how many have an indiana LTCH?

you have no way of knowing.. they could have a CCW permit from a state that required a class & still been stupid..

 

[clt46910]

No state I know of. Another advance of a LTCH is that it does prove you are a proper person.

One of the down sides to no permit is that any gang criminal could carry without a worry, how would a LEO know if he is a felon or not?

 

[public servant]

how many of those youtube posters are lawful firearms owners? how many have an indiana LTCH?

you have no way of knowing.. they could have a CCW permit from a state that required a class & still been stupid..

My hope would be that none of them have a LTCH from any state...but unfortunately...some probably do.

Unfortunately...and I have no scientific results to support it...but my personal feeling is that most people who purchase a firearm don't bother to get any training. And that is unfortunate.

 

[Lars]

If the Indiana LTCH were recognized in as many states as is say the non-resident Utah and Florida permits, would you be willing to obtain the required minimum training and possibly have the Indiana LTCH to include a picture of the holder?

I think the States that have a training requirement are wrong, and should be fixed rather than taking Indiana's license which is mostly right, (Other than the fact we NEED one in the first place.), and adjusting it to be like theirs.

As for putting a picture on the Indiana LTCH, that I could get behind. Especially if it were printed along the lines of an Indiana Drivers License.

Like the FCC Requiring Morse Code for Ham Radio Operators. Most the Hams I know learned enough Morse Code to pass the test, and have since promptly forgotten it. The requirement of "training" only works in propping up the companies/trainers who offer approved classes. Students going through required/mandatory training get virtually nothing out of the classes. Ask anyone in corporate America what their thoughts on mandatory training are.

 

[public servant]

Let's say Indiana did away with the LTCH. Would anyone get behind requiring someone who purchases a handgun being required to take a safety class? Again...if the LTCH requirement was lifted.

 

[longbarrel]

Since we are on topic, does anyone have a reccomendation for such a class ? I want to get my Utah carry permit, and need to take one.

Jim Floyd DPG. He is good and the classes are reasonable. He is also an advertising member of this site.

 

[Joe Williams]

Now see...I could live with that. Forgive my ignorance on the matter...but are there any states that have such a system?

And while I'm on the subject...as long as Indiana does have a LTCH, I would like to see it as more of an official means of ID including a picture...perhaps along the lines of a driver's license. Something more permanent.

I think Alaska offers a CCW for residents who travel to other states, but it's optional, and not required for in state use.

I would like to see an LTCH a little more durable, at the very least for lifetime holders.

 

[Joe Williams]

No state I know of. Another advance of a LTCH is that it does prove you are a proper person.

One of the down sides to no permit is that any gang criminal could carry without a worry, how would a LEO know if he is a felon or not?

Heck, how do they know now?

If they stop someone, he has a gun, and the records check comes back with a felony, instant bust. The LTCH really isn't needed for that.