License Renewal Question

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfts01

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 14, 2010
    302
    18
    New Haven
    I just went through the fancy new online renewal/application process, checking the relevant box that I do already have a LTCH, and I'm now being told I need to get fingerprinted again. Is this correct? My current license is not expired yet, and for some reason I figured being fingerprinted once was enough...

    Also kind of freaking out about how it's already been almost 4 years since I got my license. Time flies.
     

    rhino

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    30,906
    113
    Indiana
    I just went through the fancy new online renewal/application process, checking the relevant box that I do already have a LTCH, and I'm now being told I need to get fingerprinted again. Is this correct? My current license is not expired yet, and for some reason I figured being fingerprinted once was enough...

    Also kind of freaking out about how it's already been almost 4 years since I got my license. Time flies.

    Yes. The renewal process is identical to the initial application.

    If you get the lifetime version, this will be the last time you'll have to do it. Otherwise, expect to get the fingerprints and all the rest every four years.
     

    Rocketscientist

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 21, 2014
    228
    18
    Valparaiso
    There you go! Rhino's got it.

    Along the same topic, How do others feel about the contract company doing fingerprints instead of an actual police department? Who is it, L1 Solutions I think? Makes me kind of weary. Not so much the fingerprints themselves, but my personal information? Where does it go?
     

    wolfts01

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 14, 2010
    302
    18
    New Haven
    Yes. The renewal process is identical to the initial application.

    If you get the lifetime version, this will be the last time you'll have to do it. Otherwise, expect to get the fingerprints and all the rest every four years.

    Thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for.
     

    ratames

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2012
    408
    28
    There you go! Rhino's got it.

    Along the same topic, How do others feel about the contract company doing fingerprints instead of an actual police department? Who is it, L1 Solutions I think? Makes me kind of weary. Not so much the fingerprints themselves, but my personal information? Where does it go?

    When I applied for my lifetime license a couple of years ago, L1 was running the state's electronic fingerprint system. I still had to go to the State Office building and the ISP area of that building though. I had no problems with the process and had my license a week later.
     
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 6, 2012
    2,152
    48
    Mishawaka
    Based upon this, are they not keeping these prints on file/ added to a database? If they still had them, why would they need to print you again?

    I am not certain, in fact I'm speculating, but I would think once the prints are collected, L 1 transmits them to ISP and after that, they may not be saving or storing them. I could be wrong though.
     

    Drail

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2008
    2,542
    48
    Bloomington
    It's a racket folks, like all licensing schemes. They will use ANYTHING they can think of to get more money out of your wallet. Why save your prints (I am sure they do) when you can charge to have it done again and again and again? Why do you have to renew your driver's license repeatedly? Why should it not be good for life? Why charge more for a lifetime license? Why is a State issued license legal and valid one day but suddenly the very next day it is not? Think about it.
     
    Last edited:

    wolfts01

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 14, 2010
    302
    18
    New Haven
    It's a racket folks, like all licensing schemes. They will use ANYTHING they can think of to get more money out of your wallet. Why save your prints (I am sure they do) when you can charge to have it done again and again and again? Why do you have to renew your driver's license repeatedly? Why should it not be good for life? Why charge more for a lifetime license? Why is a State issued license legal and valid one day but suddenly the very next day it is not? Think about it.

    I don't believe that driving a car was addressed as a right anywhere in the Constitution, and big brother is not disallowed to regulate the way in which our rights are used. The 2nd amendment explicitly mentions "well regulated". I'm perfectly fine paying my quite reasonable fee (compared to the cost of most guns and even ammunition) considering our great state is one of the freest in this area. I also happily pay for fishing/hunting/etc. licenses that are used to preserve our natural resources.

    Driving is entirely a privilege, and if it were up to me you'd have to pass a test every 10 years or so to keep your license. At least then you'd be paying for something other than a hunk of plastic, and the roads would be at least a little bit safer for it.
     

    Drail

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2008
    2,542
    48
    Bloomington
    Do you actually believe that "well regulated" means "should be taxable and require repeated licensing fees"? Is that your interpretation of "well regulated"? If so then you are quite mistaken. In every State I have ever lived in (and driven professionally in with a "required" commercial license) the "driving test" was and is a complete joke and does absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from securing a "license" to operate a motor vehicle upon a public roadway. The State could not care less how many people kill each other on the roads while playing with their cell phones just as long as everyone pays for their "privilege". Driving is not a "privilege" or a "right". It is a skill. Unfortunately there is no requirement to demonstrate that a person has the skill or not. All you need is the price of the "license". If Indiana is such a free State then why is purchasing a license required to exercise a right guaranteed by a Federal Bill of Rights? Why should we have to pay the State Police for a fingerprint sample over and over again AFTER we have paid State taxes to support their basic operation? Why? Do you believe this makes us all safer?
     
    Last edited:

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Do you actually believe that "well regulated" means "should be taxable and require repeated licensing fees"? Is that your interpretation of "well regulated"? If so then you are quite mistaken. In every State I have ever lived in (and driven professionally in with a "required" commercial license) the "driving test" was and is a complete joke and does absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from securing a "license" to operate a motor vehicle upon a public roadway. The State could not care less how many people kill each other on the roads while playing with their cell phones just as long as everyone pays for their "privilege". Driving is not a "privilege" or a "right". It is a skill. Unfortunately there is no requirement to demonstrate that a person has the skill or not. All you need is the price of the "license". If Indiana is such a free State then why is purchasing a license required to exercise a right guaranteed by a Federal Bill of Rights? Why should we have to pay the State Police for a fingerprint sample over and over again AFTER we have paid State taxes to support their basic operation? Why? Do you believe this makes us all safer?

    Drail,

    I agree with you in principle. However:
    That Indiana is not perfect, and does still require the LTCH, is not evidence that we are not a better example of a free state than others. Look to our neighbors on both East and West; Both not only require the permit to conceal, they also only relatively recently made it available, the latter kicking and screaming. Both also require mandatory training classes, and require a large sum of money and time investment be made every few years. We have room to improve, no question, but we've got it pretty good sitting where we are.

    Driving is a skill, you are correct. Driving on publicly maintained roads, however, rather than privately owned, is a privilege for which you pay both in licensing fees for yourself and for your vehicle(s). As to the state not caring who is screwing around on a cell phone while driving, if that was truly the case, why would there be a law in place forbidding it? (Note: I'm not a fan of that law. I don't like people texting and driving, but I like a law forbidding it even less.)

    You're correct on the meaning of "well-regulated" not having to do with there being regulations (or "rules"), but rather meaning practiced in the use of its equipment. Keep in mind, though, that people come to the point of understanding of the original intent and meaning of our Founders at different rates and from different places. Coming at another member with what comes across as anger and/or derision is not likely to get that person to agree with you. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to convince anyone. Our rights would be sacrosanct, and we'd all have a perfect understanding of them (and consequently, we'd carry only because we liked to do so, not because we'd ever have a need for them.)

    Does paying a fee make us safer? Of course not, but until we can get the law changed, that's what we'll have to do. (Well, those who don't already have a Lifetime LTCH, anyway!)

    Give him a chance to learn the point of view from which you're coming.

    Wolfts, I know you're not new here, but I don't know how much time you've spent here in the last 4 years. Read a little... Get a feel for some of the ideas Drail posted to you. And I agree, BTW: If you can, and it makes sense for you (that is, if you'll be here longer than 4 years,) get your Lifetime LTCH. It's a worthwhile investment of both time and money, if you'll be carrying in this state.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    wolfts01

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 14, 2010
    302
    18
    New Haven
    Do you actually believe that "well regulated" means "should be taxable and require repeated licensing fees"? Is that your interpretation of "well regulated"? If so then you are quite mistaken. In every State I have ever lived in (and driven professionally in with a "required" commercial license) the "driving test" was and is a complete joke and does absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from securing a "license" to operate a motor vehicle upon a public roadway. The State could not care less how many people kill each other on the roads while playing with their cell phones just as long as everyone pays for their "privilege". Driving is not a "privilege" or a "right". It is a skill. Unfortunately there is no requirement to demonstrate that a person has the skill or not. All you need is the price of the "license". If Indiana is such a free State then why is purchasing a license required to exercise a right guaranteed by a Federal Bill of Rights? Why should we have to pay the State Police for a fingerprint sample over and over again AFTER we have paid State taxes to support their basic operation? Why? Do you believe this makes us all safer?

    I didn't intend to say I believed anything in particular, just that the wording gives "them" the ability to do quite a bit of whatever the bleep they want as long as they don't end up preventing you from exercising the right in some way. Being licensed does give them your fingerprints so you can be more easily caught if you commit a crime with your gun (or otherwise), but I suppose they also run them through any known unsolved crimes before giving you the license (speculation). I personally would fully support a training program requirement, or at least a requirement to pass a test - if only to make our license valid for more states.

    I don't really disagree with your general sentiment. Driving tests are a joke; you can fail for things even a "good" driver might miss, while you can pass while being an idiot driver. You can also murder someone out of your ignorance and get a traffic ticket for the crime. You can be caught multiple times driving drunk and still maintain a license. I wonder how many times you can brandish a firearm and maintain your license...

    @Bill of Rights
    I've been in Indiana for a long time, and I used to be fairly active on these forums. I suppose it was like how you slowly just stop talking to once long-time friends and one day realize you aren't really involved with them anymore.
    I am getting a lifetime this time around, even if I end up moving the hassle of going through this process again is not worth the difference in price.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    I didn't intend to say I believed anything in particular, just that the wording gives "them" the ability to do quite a bit of whatever the bleep they want as long as they don't end up preventing you from exercising the right in some way...

    This misinterpretation arises when we conflate infringe with abolish - they are not the same. The government is forbidden from trifling with or intruding upon our right to keep and bear arms, a far greater restriction than simply leaving some onerous remnant of it intact.

    I personally would fully support a training program requirement, or at least a requirement to pass a test - if only to make our license valid for more states...

    Once innocently passed under the guise of reciprocity convenience, the new mandatory requirements would too easily be modified to become more costly, prohibitive and ultimately unattainable, a de facto carry ban.
     
    Top Bottom