Would Constitutional Carry kill the LTCH?

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!
  • HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    Got to thinking today, if Constitutional Carry got passed and then in say 10 years we end up with a Left Wing governor/house and they repeal CC, would our Lifetime LTCH's still be valid?

    In my mind, I would think they would be good for, well, a lifetime but knowing how crooked government can be...

    What says INGO?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Theoretically, even your LTCH is just a bill and a signature away from being revoked. As I understand it, every CC bill that's been considered the last few years, all kept the LTCH around for reciprocity. All it would take is some not-so-very-imaginative writing in the repeal of CC to cause trouble for your LTCH.

    That would cause trouble for Indiana though. If CC went away and they got slick and rendered your LTCH useless, then that might make any ability to bear arms illegal and a long, uncertain, and drawn out court battle away from being turned on its ear.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    First, I'm not aware of any state ever going backwards. They start either No Issue, May Issue, Shall Issue, or Constitutional carry.The moves have all been rightward, from NI to MI or SI. None has ever moved from CC to SI or MI, nor from SI to MI or NI.

    With that said, the answer to the question is the infamous, "it depends", in this case, on how the bill is written. Given our (State) Constitution as written, I think that such a bill, if signed, would invalidate the protection of the RKBA by the law, but it would then be subject to challenge. However many years and lives later, I think that the bill would be overridden as unConstitutional, but that would not bring back the gun stores, nor the sales, nor the industry, and certainly not the lives lost because those who obey the law did so, while the ones we need to worry about did not.

    I also think that whoever voted for or signed such a bill into law should face their constituencies and accept the responsibility for their actions. A bucket or two of tar, a few feather pillows, and a fence-rail would be needed for each of them, I think.

    and maybe a match.
     

    brotherbill3

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 10, 2010
    2,041
    48
    Hamilton Co.
    Theoretically, even your LTCH is just a bill and a signature away from being revoked. As I understand it, every CC bill that's been considered the last few years, all kept the LTCH around for reciprocity. All it would take is some not-so-very-imaginative writing in the repeal of CC to cause trouble for your LTCH.

    That would cause trouble for Indiana though. If CC went away and they got slick and rendered your LTCH useless, then that might make any ability to bear arms illegal and a long, uncertain, and drawn out court battle away from being turned on its ear.

    THIS ^^^

    we all know (I hope / expect) that our freedom is bought with the blood and lives of patriots gone before;

    But there is a price we pay as we owe this freedom, not to ourselves, but to our posterity.
    We are but Stewards, each generation guarding Freedom for the next and their future,
    2 and 3 generations down the line; training them for them to take our place.

    The cost of our role in freedom and liberty, until we join those gone before, is eternal vigilance.
    We guard from Enemies, Foreign and Domestic;
    and from Complacency, Neglect and Ignorance of those who follow us.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,009
    77
    Porter County
    First, I'm not aware of any state ever going backwards. They start either No Issue, May Issue, Shall Issue, or Constitutional carry.The moves have all been rightward, from NI to MI or SI. None has ever moved from CC to SI or MI, nor from SI to MI or NI.

    With that said, the answer to the question is the infamous, "it depends", in this case, on how the bill is written. Given our (State) Constitution as written, I think that such a bill, if signed, would invalidate the protection of the RKBA by the law, but it would then be subject to challenge. However many years and lives later, I think that the bill would be overridden as unConstitutional, but that would not bring back the gun stores, nor the sales, nor the industry, and certainly not the lives lost because those who obey the law did so, while the ones we need to worry about did not.

    I also think that whoever voted for or signed such a bill into law should face their constituencies and accept the responsibility for their actions. A bucket or two of tar, a few feather pillows, and a fence-rail would be needed for each of them, I think.

    and maybe a match.
    I think if this state ever got to that point, it would be the majority of the constituents pushing for it. Hopefully that day never comes.
     

    SSGSAD

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Dec 22, 2009
    12,404
    48
    Town of 900 miles
    AFAIAC, the LTCH, would NOT be effected .....

    Still needed for reciprocity ......

    Guy Relford has talked about this at length

    on his radio show ..... The Gun Guy .....
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    First, I'm not aware of any state ever going backwards.

    Ummm,

    2014-01-19-beeheadline.jpg766583pixels.jpg
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,009
    77
    Porter County
    California used to be Shall Issue? I know they're May Issue now, and were never Constitutional carry.
    (obviously, "May Issue" means fewer in some counties than others, to them, given that it's the sheriff's decision what you get, if anything.)
    I'm guessing you are referring to more recent history.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    California used to be Shall Issue? I know they're May Issue now, and were never Constitutional carry.
    (obviously, "May Issue" means fewer in some counties than others, to them, given that it's the sheriff's decision what you get, if anything.)

    No, you are confused. Do you know about the Mulford Act?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    California was Constitutional Carry. It was a gun paradise. And then, in the name of "reasonableness" they flushed it all away in order to codify racism.
     

    HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    AFAIAC, the LTCH, would NOT be effected .....

    Still needed for reciprocity ......

    Guy Relford has talked about this at length

    on his radio show ..... The Gun Guy .....

    My thinking wasn't so much that the LTCH would become invalid upon CC starting, but more that if CC was repealed, the state would "need" everyone to get re-licensed since the Rules have changed.

    As BOR has stated its not common for states to go backwards, but what if Liberalism continus to spread and they get a majority voice...

    Also I understand that my LTCH could be repealed anytime the government wants to, but IMO the government would look bad if they ended it for no reason, and I could see them using the end of CC as a reason.


    And I do enjoy listening the The Gun Guy. Unfortunately, being on Saturday night makes it a little difficult to hear it every time. Really wish it was on during the week when I am driving l am driving all day.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I stand corrected, with thanks. Rep inbound.

    It was not confusion, but ignorance; I didn't know about the Mulford Act. (Not surprising, considering the time frame of that law) The synopsis at the wiki link makes it sound very similar to the passage of the so-called "Patriot Act". To wit: bad stuff happens, people call on politicians to make it stop, when they need to be knocking heads to make it stop instead. Politicians respond with laws that do nothing to constrain the guilty and do everything to empower the criminals. Crime increases; lather, rinse, repeat.

    California was actually Constitutional carry, as Vermont still is? No permit required at all, anywhere? Or more "permits issued very freely, with minimal requirements"?

    No, you are confused. Do you know about the Mulford Act?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    California was Constitutional Carry. It was a gun paradise. And then, in the name of "reasonableness" they flushed it all away in order to codify racism.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    Got to thinking today, if Constitutional Carry got passed and then in say 10 years we end up with a Left Wing governor/house and they repeal CC, would our Lifetime LTCH's still be valid?

    In my mind, I would think they would be good for, well, a lifetime but knowing how crooked government can be...

    What says INGO?

    "Constitutional Carry" is not something which is passed into existence, it is the default state of things prior to a prohibition being passed.

    Places with carry prohibitions have only to repeal their way back from such errors. Once there, at the default uninfringed state, there is nothing to "Constitutional Carry" which could be repealed, only new infringing prohibitions enacted.

    Such new infringements, even after a period of liberty, might codify new exceptions, recognize old exceptions, or provide for no exceptions at all.

    There is simply no way of predicting what tomorrow's State may impose upon or deny its subjects when there seem to be no limits to what we will adapt to and endure.
     

    HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    "Constitutional Carry" is not something which is passed into existence, it is the default state of things prior to a prohibition being passed.

    Places with carry prohibitions have only to repeal their way back from such errors. Once there, at the default uninfringed state, there is nothing to "Constitutional Carry" which could be repealed, only new infringing prohibitions enacted.

    Such new infringements, even after a period of liberty, might codify new exceptions, recognize old exceptions, or provide for no exceptions at all.

    There is simply no way of predicting what tomorrow's State may impose upon or deny its subjects when there seem to be no limits to what we will adapt to and endure.

    I see what you're saying, but either way it would be the same end result, no?


    I guess I could reword it. Less say they abolish all carry laws, and the the liberal nuts take over again and pass the same laws that got abolished.

    Better?

    :)
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The difference he's citing is one of perspective, and it's an important difference. It goes back to "From whom do you obtain your rights?"

    If you obtain your rights from your government, what they do in the manner of infringements is borderline acceptable, sometimes even welcome, such as Kirk cited in the Mulford Act reference or even my citing of the so-called "Patriot Act". People wanted to feel safer, and granting vast powers to an authority figure or agency seemed like the way to quickly obtain security, if you're willing to forget that little thing about security and liberty from Ben Franklin and suspend your disbelief enough to see gov't as benevolent.

    OTOH, when you recognize gov't as an antonym of freedom, you see the overstepping of boundaries inherent in any government that is not constrained and held to task by a vigilant people.

    We, sadly, are not and have not been a vigilant people, and government, which we created to serve us, is now barely discernible from a master; unlimited and unconstrainable.

    Could our RKBA be abolished with a stroke of a pen? Yes, and that pennstroke might have happened years ago with executive orders or some law, passed but awaiting a specific event to be enforced.

    Some will pooh-pooh this idea (I can already hear Kirk "L. Neil Smith"ing it or dismissing it as a "comic book") but the Founders had their beliefs that shaped this country, and sadly, we as a people seem to have forgotten that. It's not about anarchy and "no government", but rather about limited government, kept as small and inefficient as possible.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    I see what you're saying, but either way it would be the same end result, no?


    I guess I could reword it. Less say they abolish all carry laws, and the the liberal nuts take over again and pass the same laws that got abolished.

    Better?

    :)
     
    Top Bottom