Don't repeal Indiana's gun permit law

[2A_Tom]

I would say not, but if they are they shouldn't limited in their rights.

I take that as not impossible. I agree there should be a process to be made whole. I believe that should be upon release.

 

[Thor]

I take that as not impossible. I agree there should be a process to be made whole. I believe that should be upon release.

I agree with all of that.

 

[Thor]

Then they should not go free!

 

[SwikLS]

on the issue of duty to inform mentioned a few pages ago, it already exists now that out of state visitors don't have a duty to inform and Indiana LE dont have access to other state's databases on gun permits cross referenced with driver's licenses and/or criminal records, correct? so it doesn't seem to be an issue now as far as officer safety (which I presume is the concern) with out of staters, so it only makes sense it wouldn't be an issue with Indiana residents if we went to constitutional carry and didn't have a duty to inform.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm still not absolutely sold on Constitutional Carry, which in most instances I view through a pro-LE lens.

A few questions:
If the state adopted Constitutional Carry:
-why should they waste money and manpower issuing LTCHs?
-should carriers be required to inform (if legally stopped) LE that they are carrying?
-how does reciprocity work?

I'll come back to 1 and 3 with a later post of yours. To address #2:

Why? And to what end? Why should law-abiding people have a "duty to inform" a police officer that they are conducting a lawful (and constitutionally protected) activity? "Duty to inform" is nothing more than a needless means of escalation of an interaction between LEO and a law-abiding person.

Will criminals/prohibited persons be compelled under such a "duty to inform"? (No, of course not.)

 

[chipbennett]

Question two is an interesting one in Indiana. Indiana currently has no duty to inform, but it is in many ways circumvented by the tying of drivers licenses and handgun licenses together in LE databases which occurred a few years ago. Before that was done, at least locally, licenses for handguns did not appear in state returns in the local database here. There are also a decent number of people who may carry handguns without a license, so when they are stopped no such thing shows up.

Possession of an LTCH proves nothing more than that the LTCH holder possesses an LTCH. Possession of an LTCH does not prove, or even evince, that an LTCH holder is currently carrying a firearm. So, the LTCH is in no way a "circumvention" of a "duty to inform".

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, well kinda... but why should Indiana be concerned with reciprocity? There's no benefit in it, and for persons who oppose constitutional carry, why should their tax dollars be used for a benefit that is designed to be used in another state? Perhaps, LTCHs should be issued, unless the person want one pays for it individually?

Brother, I love Indiana as much as the next guy, but I cannot imagine a world in which I never travel outside the boundary lines of our beloved State.

I am out of Indiana weekly. Reciprocity is not only important to me; it is imperative.

And what tax dollars go to issuing LTCHs? As I understand it, the LTCH fees are a net-positive for revenue, the overage of which goes toward LEO training and other such budgetary items. (The funding of which is ostensibly one of LEO's opposition to constitutional carry.)

 

[chipbennett]

That is in the interest of the individual, not the state.

Fair argument.

Using the same logic, I am in favor of ending Welfare funding, to make up any budgetary impact.

 

[chipbennett]

Not if they've been released and can't be trusted to exercise their constitutional rights in civil society.

Then what are they doing being released/unleashed upon civil society?

 

[Thor]

Then what are they doing being released/unleashed upon civil society?

That would be my question.

 

[HoughMade]

Mandatory life sentences for every felony?

 

[2A_Tom]

Pick pocketing was once felony with a penalty of hanging in Englad.

We need to redefine Felony. There needs to be something in between felony and misdemeanor, something like...

Felony

• Murder
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Child molestation
• Any violent crime aggravated with a weapon

Serious

• Non violent crimes
• Embezelment

Misdemeanors

• Fighting

This is by no means comprehensive or even correct, but the system needs to be changed. The term felony is Constitutionally Vague, anything can be made a felony that they decide to. It is a scheme to revoke the civil rights of as many as they can.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fair argument.

Using the same logic, I am in favor of ending Welfare funding, to make up any budgetary impact.

You think I'm not?

 

[minuteman32]

Allow non resident lifetime LTCHs. That might midigate some of the potentially lost revenue.

 

[HoughMade]

...The term felony is Constitutionally Vague...

Any crime with a maximum penalty exceeding 1 year imprisonment....that's been the definition for hundreds of years. Not vague.

....but where does the Constitution limit the 2d Amendment to non-felons, regardless of the definition.

Felons have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th etc. amendment rights.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nice job refuting the dishonesty and willful ignorance of that article INGOers.

Kut, do you still have reservations about CCarry, now that your questions about the continued need for. The LTCH have been answered?

 

[Fargo]

Any crime with a maximum penalty exceeding 1 year imprisonment....that's been the definition for hundreds of years. Not vague.

....but where does the Constitution limit the 2d Amendment to non-felons, regardless of the definition.

Felons have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th etc. amendment rights.

I was under the impression that the common law definition at the time of the constitutions ratification was any crime for which one could receive capital punishment, but I stand open to being corrected.

 

[2A_Tom]

Fargo, that was my under standing also, that is one for us.

EFClarity.

 

[chipbennett]

I was under the impression 30 common law definition at the time of the constitutions ratification was any crime for which one could receive capital punishment, but I stand open to being corrected.

This is closer to the intent of what was being discussed: the "serious violent felon". Whether non-violent crimes should be reclassified as something other than "felony", or whether violent crimes should be classified as something more than "felony", it really doesn't matter. It is the serious violent felons (murder, rape, kidnapping, violent assault, etc.) who should be kept away from free society for as long as necessary - up to and including life.

Otherwise, if someone completes the term of their sentence (including incarceration and subsequent probation), all rights of a free man should be restored.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Mandatory life sentences for every felony?

I am so in love with you now.

If this happens, Blasers for all of INGO!