Handgun training in Indiana

[GuyRelford]

State Senator Jean Breaux (D-Indianapolis) set to propose bill to mandate training for new Larrys. INGO's own Guy Relford responds (is that a .223 case kiss on your brow, Guy?)

I am embarrassed to say that that is a 30.06/Leupold kiss on my brow.

 

[halfmileharry]

I am embarrassed to say that that is a 30.06/Leupold kiss on my brow.

No need to be embarrassed by an .06 "manly scar". On the other hand a .223......

 

[Bill of Rights]

LOL. From which state is this copied?

Well... *I* copied it from our state legislature's website... I'm not sure from where Ms. Breaux copied it. Have you a likely candidate?

Scutter, yeah but this bill, SB45 is unrelated to the two tier proposal of last year.

Mandatory training is a bad idea, but substituting this with tax deductions for gun classes, ammo, gun safes is nothing short of pure brilliance.

Kirk.... Humble, you are not. It's a good idea.... which probably means it will never happen. Feel free to toot your horn... But please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

[actaeon277]

I am embarrassed to say that that is a 30.06/Leupold kiss on my brow.

Please tell me it's because you're a pistol guy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk.... Humble, you are not. It's a good idea.... which probably means it will never happen. Feel free to toot your horn... But please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

If anyone wants me, I'll be in the Super Genius lab, aka my basement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIPr23xyoZg

 

[stchas]

Any chance required training would extend reciprocity to more states? Might be a worthwhile trade off, no?

 

[Indynic]

No, No, No, sacrificing my rights would not be a worthwhile trade off. If you want more reciprocity, get a Utah license, if that's not enough, get a non-resident license from the state you will be frequenting.
There is no guarantee that other states will be more willing to reciprocate. Even if there were, it's not worth giving away our right. This bill is not about safety or increased reciprocity, it is AN ATTACK ON OUR 2A RIGHTS!

 

[Wreaver]

No thanks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There is always that chance.
The green states below recognize our LTCH as valid in their state.
The red ones do not.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT,
DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA,
MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV,
NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH,
OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

So... Looking at that list, 60% of states recognize our LTCH.
CA recognizes no one and issues very few of their own--not likely to accept ours regardless of changes
CT recognizes no one and issues their own non-res permit, very sparingly. They have cracked down hard since Sandy Hoax.... erm.... Hook...
DE recognizes many; a Utah or an AZ or a FL will open them up, possibly due to "training". That's "one".
HI recognizes no one and issues very few of their own--slightly better chance than CA, but only very slightly.
IL recognizes no one and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to issue their own. I'm not aware of anyone having a IL CCW yet.
ME recognizes some, issues their own non-res, and has been slow to move toward freedom. Them recognizing us is a chance, but a small one
MD recognizes no one and supposedly issues a non-res. Like hen's teeth.
MA recognizes no one and supposedly issues a non-res. Good luck getting one.
MN recognizes some. A UT will open that state to whoever wants to lawfully carry. They might make "two".
NE recognizes some. Training might make a difference, nothing set in stone. Maybe "three"
NV recognizes few. They ended recognition of AZ because AZ standards were "too low".
NJ recognizes no one. They issue a non-res. Suuuuuuuure they do...
NM decreased their recognition, possibly due to "training". Let's generously call them "four".
NY recognizes no one, issues no non-res, and generally hates the natural right of self-defense.
OH recognizes some, and may be considering Constitutional Carry this year. We can consider them "five".
OR recognizes no one and requires you to own property there to issue a non-res.
RI recognizes no one, but issues a non-res.
SC recognizes a few, but requires you to own property there to issue you a non-res. I suppose there's a small chance they could be "six"
WA recognizes few, will not recognize us, at least in part because we issue the LTCH to 18, 19, and 20 year olds.
WV is already on track to recognizing us, they just need a letter from Gov. Pence to make that happen.

So... Of 20 states, there are 13 that have not a snowball's chance in hell of recognizing us no matter what training requirements we implement, six that might be persuaded, though there is nothing even discussed yet, let alone "set in stone", and one that is ready to recognize us.

DE, MN, NE, NM, OH, SC, then.... Are you willing to trade your right of self-defense for those six states, only two of which are anywhere close to us?

I'm not. Let's instead work on changing minds. Those 13 are lost causes, some more so than others, but I don't expect we'll be able to carry there on our IN LTCH under any circumstances, ever. We've made great strides in doing that so far. Just a few years ago, we were recognized in about 40% of the country... Now we're at 60%.

Blessings,
Bill

Any chance required training would extend reciprocity to more states? Might be a worthwhile trade off, no?

 

[arthrimus]

Any chance required training would extend reciprocity to more states? Might be a worthwhile trade off, no?

No.

 

[stchas]

There is always that chance.
The green states below recognize our LTCH as valid in their state.
The red ones do not.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT,
DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA,
MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV,
NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH,
OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

So... Looking at that list, 60% of states recognize our LTCH.
CA recognizes no one and issues very few of their own--not likely to accept ours regardless of changes
CT recognizes no one and issues their own non-res permit, very sparingly. They have cracked down hard since Sandy Hoax.... erm.... Hook...
DE recognizes many; a Utah or an AZ or a FL will open them up, possibly due to "training". That's "one".
HI recognizes no one and issues very few of their own--slightly better chance than CA, but only very slightly.
IL recognizes no one and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to issue their own. I'm not aware of anyone having a IL CCW yet.
ME recognizes some, issues their own non-res, and has been slow to move toward freedom. Them recognizing us is a chance, but a small one
MD recognizes no one and supposedly issues a non-res. Like hen's teeth.
MA recognizes no one and supposedly issues a non-res. Good luck getting one.
MN recognizes some. A UT will open that state to whoever wants to lawfully carry. They might make "two".
NE recognizes some. Training might make a difference, nothing set in stone. Maybe "three"
NV recognizes few. They ended recognition of AZ because AZ standards were "too low".
NJ recognizes no one. They issue a non-res. Suuuuuuuure they do...
NM decreased their recognition, possibly due to "training". Let's generously call them "four".
NY recognizes no one, issues no non-res, and generally hates the natural right of self-defense.
OH recognizes some, and may be considering Constitutional Carry this year. We can consider them "five".
OR recognizes no one and requires you to own property there to issue a non-res.
RI recognizes no one, but issues a non-res.
SC recognizes a few, but requires you to own property there to issue you a non-res. I suppose there's a small chance they could be "six"
WA recognizes few, will not recognize us, at least in part because we issue the LTCH to 18, 19, and 20 year olds.
WV is already on track to recognizing us, they just need a letter from Gov. Pence to make that happen.

So... Of 20 states, there are 13 that have not a snowball's chance in hell of recognizing us no matter what training requirements we implement, six that might be persuaded, though there is nothing even discussed yet, let alone "set in stone", and one that is ready to recognize us.

DE, MN, NE, NM, OH, SC, then.... Are you willing to trade your right of self-defense for those six states, only two of which are anywhere close to us?

I'm not. Let's instead work on changing minds. Those 13 are lost causes, some more so than others, but I don't expect we'll be able to carry there on our IN LTCH under any circumstances, ever. We've made great strides in doing that so far. Just a few years ago, we were recognized in about 40% of the country... Now we're at 60%.

Blessings,
Bill

I should have made my position clear. I don't support the proposed bill. I was just curious to see if anyone thought there might be value to it. And thanks for that info. I did not know about WV.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I should have made my position clear. I don't support the proposed bill. I was just curious to see if anyone thought there might be value to it. And thanks for that info. I did not know about WV.

Thanks for clarifying. It sounded like you thought if it would give you more recognition, you might be in favor of it. I'm glad to see that's not the case.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jh1978]

While I believe that training is absolutely vital to being able to successfully employ deadly force in an armed encounter, there is absolutely NO legitimate reason for it to be a pre-requisite for a LTCH. I firmly believe that Indiana would be better served by having more training facilities and LESS restrictive gun laws. Especially in Northwest Indiana.

 

[Manatee]

OK, you've already been "shown the light" in re: costs/taxes by other members, so I won't dogpile on you. I will, however, point out an additional fallacy in the easy acceptance of this hare-brained idea: Let's just presume for a moment that the funding comes not from your taxes but in the form of a tax break to the trainers. They provide the training for free and get to discount it as a business expense. So... you show up for class and are told that to pass, you have to put 10 rounds in a bottle-cap size target at 15 feet. Oh, and the target is moving, and you're shooting from a standing position on a moving platform. All 10 rounds must be completely inside the bottle cap. Any contact with the white line outside that circle is a failure. You may try again next year, or you may pay for your own second training attempt, at $300/class.

Now, obviously, they won't start with a ridiculous scenario like that. It will start easy, but expect that your children will never pass it.

This stuff works on people? You get groupies?

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

I am embarrassed to say that that is a 30.06/Leupold kiss on my brow.

Ouch...it looks like it smacked you pretty good. Maybe you could take a class from a firearms trainer in the Indy area who can show you how to shoot so this won't happen again..?

I've heard these guys are pretty good: www.tactical-firearms.com








It's deliciously ironic that the State Senator stated that this bill is her knee-jerk "I'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!" idiotic response to "prevent a similar incident" of George Zimmerman's completely justifiable and legally exonerated self-defense shooting of his attacker.

“I was asked what was I going to do about it, and I thought as a legislator, I do have some responsibility to address that situation,” said Breaux. “One of the ways we could prevent a similar incident here in Indiana was to make sure that people understood how to handle a firearm."

, Senaturd Breaux??!?

GZ knew *exactly* how to handle a firearm when having your brains bashed in on a concrete sidewalk by a gangster thug wannabe. With a broken nose and punches raining down on you from an attacker that has stated that he is going to kill you, and his assault having met the standard of grave bodily harm, since you are unable to escape your attacker who is a foot taller and has you pinned underneath him, you draw your legally carried pistol from its holster and you shoot him in the chest to save your life.
If he dies from it...oh well......playing stupid games, wins you stupid prizes...

GZ did in fact pass Florida's mandatory training class to get his permit, and the shoot was ruled justified in a high-publicity trial, so what about the GZ shooting is the Senator trying to prevent...LAWFUL self defense??? Since GZ WAS under the scheme she proposes to enact for Indiana and was still rightfully found innocent of wrongdoing, if she had a brain cell to her name her focus would be on legislation aimed at preventing/breaking the cycle of young black males from single parent homes becoming uneducated violent criminals. But of course, such legislation would involve the dismantling of many of the failed policies and laws that have been a staple of the Democrat's strategy of creating an eternally-dependent class of individuals that can be guaranteed to vote (even if actually dead when doing so) for Democratic politicians that promise to keep the entitlement gravy train rolling along. Strange as it may seem, I don't expect to read in either the near of distant future about a proposal from Sen. Breaux requiring the licensing of members of the black community (especially single mothers) before they are allowed to raise male children...

If logic drove her reasons for proposing this bill, it would dictate that if the "incident" that she wanted to prevent was an innocent armed citizen walking free after a self-defense shooting, she would oppose training, because it could be argued that thanks to his CCW class, GZ made enough correct decisions to enable himself to legally use deadly force, end his attacker's life, and walk out of court a free man...

 

[Bill of Rights]

This stuff works on people? You get groupies?

They'll take any opportunity they can to restrict our lawful exercise of rights. You know that as well as any of us here. How many have we heard say that things like that registration and capacity limits and required training, etc., are not the goal, just a stepping stone? Incrementalism is the name of their game, and they've been playing it a long, long time.

If you look, you see that I said the scenario I presented was "ridiculous" at an extreme like it was. In 1791, it would have been equally farfetched to think of a governmentally-licensed person being the only one who can sell firearms at retail, or only those with a "permit" being "allowed" to carry one in public.

If you think I'm mistaken here, I'm willing to listen to your perspective. I'm not unreasonable, and if I'm in error, I'll admit it. I don't think I am, but you seem to. Show me where, please?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[aikidoka]

Agreed... We need to stop these blatant attempts at monkeying with the current LTCH. All this does is put obstacles in the way of folks trying to use their rights. While instructors probably think this is a fantastic idea, an additional $150-300 for a husband and wife would likely make gun ownership a non-starter financially for many folks -- especially younger folks dealing with college and housing expenses.

THIS!

 

[jamil]

Mandatory training is a bad idea, but substituting this with tax deductions for gun classes, ammo, gun safes is nothing short of pure brilliance.

Maybe not so brilliant. I do think a carrot is better than a stick if you're trying to get people to be more responsible. However people who don't pay income taxes get no carrot. And I never liked the idea of behavioral engineering through tax code. I'd rather everyone just pay the same flat rate, no deductions, no exemptions, pay as you go, no tax filing each year. No need for tax lawyers, H&R block, Turbo Tax. No IRS. No audits. But THAT will never happen.

So thinking about this pragmatically, I suppose if we can't get rid of our ridiculously complicated tax code we might as well make it good for me. The old safe is getting kind of small these days and I wouldn't mind claiming a tax deduction for a bigger one. I spend quite a bit on ammo, and range time. Plus another class or two would make for a nice deduction. Okay, so you ARE brilliant.

 

[Manatee]

They'll take any opportunity they can to restrict our lawful exercise of rights. You know that as well as any of us here. How many have we heard say that things like that registration and capacity limits and required training, etc., are not the goal, just a stepping stone? Incrementalism is the name of their game, and they've been playing it a long, long time.

If you look, you see that I said the scenario I presented was "ridiculous" at an extreme like it was. In 1791, it would have been equally farfetched to think of a governmentally-licensed person being the only one who can sell firearms at retail, or only those with a "permit" being "allowed" to carry one in public.

If you think I'm mistaken here, I'm willing to listen to your perspective. I'm not unreasonable, and if I'm in error, I'll admit it. I don't think I am, but you seem to. Show me where, please?

Blessings,
Bill

There are any number of observations and data sets that can come into the debate. Too many, in fact, for any blog or forum argument to not be subject to undermining by the other side. With that limitation in mind, here is my "general" thought process.

• Laws permitting CCW have been increasing over the last 50 years (my personal observation period). Coincident with that increase has been greater need to allow reciprocity in a mobile society.
• a national reciprocity/ccw law could have been enacted in 2012/2013, but one of our own senators stood in its way.
• SCOTUS has been interpreting the Constitution, and has been doing so (for good or ill) since the early 1800's. They will continue to do so.
• Heller and McDonald have strengthened our gun rights….but at the same time, various states have fairly restrictive laws on CCW, allowable weapons, capacity, etc. It seems that these state requirements must be in conformance with 2A, or the appellate courts would have overturned those laws. Perhaps they will in time, but at least at this point, the "INGO" view of 2A is not what is in practice in the USA across all states.

So, having said that, I'd like to see some uniformity in a national CCW law. I believe it would enhance rather than restrict freedom. To those who say "To hell with the other states. I live in Indiana and I don't need to go elsewhere."….I think that is a very narrow-minded view.

As to training, I'm in favor of it because a national right to carry will most certainly require it and it stands in the way of reciprocity with other states right now. I read your "assumptions/opinion" on the matter and I don't see it as a strong argument. It's only your opinion, man. Same holds for your request of factual evidence on gun accidents in training/no-training states. You have no evidence either, so once again, it's just your opinion and calling for evidence lends no greater weight to your argument if you have nothing either.

In summary, I can't think of any mechanical skill that doesn't require some instruction and practice to become proficient. I think the argument that RKBA is a right not requiring training, rejects the obvious corollary of responsibility. I do not wish to see unskilled gun wielders in almost any setting, unless they are enemy combatants.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Okay, so you ARE brilliant.

It is obvious that we have never dated.