Indiana LTCH Training Requirements

[Timjoebillybob]

Whoa whoa whoa.....wait just a min. Your basis of thinking is screwed. A drivers license is a state issued PRIVLEDGE, not a God given RIGHT supposedly protected by our constitution!!!! The absolute LAST thing we need is more restriction/requirement to be "allowed" to lawfully carry a handgun.

I disagree, driving is a right, and there is case law supporting that view. See Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22, Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579, Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

Or look at it this way, if someone would of told the Founding Fathers that they needed to register their horses and wagons, and that they needed to get permission from the govt. to drive/ride them around where ever they wished, what do you think their response would of been? IMO at the very least laugh in the face of the person suggesting it, if they would of been forced I believe they would of used the right enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

but the sheer fact that any training is good training,

See below

Christ on friday. I should have known I would have you dudes jumping down my throat for responding in a calm fashion, rather than call some of you dudes a bunch of dildos, tell you your thought process is screwed, and maybe belittle your wives while I was at it....

Why WOULDN'T you want to be trained, that's all I want to know. I've grown up around guns my entire life, yet I'm still signed up for my Utah carry course in two weeks, as well as my application in for my LTCH. Why?

First off, because I feel it's the right thing to do, to learn more about how to LEGALLY AND SAFELY carry a concealed firearm in public. I WANT to better myself. And I believe that this is a standpoint that anyone should have in life applied to anything at all, rather than a "I knows it all, don't need no dern stinkin' trainin' i tell ye whut" type of approach. Which seems to be the approach you gents are saying is proper, for whatever reasons you may have, correct?

Second, I need it to carry into Ohio, which I work in, and spend a fair amount of my time in. But it plays second fiddle to what I feel is right to do from an educational standpoint. Maybe my mind will change AFTER I take the class.

I have a lot of friends (older than me) with children, who I hope to god (just a saying, I didn't capitalize that word on purpose) never offer them any type of "training" with a weapon. But, in a "father/mother knows best" approach, what about them? What they may be learning may not be safe/legal/etc., but they may not know any better, and since training is not necessary, they never learn any better? Or, ever think that not everyone's parents are in to guns? Forbid we pick up something So I guess we should all be sheep and follow in our parents' footsteps then and not have a gun because they didn't? Or go blindly into the night applying for an LCTH, with no regard for training, simply on the basis of wanting to carry a weapon?

The fact of the matter is, If more people would volunteer themselves for training, I wouldn't take the standpoint I do. Period. If everyone would train in some way or another, And I think that's complete and utter BS. If you don't want to learn and better yourself, I don't know why you're stuck on this rock anyways.

You guys have fun ripping that apart, telling me I'm not a good American, neg repping me, or whatever belittlement you feel necessary.

1st compare your first paragraph to your third, isn't that what your accusing others of doing? Specifically "I knows it all, don't need no dern stinkin' trainin' i tell ye whut" you are insinuating that everyone that disagrees is uneducated and unable to speak/write properly.

Why would I not want to receive training? I wouldn't, I like to learn what I can. But I don't believe anyone should be forced to get training or pass any tests to exercise an unalienable right. It has been asked several times in this thread and I will ask once more. What other rights do you think there should be required training to use?

2nd you want better yourself, and become better educated on how to safely and legally carry. But your taking a Utah class? Wouldn't it be better to take a class specifically on IN and Ohio law? Along with general safety. Or is it perhaps a case of sour grapes? You have to take a class to carry where you want/work so everyone else should have to also?
How many classes have you taken? Is this the first? Second? You are all fired up that everyone should be required to get training, what training have you received? And no training by your family and friends do not count, because how are we supposed to know if it's any good? See your comment about how you hope your friends don't give their kids any training.

So because you know people that in your opinion are unsuitable for teaching their children firearm safety(but according to you all training is good, see above), everybody must take a formal class? I have heard stories of "formal" training that scares the crap out of me. But since it's formal training it's okay in your eyes.

But lets say that formal training is better than whatever your parents may teach you. How many Drivers Ed students only pay enough attention to pass the test and then forget just about everything they were taught? Knowing myself and my friends I'd say probably 75% and that is being generous. I have had additional experience that suggests the same. I used to work in industrial cleaning, we were required to attended training and pass tests on 40hr Hazmat, 8hr OSHA, 10hr benzein, confined space, half and full masks, supplied fresh air, decon procedures, etc. Plus additional training on the equip. we were using (you'd be amazed at the damage 10-45k psi water can do to a body) The vast majority promptly forget everything they were taught, the ones that didn't sought out additional info on the subjects.

And what percentage of the people that received voluntary training that you would consider enough to not require mandatory training? And what level of training? By what level of instructor? Where do YOU draw the line? I'm curious.

 

[MTC]

But unfortunately...how do we convince states like Ohio that we are worthy of carrying into their states? You have to admit...it sure would be nice.

This looks a lot like the 'How do we get the Europeans to like us?' leading question.
Instead of lobbying Hoosiers to pile more bureaucratic infringements on our rights in an attempt at appeasement and pandering to convince them we're "worthy", one might consider contacting those in Ohio, such as the Buckeye Firearms Association, and find out what, if anything, can be done to help get Ohio gun control laws repealed, or at least get reciprocity. In the meantime, unfortunately, those working or traveling there frequently are limited to options like the Utah non-res permit.

 

[Bill of Rights]

But unfortunately...how do we convince states like Ohio that we are worthy of carrying into their states? You have to admit...it sure would be nice.

See my "swingset" example, upthread. I don't really care if the others think we're worthy; I just don't spend any money in their states.

I would also like to note that I appreciate you looking at this as you have, rather than the LEOSA perspective. Rep to be added as soon as I can.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[public servant]

I would also like to note that I appreciate you looking at this as you have, rather than the LEOSA perspective.

I wasn't even going to bring that up.

I do think it sucks, however, that the average law abiding citizen can't carry into Ohio unless they lock their gun in the trunk without risking going to jail. I've been to Cleveland in the middle of the night.

My OP really was not intended to be taken that I support anyone's rights to be trampled on or chiseled away. I would just like to see everyone on a level playing field.

 

[public servant]

In the meantime, unfortunately, those working or traveling there frequently are limited to options like the Utah non-res permit.

And take the same training that could be offered in Indiana to allow those who currently cannot to legally carry in Ohio?

 

[MTC]

I do think it sucks, however, that the average law abiding citizen can't carry into Ohio unless they lock their gun in the trunk without risking going to jail.

It certainly does, and that's the fault of the Ohio legislature, or whoever makes the rules on reciprocity there, not Indiana.

I've been to Cleveland in the middle of the night.

Realistic training opportunity?

My OP really was not intended to be taken that I support anyone's rights to be trampled on or chiseled away.

It was phrased as fairly as possible.

I would just like to see everyone on a level playing field.

Yeah, me too. This one:

The people shall have a right to bear arms.

And take the same training that could be offered in Indiana to allow those who currently cannot to legally carry in Ohio?

See a few posts up.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And take the same training that could be offered in Indiana to allow those who currently cannot to legally carry in Ohio?

Florida and Utah required training is offered and available in IN. Heck passing the IN hunter safety course meets FL requirements and you can do that online from anywhere in the world.

I think I understand what you mean though, and that is why not offer it for an IN license. And as I stated earlier in this thread and in another, I used to be for a tiered approach for an IN license. But after hearing viewpoints about how an optional requirement can become a mandatory one, I have changed my point of view on it.

 

[GIJEW]

I understand and appreciate the "line in the sand" attitude regarding constitutional rights. they've been eroded way to much.
Having said that politics is "the art of the possible" and we need to deal with the situation as it IS. Our enemies and the fence-sitters can point to voter registration to make the point that the gov't can have some legitimate regulatory power over exercising rights. Mandatory training answers questions about whether we're "competent" just like graduating from the PD academy proves that you meet a minimum standard (not that you're as good as Bill Jordan or Jim Cirrillo). We'll need to apply that to ourselves too in order to get neutral undecideds to solidly support CCW. It can be a good thing too if you need to shoot some thug: "I'm gov't certified as competent".
Lets save the line in the sand for other fights like making sure the test/standard isn't unreasonable like needing to be a USPSA master to get a LTCH, or needing some permit to OWN guns in our homes etc.

 

[Joe Williams]

I understand and appreciate the "line in the sand" attitude regarding constitutional rights. they've been eroded way to much.
Having said that politics is "the art of the possible" and we need to deal with the situation as it IS. Our enemies and the fence-sitters can point to voter registration to make the point that the gov't can have some legitimate regulatory power over exercising rights. Mandatory training answers questions about whether we're "competent" just like graduating from the PD academy proves that you meet a minimum standard (not that you're as good as Bill Jordan or Jim Cirrillo). We'll need to apply that to ourselves too in order to get neutral undecideds to solidly support CCW. It can be a good thing too if you need to shoot some thug: "I'm gov't certified as competent".
Lets save the line in the sand for other fights like making sure the test/standard isn't unreasonable like needing to be a USPSA master to get a LTCH, or needing some permit to OWN guns in our homes etc.

Gun rights "advocates" spent several decades working with just that line of compromise thinking. What we got in return was the near destruction of our 2nd Amendment rights. No, we must draw that line in the sand, and fight for this right as vigorously and uncompromisingly as all our other rights. No good will come of surrendering our rights to "convince" people we should be allowed to act as the law of the land says we may. There may be voter registration, but there is no training and no test to vote. There used to be. It was a tactic to keep Blacks from voting... which also happens to be how gun control got started in the first place. A tool used to try to keep Blacks disarmed.

 

[ATM]

Lets save the line in the sand for other fights like making sure the test/standard isn't unreasonable like needing to be a USPSA master to get a LTCH...

If the line we draw now is for no test, we won't need to draw another line tomorrow for a proposed standard.

I say hold the line and advance when and where possible.

 

[jeremy]

I understand and appreciate the "line in the sand" attitude regarding constitutional rights. they've been eroded way to much.
Having said that politics is "the art of the possible" and we need to deal with the situation as it IS. Our enemies and the fence-sitters can point to voter registration to make the point that the gov't can have some legitimate regulatory power over exercising rights. Mandatory training answers questions about whether we're "competent" just like graduating from the PD academy proves that you meet a minimum standard (not that you're as good as Bill Jordan or Jim Cirrillo). We'll need to apply that to ourselves too in order to get neutral undecideds to solidly support CCW. It can be a good thing too if you need to shoot some thug: "I'm gov't certified as competent".
Lets save the line in the sand for other fights like making sure the test/standard isn't unreasonable like needing to be a USPSA master to get a LTCH, or needing some permit to OWN guns in our homes etc.

The line in the sand has been drawn all ready. Look at some of the other states to see what the slippery slope can be. When must we quit giving ground...

Why not instead attempt to have other states respect our reciprocity with them. Why not approach this from the stand point of lobbying other states to accept our LTCH as valid.

Besides I am all ready certified by the Government as being competent at shooting thugs...

 

[Josh Ward]

I understand that 100%.

If you WANT to be trained, then MANDATORY training shouldn't be a problem, now should it? Get where I'm going with this?

Any other explanation needed can be referred back to my other post.

You have got to be kidding me???? Unreal. There is a WORLD of difference between VOLUNTARY training and MANDATED training.....

As many have said, no one is against training. Its a good thing. But the GOVERNMENT in all its vast knowledge (insert huge ammounts of sarcasm) FORCING us to have "training" to exercise our rights is WRONG, very very WRONG.

I'm pretty ashamed that 36% +/- of supposed RKBA supporters on here feel that mandatory training is a good thing....sickening.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I do think it sucks, however, that the average law abiding citizen can't carry into Ohio unless they lock their gun in the trunk without risking going to jail.

Ummm, maybe the average law abiding citizen could comply with Ohio law?

You can have more than one carry license.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I'm pretty ashamed that 36% +/- of supposed RKBA supporters on here feel that mandatory training is a good thing....sickening.

QFT

Required training to obtain a "right"... I don't even know what more can be said.

 

[rambone]

Here is the beginning of requiring licenses to exercise the 1st Amendment.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...for_internet_driver_s_license_censorship.html

There is a poll so some of you can voice your approval.

 

[Tallenn]

As a certified firearms instructor that could conceivably make some money running a business to teach these classes: absolutely not.

Let's put it another way: there is a bill in the Arizona legislature now that would allow people to carry concealed without a license at all (open carry requires no license). It is referred to by its supporters as "constitutional carry". As someone that is certified to teach the class now required for an Arizona CCW, I absolutely support that, as well. Whatever money I could make from such a venture is nothing compared to my liberty.

As far as I'm concerned, the constitution is my carry license.

 

[indytechnerd]

For those that are OK with MANDATORY training, who makes up the training?

RO: "Ok, ladies and Gentlemen, time for your qualification for handgun licensing. You'll notice at the 50m line a B-27 target. First, fire 5 rounds rapid fire at the target. Second string, 5 rounds controlled fire. Scoring is as follows. Anyone with all 10 rounds inside the 9 ring passes, all others fail. One year waiting period to re-qualify. Have a nice day."

 

[public servant]

Actually my thought was more along the line of the current Utah non-resident requirements...nothing more.

 

[public servant]

You can have more than one carry license.

And this is my entire point. Someone goes out and takes a 4 hour class to obtain the Utah non-resident license. If Indiana offered the same class and the license would be recognized in all the same states that currently recognize the Utah but not the Indiana LTCH...what would be the difference?

 

[sxshep]

Being from Ohio (manditory Basic Pitol NRA 12 hour class), I'm a little biased. Having just graduated with my Bachelor degree in Criminal Justice and debating pursuing Law School or a Masters degree in Criminal Justice, I'm a little biased. Having done over 180 hours of intern experience and 4 years as a police explorer, I'm a little biased. Also being a strong 2A supporter, I'm a bit torn on the issue. But, here is what I think.

I voted yes, and if there were an "Absolutely yes" option I probably would have picked that too. In my class there were multiple people who almost got kicked out... One for pointing his loaded pistol in every direction with his finger on the trigger while at the range, and one for thinking he would be "legally" justified in killing someone only if he heard them break into his car in the middle of the night. It was an eye-opener to me to see that there are some downright STUPID people who should 100% NOT touch a firearm without some basic safety knowledge and education regarding their own state and local laws about firearms.

Manditory training is not suggesting the government is trying to take guns away, or prevent someone from having a gun AT ALL. I truely believe it is a better system for everyone if an applicant gets some form of training. Just because you grow up around guns all your life and are "familiar with them" does not mean you are knowledgable about the laws too. Could you have both without the training? Absolutely. Does everyone have that training without taking the class? Absolutely not.