Petition for Constitutional Carry in Indiana

[richardraw316]

Signed

 

[tjh88]

Done Too!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Could someone (BOR) cough up a link to or a list of appropriate email addresses and phone numbers?

I posted that back in 2008, updated in 2014.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/legislation-2nd-amendment/10108-whos-your-legislator.html

Thanks, all for getting involved!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[24Carat]

A rough gauging of the responses I have seen on Social Media suggests a very broad and deeply ingrained desire to see Constitutional Carry come to fruition in our fine state.

Indiana is as well positioned as any state presently to join this timely, contemporary, national movement to Constitutional Carry.

 

[kiddchaos]

Bigtanker, thanks.

Just curious:
So does anyone personally know Michael Thomas Executive Director, Hoosier Carry
Is this guy on INGO?

 

[klrbear]

Signed. Thanks for the info.

 

[John Galt]

Signed

 

[MTC]

 

[ajeandy]

I'm not sure what this accomplishes? Am I correct by assuming it just means you don't have to pay for a LTCH? I mean it doesn't eliminate any background checks. Is that the goal of this?

 

[Bigtanker]

I'm not sure what this accomplishes? Am I correct by assuming it just means you don't have to pay for a LTCH? I mean it doesn't eliminate any background checks. Is that the goal of this?

It make carrying a handgun, concealed or in the open, NOT a crime in Indiana. As the law states now, it's a crime without a LTCH. So basically if a person feels the need to arm themselves with a handgun, they won't have to wait for the process of getting a LTCH.

Background checks will still be required to purchase a firearm from a FFL, but that is due to Federal regulations.

 

[ajeandy]

It make carrying a handgun, concealed or in the open, NOT a crime in Indiana. As the law states now, it's a crime without a LTCH.

Background checks will still be required to purchase a firearm from a FFL, but that is due to Federal regulations.

So basically, just removing the need for a LTCH? I assume the reason that you do need a license, and the reason there are laws making it illegal to carry a gun around without one, is because there are a LOT of irresponsible morons out there, therefore, I assume the logic is that having to go through a "step" to apply for a license shows a sliver more of responsibility and initiative.

I'm guessing.

TBH I'm not sure what's wrong with the current system, other than the fee.

 

[Bigtanker]

So basically, just removing the need for a LTCH? I assume the reason that you do need a license, and the reason there are laws making it illegal to carry a gun around without one, is because there are a LOT of irresponsible morons out there, therefore, I assume the logic is that having to go through a "step" to apply for a license shows a sliver more of responsibility and initiative.

I'm guessing.

TBH I'm not sure what's wrong with the current system, other than the fee.

As it stands now, it is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a long gun and no license/permit required.

This bill is doing what most gun owners want. It is getting the .gov out of our constitutional rights regarding firearms. The feds won't do it but our state is trying.

 

[ajeandy]

As it stands now, it is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a long gun and no license/permit required.

This bill is doing what most gun owners want. It is getting the .gov out of our constitutional rights regarding firearms. The feds won't do it but our state is trying.

I understand the want for less regulation firearms, as I'm not a proponent of "gun control," but do you really think that this would make anything better? Would it make anything worse?

Better in the sense that you don't need to have a permit to carry a gun, but if you have a lifetime LTCH what difference does it make? Do you think that more untrained or unprepared people would carry guns because they can? Generally, someone who gets a LTCH has a want or feels a need to, and they generally will show more initiative in regards to training than the average joe.

I'm not saying either way, I'm just asking questions here and would appreciate respectful answers.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's just one less layer of infringement. Our LTCH does not require (nor should it, IMHO) training or preparation, as you indicated you know. Look at it this way:

The 1A protects the rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition for redress of grievance.
The 2A protects the rights of keeping arms and bearing them.
The 3A protects the right to not be forced to allow soldiers to stay in your home against your will.
The 4A protects the right to be secure in person, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, requiring warrants from a judge to do so against your will.
The 5A protects you against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and provides for the grand jury system and requires payment if your property is taken by government for public use.
The 6A protects the rights to speedy, public trial where the offense happened, guarantees you can call witnesses, and guarantees you can examine the witnesses against you.
The 7A protects your right to a jury trial, rather than bench.
The 8A protects your right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The 9A was supposed to protect rights not otherwise specified, and finally,
The 10A was supposed to strictly circumscribe governmental power, severely restricting it.

I'm sure none of that is new information to you, and I don't mean to patronize. Simply put, though, only two of those rights require prior licensure/permitting in public, the right of peaceable assembly and the RKBA.

I can kind of wrap my head around the concept that, if a large group were to assemble in a public place, it could cause societal issues from the mundane, such as traffic control, to the contentious, such as "opposing viewpoints"... If the New Black Panthers were to demonstrate at the same place and time as a KKK rally, for example.

The biggest problem I see with carry licensure/permitting is where it all started, though: in racism. The idea was to make sure that "the wrong people" weren't armed in their own defense, whether their "wrongness" was defined by their ancestry (Irish, Italian, etc.) or their skin color, or their religion. Trouble is, the folks deciding who was a wrong person did so with human prejudices, and thus, denied good people that right.

Today, we would not see those in power denying that right on those grounds... they would deny it on the basis of you not being one of the powerful, or one of the people in the employ of those who are powerful. It probably wouldn't be an instantaneous thing. I'm guessing they'd Niemoller it, such that by the time they came for YOUR gun, there would be no one left to speak up to defend your right. If we remove from them the power to decide who can be armed, we further secure that right AS a right... not a privilege for which you must seek permission.

Make more sense that way?

Blessings,
Bill

I understand the want for less regulation firearms, as I'm not a proponent of "gun control," but do you really think that this would make anything better? Would it make anything worse?

Better in the sense that you don't need to have a permit to carry a gun, but if you have a lifetime LTCH what difference does it make? Do you think that more untrained or unprepared people would carry guns because they can? Generally, someone who gets a LTCH has a want or feels a need to, and they generally will show more initiative in regards to training than the average joe.

I'm not saying either way, I'm just asking questions here and would appreciate respectful answers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

TBH I'm not sure what's wrong with the current system, other than the fee.

I believe the best answer is to encourage you to consider this same statement in a number of different contexts:

1. What is wrong with requiring you to have a license with strings attached to speak/print/post in the internet publicly with or without a fee?

2. What is wrong with requiring you to have a conditional license to be excused from unlimited and arbitrary searches and seizures?

3. What is wrong with requiring you to have a license to be excused from incriminating yourself criminally?

4. What is wrong with requiring you to have a license to go to church?

 

[level0]

I understand the want for less regulation firearms, as I'm not a proponent of "gun control," but do you really think that this would make anything better? Would it make anything worse?

Better in the sense that you don't need to have a permit to carry a gun, but if you have a lifetime LTCH what difference does it make? Do you think that more untrained or unprepared people would carry guns because they can? Generally, someone who gets a LTCH has a want or feels a need to, and they generally will show more initiative in regards to training than the average joe.

I'm not saying either way, I'm just asking questions here and would appreciate respectful answers.

To go along with what others have noted, why does anyone need to be regulated to exercise their Constitutional rights? The Constitution is the LTCH. All this proposal does is move Indiana closer to the Constitution, which is a good thing.

 

[bwframe]

... All this proposal does is move Indiana closer to the Constitution, which is a good thing.

If constitutional carry is adopted here, where does Indiana fall if the 2nd Amendment is changed or repealed on the federal level?

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

I understand the want for less regulation firearms, as I'm not a proponent of "gun control," but do you really think that this would make anything better? Would it make anything worse?

Better in the sense that you don't need to have a permit to carry a gun, but if you have a lifetime LTCH what difference does it make? Do you think that more untrained or unprepared people would carry guns because they can? Generally, someone who gets a LTCH has a want or feels a need to, and they generally will show more initiative in regards to training than the average joe.

I'm not saying either way, I'm just asking questions here and would appreciate respectful answers.

What it might make better is how the courts view police-citizen encounters regarding handguns.

Currently it is generally illegal to carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed. There are a number of exceptions to that law, including the law mandating the issuance of licenses to carry. Knowing that a lot of people have that license, but far less than everybody, courts have tended to give police a lot of discretion to stop people and inquire about that handgun and their carry status, if they know that person is carrying. Basically law enforcement can initiate a temporary detention of you at any time if they know or reasonably suspect you have a handgun. No other misbehavior or suspicious behavior is required.

If we had constitutional carry, then almost every adult would be allowed to carry. The courts would hopefully no longer allow people to be stopped just for carrying. The police might then need some other fact or reasonable suspicion to make a stop legal, like knowing (for example) that the carrier is a felon, or that they are behaving dangerously right now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If constitutional carry is adopted here, where does Indiana fall if the 2nd Amendment is changed or repealed on the federal level?

It's going to depend partly on what's passed, but as of now, Article I, Sec. 32 would still override any changes. I don't see the 2A changing, though. Most likely, the bill in question would simply say that the carry of a handgun is no longer criminalized in and of itself, and if one may lawfully own it, he may lawfully carry it, and the LTCH is still available for reciprocity/recognition, if desired.

Just my guess.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bwframe]

It's going to depend partly on what's passed, but as of now, Article I, Sec. 32 would still override any changes. I don't see the 2A changing, though. Most likely, the bill in question would simply say that the carry of a handgun is no longer criminalized in and of itself, and if one may lawfully own it, he may lawfully carry it, and the LTCH is still available for reciprocity/recognition, if desired.

Just my guess.

Blessings,
Bill

I'd like to have someone show proof that Indiana would not be affected by a constitutional change. I'm sceptical of giving over control.

It's not a stretch at all to consider that if we don't get immigration under control, we will be outnumbered in the near future. The first thing they'll do when they have the numbers is take away our means of fighting off the tyrannical government.