Could Indiana go the way of Arizona?

[MisterChester]

In light of the bill that would make it so one does not need an LTCH to carry, what if Indiana did something like Arizona? What I mean is this: do not require a license to carry, however the state keeps the licensing scheme and adds a training requirement for reciprocity purposes. This license would be completely 100% optional to carry in Indiana. Thoughts?

 

[nakinate]

No training should be required period.

 

[jerrob]

I am and will never be against training........it's a good thing one cannot do too much. That being said, if the states in reciprocity aren't mandating that training, then I say no. The goal isn't to gain more of our 2A rights back just so more stipulations can be added.

 

[Drail]

When the State decides to begin "training" all of the motor vehicle drivers that they "sell" licenses to then we can talk about firearms training. The biggest problem I have with the idea is - who is going to write the course and conduct this "training". If it's going to be done by ANY law enforcement agency - I'm out. I live in a State that requires you to spend several hundred dollars to obtain a State license. It's nothing but a money making scheme and the standards for "proficiency" are a complete joke.

 

[stephen87]

What state do you live in?

I think it's actually harder to get a driver's license over a LTCH anyway, which is how it should be. There should be a license to exercise a privilege, not to exercise a right.

 

[Bennettjh]

No training should be required period.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Everytime that training-camel tries to stick its nose under the tent, we must smack it with a shovel. NO TRAINING requirement for LTCH.

 

[SSGSAD]

In light of the bill that would make it so one does not need an LTCH to carry, what if Indiana did something like Arizona? What I mean is this: do not require a license to carry, however the state keeps the licensing scheme and adds a training requirement for reciprocity purposes. This license would be completely 100% optional to carry in Indiana. Thoughts?

Ok, lets say that there are 300,000 people in In., that have an LTCH, take thet times $125.00 = $37,500,000 do you really think that In., with a R, or a D, in charge is going to let that much money slip away ..... JMHO .....

 

[MisterChester]

What state do you live in?

I think it's actually harder to get a driver's license over a LTCH anyway, which is how it should be. There should be a license to exercise a privilege, not to exercise a right.

Here in Indiana. And I agree. Seems like the point of removing the license requirement to carry at all went over a few heads.

 

[traderdan]

If you must pay to exercise a right...it is not a right. Paying for permission from the state to be armed is contradictory to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not....

 

[Bfish]

Training should not be required... I think that training is great and people should have it. But it should not be a requirement to receive a license! First of all the training make it more expensive and less obtainable for some people. Next I do not feel that the training received is really all that great looking at what other states require. Private companies offer training of real value IMO. And if someone just wishes to learn about their firearm and how to handle it safely etc. Many shops and places offer such a service that can be taken advantage of for those who are new etc. I don't feel that state mandated training accomplishes much. A friend of mine took the Illinois class and said it was a joke!

 

[ModernGunner]

Don't care if training is required, and don't care if there's an annual, or more frequent. Don't care if the qualification is 'tough' (99.9%, or whatever).

Should the .gov require it? Probably not, but not because of 'the government is interfering with a right' stuff. But, because they'd just screw up the program, like they do about every other government run program, LOL. Should it be an option for reciprocity reasons? Sure, make it optional.

The problem really isn't with (most) INGO'ers. The problem is with those who get a LTCH, buy a gun, strap it on, and refuse to train or seek training. Understand the concern, 'cause folks like that, and those with a 'little bit of knowledge' may well be a hazard to themselves and those around them should any defensive scenario present itself.

 

[TiMMaY]

When the State decides to begin "training" all of the motor vehicle drivers that they "sell" licenses to then we can talk about firearms training. The biggest problem I have with the idea is - who is going to write the course and conduct this "training". If it's going to be done by ANY law enforcement agency - I'm out. I live in a State that requires you to spend several hundred dollars to obtain a State license. It's nothing but a money making scheme and the standards for "proficiency" are a complete joke.

When I got my license to carry a handgun in Florida back in the mid 90s, they required training then. The training could be an NRA course taught by anyone, a training course that the local PD, which I believe were free except for the cost of ammo or some other widely recognized program at the time. They also provided for exemptions from the training requirement like being in the military.

 

[stephen87]

Ok, lets say that there are 300,000 people in In., that have an LTCH, take thet times $125.00 = $37,500,000 do you really think that In., with a R, or a D, in charge is going to let that much money slip away ..... JMHO .....

300,000 people have a LTCH? It's a one time $125 fee, so that $37.5M is spread over many years. It's not a big hit to take when it's spread over 10 years. Especially considering the fact that the numbers look more like this.
County: $50 x 300,000 LTCHs = $15,000,000 / 92 counties = $163,043.48 / 10 years = $16,304.35 yearly per county on average, cities that you would apply with actually decrease this cost even more. It could potentially be less that $500 a year to each individual department that forwards the applications.
State: $75 x 300,000 LTCHs = $22,500,000 / 10 years = $2.25M yearly to distribute to whatever it goes to

Now you have to figure how many of those are actually 4 year licenses?

Here in Indiana. And I agree. Seems like the point of removing the license requirement to carry at all went over a few heads.

That question actually was not meant for you. I apologize. It was meant for drails, since his state makes you pay several hundred dollars for a permit.

 

[ccomstock001]

Got to love how people complain about required training is bad to get an ltch but say the first thing you should do when you get a gun is get some training.

 

[96firephoenix]

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. -Article 1, Sn. 32, IN Constitution.

Kirk, does that bit of the constitution mention a license?

Got to love how people complain about required training is bad to get an ltch but say the first thing you should do when you get a gun is get some training.

the difference in choosing to do something smart and being mandated to do it. how would you feel about a law mandating that you follow the factory maintenance schedule on your car? its a really good idea, but it becomes a nuisance when mandated.

 

[mwingeier]

Got to love how people complain about required training is bad to get an ltch but say the first thing you should do when you get a gun is get some training.

I don't see the conflict. You should get training, and a responsible person I would hope, agrees. But that does not mean it should be mandated by the government. To continue the inaccurate car analogy, people take defensive driving courses or high speed courses to improve their skills because they might need to, or want to. No government mandate required. Training is good, mandated training is not, quite a distinction.

 

[ccomstock001]

If you want to use the analogy to cars you do need some training to get a license cause you have to pass a driving test. If we didnt have to pass that test could you imagine how worse people would be at driving. I'm not completely disagreeing with this but with too many idiots out there I think at least a quick course on understanding the laws could be good.

 

[Bfish]

I don't see the conflict. You should get training, and a responsible person I would hope, agrees. But that does not mean it should be mandated by the government. To continue the inaccurate car analogy, people take defensive driving courses or high speed courses to improve their skills because they might need to, or want to. No government mandate required. Training is good, mandated training is not, quite a distinction.

Yes, exactly... I do think everyone should get some training when they can (not that it has to be the first thing you do), but I do not think it should be mandated... For many, many reasons to say the least.

 

[TheSpark]

Got to love how people complain about required training is bad to get an ltch but say the first thing you should do when you get a gun is get some training.

The problem is you have a right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. The mere fact that we have to get a LTCH is a violation of this right. To further require training, or anything else, is just a further violation of that right.

To make it even worse every time you add another requirement it gets you one step closer to an even worse infringement on the right. Such as having to show a need for the LTCH like some states require.

Yes people should get training. No, it should not be required.

I can not, and will never, support any requirement to carry a handgun since it is a right that should have no requirements at all.