Indiana LTCH Training Requirements

[mrjarrell]

No way. In fact we should do away with the LTCH all together and have Vermont or Alaska style. Let people who want to carry in other states have an LTCH if they want. What we need is less government involvement.

 

[rambone]

I hear that California just began forcing its "citizens" get finger-printed every single time they purchase ammo. I'm sure it will make things a lot safer too.


A great idea would be to start a petition among Ohio Gun Owners and work to improve their lousy laws, instead helping to push Indiana into the abyss of unconstitutional restrictions.

Ohio Gunowners

 

[KahrFan]

I've head of politicians putting questions on forums such as this, and adding words to the questions...If you click yes, then you are in support of more gun control. They use this while arguing new "reform".

my 2c

 

[ddenny5]

Gun training should be optional and be a service of Indiana State Police.

 

[MTC]

Being from Ohio (manditory Basic Pitol NRA 12 hour class), I'm a little biased.

manditory Basic Pitol? How about mandatory Basic Spelling, before P-i-s-t-o-l?

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...

Oh really? Did you read and comprehend your own state constitution?
Ohio Constitution Article I - Bill of Rights
§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

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.

Range safety violations and ignorance of the legal aspects of the use of deadly force is part of what they were supposed to be addressing in that type of course, and at any rate, when committed by one or a few individuals is never a justification for denying the rights of, or in this case increasing regulatory burdens on the privileges of, the entire adult population of a state. Such practices turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty on its head, and are repulsive to anyone who sincerely is, as you say, "a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment", let alone the entire Constitution.

[STRIKE]Manditory[/strike] Mandatory 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.

The desire to control others, to force them to conform to ones own standards, and to preemptively punish or deny rights to those deemed unworthy, especially through the use of the machinery of the state, is very strong with some. The insertion of gunowner licensing and registration laws into state codes strips the people of their right, as a right, to bear arms - in this case, handguns or sidearms. It is from that point on, unless repealed, no longer a right but a privilege conditionally granted by the state. The conditions and restrictions are more numerous and violative of the peoples' rights in some, like Ohio, than in others, such as Indiana.
Most here value and seek professional training (not state-mandated feel-good training), and continue to do so on their own. Training is encouraged, but not forced as a precondition to the bearing of arms. Training or not, those who commit actual crimes are charged and punished accordingly, after the fact.

 

[rhino]

I just decided that I am against training. No one should get it.

 

[indytechnerd]

I just decided that I am against training. No one should get it.

riiiiiiight.

Rhino is purple, but his text isn't. Figure that one out.

 

[Zimm1001]

as long as there is two types of permits. One with training and one without. Personally I would not mind additional training for the expanded permit but I would not want it required. It's a fine line. Training should be required for someone who carries a concealed weapon but where does it stop once you start down that road.

 

[rambone]

Training should be required for someone who carries a concealed weapon but where does it stop once you start down that road.

The road to fascism is paved with government regulations.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

How's about the state providing a $10.00** voucher to an NRA course to anyone applying for an LTCH?

No mandatory training required but the state is highly suggesting additional refresher training to anyone already familiar with firearms and primary training for anyone new to firearms.

**No, I am not seriously suggesting this. Even if it were a viable option, the state does not have the funds to promote something like this. Hence, the purple text above.

 

[Bill of Rights]

How's about the state providing a $10.00** voucher to an NRA course to anyone applying for an LTCH?

No mandatory training required but the state is highly suggesting additional refresher training to anyone already familiar with firearms and primary training for anyone new to firearms.

**No, I am not seriously suggesting this. Even if it were a viable option, the state does not have the funds to promote something like this. Hence, the purple text above.

No, but I bet a few (read: many) instructors would happily offer that discount based on such a coupon. Yes, coupon, not voucher. The one is a discount without promised recompense, the other is redeemable for cash.

I think that if I was an pistol instructor and offered my class for $20-$25, I would have little problem with allowing, say, half the students in any class to attend for a reduced rate. That said, however, if the state is taking in $100-$125 per Lifetime and what, $50 for a 4 year and the goal is to encourage training, some of that money could be made available to trainers who offered to do as I suggested some could/might in this post.

At least those instructors would be DOING something useful for the money, not just taking because they can as some do.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[djl02]

Unamerican

 

[Joe Williams]

It is interesting that more than 1 in 3 people on this board are gun control advocates, judging by the poll response.

 

[rambone]

It is interesting that more than 1 in 3 people on this board are gun control advocates, judging by the poll response.

And this is supposed to be limited to the opinions of actual gun owners. Imagine how bad the percentages look, from people who don't pretend support gun rights.

Truly an eye opening poll. Good thing America is not a Democracy. In theory, we are supposed to be protected by a "Constitution." Perhaps some of you have read it?

 

[Josh Ward]

It is interesting that more than 1 in 3 people on this board are gun control advocates, judging by the poll response.

Sickening isn't it???

 

[Josh Ward]

.

Truly an eye opening poll. Good thing America is not a Democracy. In theory, we are supposed to be protected by a "Constitution." Perhaps some of you have read it?

No kidding, It still shocks me what some people on this supposed Pro 2A board truely believe.....

 

[sxshep]

manditory Basic Pitol? How about mandatory Basic Spelling, before P-i-s-t-o-l?

Cute, you can correct my HORRIBLE spelling, and thus it must mean you are much much smarter than I

Oh really? Did you read and comprehend your own state constitution?
Ohio Constitution Article I - Bill of Rights
§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

I agree, people have the right to bear arms... and people certainly have the right to have a Concealed Carry Permit in Ohio, provided they take a basic class that goes over laws of carry, rules of engagement and when it is acceptable to use deadly force, and safety principles involved in carrying a firearm.

Range safety violations and ignorance of the legal aspects of the use of deadly force is part of what they were supposed to be addressing in that type of course, and at any rate, when committed by one or a few individuals is never a justification for denying the rights of, or in this case increasing regulatory burdens on the privileges of, the entire adult population of a state. Such practices turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty on its head, and are repulsive to anyone who sincerely is, as you say, "a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment", let alone the entire Constitution.

Again, they are addressing those things (at least in the class I took and others that I've talked to who took the class). It is ABSOLUTELY a justification if people don't understand the laws and break them. Should people have to take driving classes to get a license just because a few stupid and uneducated teens roll their vehicle? It's the EXACT same scenario.

The desire to control others, to force them to conform to ones own standards, and to preemptively punish or deny rights to those deemed unworthy, especially through the use of the machinery of the state, is very strong with some. The insertion of gun owner licensing and registration laws into state codes strips the people of their right, as a right, to bear arms - in this case, handguns or sidearms. It is from that point on, unless repealed, no longer a right but a privilege conditionally granted by the state. The conditions and restrictions are more numerous and violative of the peoples' rights in some, like Ohio, than in others, such as Indiana.
Most here value and seek professional training (not state-mandated feel-good training), and continue to do so on their own. Training is encouraged, but not forced as a precondition to the bearing of arms.

Words in red were misspelled in your original post, and I corrected them ... Although I have no idea how to correct the word "violative", "gunowner" is not a word.


You're right, there should be no laws or restrictions at all. No one should receive instructions or advice, or be advised of their state's laws.

Training or not, those who commit actual crimes are charged and punished accordingly, after the fact.

"Actual crimes" meaning murder, carrying in places that are illegal and sometimes considered a felony, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter, so on and so forth, which could be caused by someone who is not trained in proper safety techniques or advised of their state's laws regarding carry? I'm confused by what you mean by actual crimes, because in my state, we have laws and enforce them.



Look.... bottom line is that states which require some form of education are not stripping the rights of their citizens. Unless you are a total jack*** in the class, and can answer 20 basic questions, you will pass the class. The only peoples' rights being infringed upon are those rights of complete morons who can't pass the class. In passing the class, a newbie gun owner WILL be more proficient in basic knowledge of the law, and safety. Period.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
Look.... bottom line is that states which require some form of education are not stripping the rights of their citizens. Unless you are a total jack*** in the class, and can answer 20 basic questions, you will pass the class. The only peoples' rights being infringed upon are those rights of complete morons who can't pass the class. In passing the class, a newbie gun owner WILL be more proficient in basic knowledge of the law, and safety. Period.

Bottom line is that the claim that mandatory training to exercise a Constitutional right is somehow not an infringement is utterly untrue. Only the most deluded would actually believe it, anyone else repeating it is simply being deliberately dishonest, a trait common to gun control advocates.

Further, if the classes are so utterly useless that only a "complete moron" couldn't pass it, they are imparting no knowledge of any real value. To claim that passing a class so stripped of actual content that only an utter moron couldn't pass it is somehow making anyone more proficient is another outright, deliberate untruth.

 

[MTC]

Cute, you can correct my HORRIBLE spelling, and thus it must mean you are much much smarter than I

No, it was done to make a point, since your introductory paragraph came off like you were throwing out academic credentials in an effort to impress people to somehow lend more weight to your opinion.

I agree, people have the right to bear arms... and people certainly have the right to have a Concealed Carry Permit in Ohio, provided they take a basic class that goes over laws of carry, rules of engagement and when it is acceptable to use deadly force, and safety principles involved in carrying a firearm.

You do not, in fact, agree. You just redefined a right, and what it means to have a right. You are arguing not for the right to bear arms, but for the right to apply for permission to bear arms. Everyone agrees that it is each citizen's responsibility to know at least these laws, rules and principles. When you tell someone, however, "Sure, you have this right, as long as you pass my test to my satisfaction" you just denied them that right and rendered it into a privilege, conditionally granted. Those who continue to call it a right at that point are either being deliberately dishonest or never knew what it meant to have a right in the first place. At least get your definitions straight.

Again, they are addressing those things (at least in the class I took and others that I've talked to who took the class). It is ABSOLUTELY a justification if people don't understand the laws and break them. Should people have to take driving classes to get a license just because a few stupid and uneducated teens roll their vehicle? It's the EXACT same scenario.

You just justified and rationalized the turning of what once was a right, and was meant to be a right as listed in our respective state constitutions, into a privilege, conditionally granted by the state. This same argument is made here and elsewhere to rationalize the existence of, and to keep from repealing, the gun owner licensing and registration laws we already have. You can make this argument all day long, but stop telling people you're a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, or that you agree that the people have a right to bear arms. By definition, you do not.

Words in red were misspelled in your original post, and I corrected them ... Although I have no idea how to correct the word "violative", "gunowner" is not a word.

No, they weren't misspelled. "Gun owner" was crammed together as one word out of habit from visiting their websites, and "violative" is the correctly spelled but seldom used adjective of "violate".

You're right, there should be no laws or restrictions at all. No one should receive instructions or advice, or be advised of their state's laws.

Don't pull that crap with me. That's not what was said, or the way it was said. In any case, you seek more state control, and I believe in individual responsibility. Don't try to accuse me of advocating lawlessness, anarchy, and willful ignorance. I've heard and read every gun control argument there is.

"Actual crimes" meaning murder, carrying in places that are illegal and sometimes considered a felony, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter, so on and so forth, which could be caused by someone who is not trained in proper safety techniques or advised of their state's laws regarding carry? I'm confused by what you mean by actual crimes, because in my state, we have laws and enforce them.

I shouldn't have to explain to you the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Look.... bottom line is that states which require some form of education are not stripping the rights of their citizens. Unless you are a total jack*** in the class, and can answer 20 basic questions, you will pass the class. The only peoples' rights being infringed upon are those rights of complete morons who can't pass the class. In passing the class, a newbie gun owner WILL be more proficient in basic knowledge of the law, and safety. Period.

See Joe's comment above.

 

[Josh Ward]

You're right, there should be no laws or restrictions at all. No one should receive instructions or advice, or be advised of their state's laws.

C'mon, that was never said nor implied. As mentioned above people with your attitude are seeking MORE government control (ie socialism) where the other 63% +/- are looking at training as a personal responsibility. (as it should be).

"Actual crimes" meaning murder, carrying in places that are illegal and sometimes considered a felony, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter, so on and so forth, which could be caused by someone who is not trained in proper safety techniques or advised of their state's laws regarding carry? I'm confused by what you mean by actual crimes, because in my state, we have laws and enforce them.

There we go that makes perfect sense, lets legislate for something that MIGHT happen. (ie FORCE people to take training because they MIGHT negligently discharge their firearm). Give me a damn break. I've stated it before, and will again; those of you who SAY they support our rights but in truth are dividing us with attitudes like this are going to be our downfall. They can't take our rights aways all at once, but they sure ans hell can one little bit at a time with "feel good" legislation such as 'required training'.