If, when, then...

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!
  • Que

    Meekness ≠ Weakness
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 98%
    48   1   0
    Feb 20, 2009
    16,373
    83
    Blacksburg
    This question popped in my head from another thread and I didn't want to turn the thread with my question.

    If Indiana gun owners are willing to take the class necessary to garner a Utah carry license/permit in order to legally carry in other states, then why are so many staunchly opposed to having a training requirement in Indiana, which will meet the qualifications other states impose to meet their reciprocity requirement?

    I must be missing something very simple, so be gentle. :):
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    What percentage take the class to get a UT or FL permit? I bet it's a tiny, tiny subset of all LTCH holders. Now if that's because they don't travel to states where it matters or because they don't want to complete the training would be another question...
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    The Indiana LTCH is a requirement in order for Indiana state residents to exercise a natural, constitutionally protected right. The Utah permit is an optional permit. Thus, the training component of that permit process is likewise optional.

    Training isn't the issue; it is making that training a requirement as a prerequisite to exercising a natural, constitutionally protected right that is the issue. Required training serves no legitimate, constitutional purpose whatsoever.
     

    The Bubba Effect

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    May 13, 2010
    6,221
    113
    High Rockies
    It's the word "required" that I balk at.

    If Indiana required a class for their LTCH, I would likely take that class, but I would vote against the requirement if there were a vote. I might some day take a Utah class so I can pick up a few more states, but I would rather those states not require the class.

    I am in favor of voluntary self improvement. I am generally against compulsion.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    For me, it's much as Chip said. In addition, though, I like having the option to carry in more states, so I organized the class that several of us took in 2008 or so to obtain the Utah. I am willing to hold my nose, shell out the cash, and pay to obtain something to be lawfully permitted to exercise my rights in a few more states (I can't do anything to change another state's laws, after all) but I am not at all willing to do anything to expand the numbers of states that impose that unConstitutional requirement.

    Does that help any?

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    TopDog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Nov 23, 2008
    6,906
    48
    Can't explain this phenomenon as I only got my Utah license because it's cooler than ours. Cool factor is +3
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Just because I will do something required by the government doesn't mean I am not vehemently opposed to it. I do the cost benefit analysis, and compliance costs me less. Training is great, and everyone who carries should get some, for their own benefit, if for no one else. But I am not ready to say that their rights should be held for ransom by the government. I have yet to do the Utah thing. I may get around to it. If IN tries to add the requirement, I will use my rights to peacefully protest. That is, until they require training for me to exercise that right too.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,744
    113
    Michiana
    I refused to get the Utah permit and avoided driving through Ohio for years because of it, even if it was a little bit longer.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    My own resident state imposes enough infringements upon our RKBA, I tend to just avoid states which infringe further.
     

    Bfish

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Feb 24, 2013
    5,801
    48
    I feel like chip and bubba covered it well.

    Even if I would do the training, I know many who wouldn't and I don't want that to be the reason they don't own a gun, much less carry one.
     

    Que

    Meekness ≠ Weakness
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 98%
    48   1   0
    Feb 20, 2009
    16,373
    83
    Blacksburg
    For me, it's much as Chip said. In addition, though, I like having the option to carry in more states, so I organized the class that several of us took in 2008 or so to obtain the Utah. I am willing to hold my nose, shell out the cash, and pay to obtain something to be lawfully permitted to exercise my rights in a few more states (I can't do anything to change another state's laws, after all) but I am not at all willing to do anything to expand the numbers of states that impose that unConstitutional requirement.

    Does that help any?

    Blessings,
    Bill

    You are paying the money, check; and you are taking the training, check. What's the difference? At least if Indiana had the training requirement, there wouldn't be the need to pay twice or maybe even three times. Also, if Indiana had the requirement, you may be able to carry in even more states. Aren't you already expanding the imposition by obtaining the permit(s) in the first place?
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Accept one infringement to lift another. Eh. The other doesn't currently affect me. The lack of training infringement does affect me, and I'm happy to be without it.

    It's all those other states that have it wrong. They need to get on our level :)
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    We don't currently require religious training, speech training, news distribution training. You don't have to take a class before requiring a warrant from LE before they enter your house. I understand the practicality of only needing one license as opposed to three. But requiring all IN LTCH applicants to endure further restrictions so some may carry in other states is pretty draconian. Ultimately, unconstitutional policy in someone else's homeland does not automatically constitute the necessity to infringe my rights in mine. I'm not cool with taking a step backward, especially as most of the rest of the country is trying to get where we are.
     

    Que

    Meekness ≠ Weakness
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 98%
    48   1   0
    Feb 20, 2009
    16,373
    83
    Blacksburg
    We don't currently require religious training, speech training, news distribution training. You don't have to take a class before requiring a warrant from LE before they enter your house. I understand the practicality of only needing one license as opposed to three. But requiring all IN LTCH applicants to endure further restrictions so some may carry in other states is pretty draconian. Ultimately, unconstitutional policy in someone else's homeland does not automatically constitute the necessity to infringe my rights in mine. I'm not cool with taking a step backward, especially as most of the rest of the country is trying to get where we are.

    I am certainly not suggesting that Indiana requires a training requirement. I am wondering about the reasoning of those who are strict followers of the Constitution and will write a catalog of letters against the very thought of Indiana requiring training, but the very same person will support other states by giving them money and taking their training. It is THOSE people I am addressing.
     

    SSGSAD

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Dec 22, 2009
    12,404
    48
    Town of 900 miles
    You are paying the money, check; and you are taking the training, check. What's the difference? At least if Indiana had the training requirement, there wouldn't be the need to pay twice or maybe even three times. Also, if Indiana had the requirement, you may be able to carry in even more states. Aren't you already expanding the imposition by obtaining the permit(s) in the first place?

    Que, you and I have met ..... a few times..... Here is MY reason..... ANYTIME, you put "somebody" in "charge", of anything,

    ANYTHING can happen.....

    So..... I have a bad knee, there are some movements that I simply cannot do .....

    I shoot steel, because I can pretty much stand still, and shoot.

    If the "training" required movement, then I would be at a great DISadvantage.....

    The .gov, is already trying to take guns away from Vets, SS recieptients, etc.....

    I do NOT want to lose my right to defend myself .....
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Okay, I give up. I must not be communicating my thought adequately.

    No, I've gotcha now. The Internet can be a frustrating place to try to communicate, sorry.

    I contemplated doing the Utah thing, but never did. My thinking was from a pragmatic perspective. I wanted to carry in OH, which was verboten at the time with the IN LTCH. I didn't agree with the restriction, heck I don't agree with IN restrictions, and they're comparatively light. But it boils down to three choices. Disarm, and accept all accompanying risks; carry anyway and accept all those accompanying risks; or pay the mafia their protection money so I can protect my family without fear of reprisal. We now have reciprocity, but if we had not, I would have eventually gone ahead and taken the UT class.

    Edit: in my mind its a cost/benefit analysis. I don't want to pay an oncologist. I am fundamentally opposed to cancer. But if it's chemo or die, I'll pay you good money to give me chemo.
     
    Last edited:

    Bennettjh

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 8, 2012
    10,435
    113
    Columbus
    The Indiana LTCH is a requirement in order for Indiana state residents to exercise a natural, constitutionally protected right. The Utah permit is an optional permit. Thus, the training component of that permit process is likewise optional.

    Training isn't the issue; it is making that training a requirement as a prerequisite to exercising a natural, constitutionally protected right that is the issue. Required training serves no legitimate, constitutional purpose whatsoever.
    :+1:

    I'm all for training. Only voluntary though.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    You are paying the money, check; and you are taking the training, check. What's the difference? At least if Indiana had the training requirement, there wouldn't be the need to pay twice or maybe even three times. Also, if Indiana had the requirement, you may be able to carry in even more states. Aren't you already expanding the imposition by obtaining the permit(s) in the first place?

    I might be able to carry in more states with just the LTCH, if that were added. Or I might not. Or "you have a training requirement, but it isn't enough." I'm not willing to take that chance with the license that's unConstitutionally required for the state in which I make my home. Under current law, I have to be issued a LTCH under IC 35-47-2 to be allowed to exercise that right lawfully in Indiana. The states I gain with my Utah are WA, NE, WV, and DE (and until the most recent announcement, MN.) My AZ gets me NV and NM also. I had to spend 4 hrs in a classroom for the Utah, and that was enough to qualify for the AZ also, each of which used to get me more states, but with passage of better laws in some of those states, my IN LTCH now covers them (among those are KS and OH)

    Is it strictly speaking, the most liberty-minded solution? No, it's not, but I'm not part of the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, either. At this point, I'm willing to work within the law to change it, and to comply with it as I feel best benefits me. Counting Maine as one of our recognizing states, we have 18 that do not recognize us. Those are
    CA -- Recognizes no one else, no non-resident (and darned few resident) permits issued.
    CT -- Recognizes very few others, steep requirements, worse since Sandy Hook
    DE -- Recognizes some others, possibly a training issue. AZ and UT both cover this state.
    HI -- Recognizes no one else, no non-resident issued, VERY anti-gun.
    IL -- Recognizes no other states, non-res availaible depending on where the applicant lives. very expensive.
    MD -- Recognizes very few others, strict requirements, expensive. (may issue)
    MA -- Same as MD
    MN -- Training requirement, but UT training not sufficient now.
    NE -- Possibly a "training" issue
    NV -- Very selective who they reciprocate.
    NJ -- See MD
    NM -- Possibly a training issue. AZ covers.
    NY -- Bad case of Bloomberg-itis. No non-res, no recognition.
    OR -- Must own property there for non-res. Possibly training issue.
    RI -- Like most of New England, they are very restrictive, but do have a non-res available.
    SC -- See OR
    WA -- They do not recognize our LTCH because we issue it to people under the age of 21.
    WV -- All this would take would be a letter from Gov. Pence.

    Of the states my AZ and UT get me, only three would possibly be swayed by us having a "training requirement". MN has made clear that classroom only is not enough for them. That's fine. I won't spend any money there.

    In all honesty, I don't travel much, so the chance of my using my LTCH to carry in some of these places is minimal at best. I don't plan to go to WV, but I still bug Mike Pence to write that letter.

    What I'd like to see, if we're going to keep our LTCH system, is for it to be opened up, Lifetime and all, to non-residents. I'd like to see residents of other states paying money to IN for our LTCH, as they do to AZ, FL, and UT for their permits. Ideally, we'll see full Constitutional Carry in our lifetimes, but until then, if we must have a restrictive system, I'd like to see Indiana cash in on it. For me, the bottom line is that I want to see the requirements removed, not strengthened. If we have to "weaken" them first, so be it, but ridding ourselves of requirements our Founders would have spat upon is, for me, the endgame.

    Does that help?

    Blessings,
    Bill
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom