If, when, then...

[IndyDave1776]

Que, the best (albeit crude) explanation I can offer is that some of us are willing to deal with a water dish that has **** in it in order to accomplish a sufficiently important goal (i.e., carry in selected other states). That does not mean that those same people are going to advocate pissing in our own water dish rather than dealing with someone else's pissy water dish when necessary.

Bill, about Oregon...if they require ownership of property, is there a minimum size or value? After all, a cemetery plot is deeded land.

 

[Dosproduction]

I think IL does not accept ANY other LTCH. They only allow people to get there out of state non resedint if you are in a state that has very similar laws.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

If Indiana wants to add a separate, training-included LTCH, for reciprocity purposes, would I get that one? Quite possibly. It would be a choice, not a requirement/prerequisite for exercising rights.

I would much rather fight for constitutional protection of full faith and credit for my Indiana-issued resident carry license, than make Indiana's licensing requirements more onerous/burdensome.

A right that is subject to government licensing in order to exercise has been rendered a mere privilege. I am opposed on principle on moving farther away from right, and deeper into state-granted privilege. Let the other states fix their unconstitutional restrictions; don't make Indiana's moreso.

 

[chipbennett]

Okay, I give up. I must not be communicating my thought adequately.

I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that I'm not your target audience. When I was a Missouri resident, I followed Missouri's requirements and process to obtain my Missouri CCW permit - including the training/competency requirements. When I was an Ohio resident, I followed Ohio's requirements and process to obtain my Ohio CHL - including the training/competency requirements. Once I became an Indiana resident, I followed Indiana's requirements and process to obtain my lifetime Indiana LTCH.

In all cases, I followed my resident state's minimum requirements in order to obtain the permit/license issued by the state that allowed me to exercise my rights. While I considered non-resident permits from other states (e.g. Florida and Utah), I opted not to obtain them.

I lost about a half-dozen states worth of reciprocity when moving from Ohio to Indiana, but I will take that gladly, because Indiana imposes the least restrictive requirements for exercising a right.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think IL does not accept ANY other LTCH. They only allow people to get there out of state non resedint if you are in a state that has very similar laws.

You are correct. My error. Will correct my post.

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[maxmayhem]

well..its this simple...i dont want to go to jail for carrying in ohio (when I lived in indiana)...its not a matter of principal but a matter of understanding that prison is not a pleasant place...even if laws are not constitutional i dont have a police force to help me enforce the constitution in places like ohio where my mom, dad, brother, and sister live....so, in order to avoid an unconstitutional imprisonment you have two options--get a permit or dont carry in ohio (aka as dont go there unless you have too)

 

[VERT]

My knee jerk reactions is NO! If I want more states then I can just get non-resident license. But after reading the changes in MN even that is not enough. Even so mandatory training is a "slippery slope".

I would get behind the idea of an enhanced license if it gave us something in return. But there is no guarantee that other states will recognize our new license. Nobody has talked about making carry less restrictive in our own state by having an enhanced license. If I compromise I want something in return.

 

[Mark 1911]

For me it was about being able to carry in other states that we spend time in. Besides my IN LTCH, I also have Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona. I like the Indiana system better, but that won't cut it in those other states. That's just the reality. The nice thing is that if you get the training you need for one state, you can often use a copy of the same training certificate for other states. In my case the same certificate was good for MN and FL, and its been a while but I think I used the same certificate for AZ as well. My wife and I like to go fishing in MN, so that's why I got the MN permit. Since MN doesn't honor UT or FL, I will still have to keep my MN license active as I don't have any of the licenses that MN honors. Neither UT or FL are honored in Nevada, but my Arizona permit is. Arizona is a great permit, its easy to get and its honored in a lot of states, even Nevada, and Nevada doesn't honor UT or FL.

It would be nice not to have to go through the training, but I don't have a huge problem with it. It's something fun to do with the wife, and a little extra practice and review of the fundamentals never hurt anyone.

 

[Lex Concord]

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.

You are addressing me.

Plain and simple, it's an additional infringement to continue living my life. Paying for UT was a choice after cost-benefit analysis described above.

Being required to check additional boxes merely to exercise a "right" (truly a mere privilege until we get to truly Constitutional carry a la AK, AZ, VT), additional cost or no, is an additional and unnecessary affront to liberty.

If the proposition were to go no-license in state and optional training-required license for reciprocity, I'd have nothing to say, as training would remain a choice and bearing arms would be returned to the status of "right".

So, why did I pay for the UT to pick up extra states? Because it was worth it to me to be able to protect my family legally (i.e. without risk of imprisonment) when we crossed an imaginary line or two.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

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

Pretty much this. You know us hoosiers. We hate for government to tell us what to do. Even more so when that infringes on a constitutionally enumerated natural right. Would it be practical for us to have a training requirement? Maybe, in light of reciprocity. But such would be repugnant to the constitution, and to our basic rights to self defense.
My dirt poor neighbor Billy has just as much right to defend his life as I do, and just plain could not afford a mandated training class. To require it would most definitely infringe upon his basic rights.

 

[24Carat]

Rather simple actually. You get to play the hand you were dealt in life. Either make the most of what you have in your hand, or fold.

 

[funeralweb]

Cost-benefit analysis here. Freedom and self-preservation costs money. The Utah permit and associated training requirements are just another cost of doing business for me. Pleasure travel is an option but business travel is not and when we have a death out of state, somebody has to go and retrieve that body and/or deliver it to its final disposition. Unfortunately, personal safety is one more thing our governing authorities have been permitted to place a value on and sell back to us. I'll never forget an encounter with the sketchy dude in the parking garage of Good Sam Hospital in Dayton at 3:00 a.m., who came from nowhere to ask me for a cigarette. While nothing bad happened, it was nice to reach for my cigs out of one coat pocket while putting my hand on my pistol in the other. Before there were constitutional rights there were certain "inalienable rights" described in our Declaration of Independence, "among which are the preservation of life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness costs money for 53% of working-age Americans in the form of licenses required to ply our chosen trade and the subsequent continuing education requirements needed to renew those licenses periodically lest we forget how to do whatever it is we do. Until recently, reciprocity wasn't even an option with my professional license when crossing over border states so guess what, some folks like get to choose whether to pay for licensure -and the accompanying required continuing education- in border states or pay someone from that state to act on our behalf. The D of I also talks about the government deriving its just power from the consent of the governed and the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Our government is altered constantly, depending on who chooses to exercise their right to participate in the process.

 

[chipbennett]

If the proposition were to go no-license in state and optional training-required license for reciprocity, I'd have nothing to say, as training would remain a choice and bearing arms would be returned to the status of "right".

Fantastic idea, and one I would embrace wholeheartedly - provided that Indiana makes the conversion as painless as possible from my current lifetime LTCH to a new, enhanced (training-required) lifetime LTCH. That is to say: I send them evidence of training, and they send me a new, lifetime enhanced LTCH. (Or, have me come in and get my photo taken, and make the new LTCH a photo ID, which IIRC would gain us reciprocity with yet more states?)

 

[IndyDave1776]

What about the obvious problem: We introduce this second license with the training requirement and down the road someone decides that it is redundant and we have our present license by recognition of right rather than by fiat dropped with the 'enhanced' license remaining or perhaps with the requirements raised to the point at which only lawyers who are competitive shooters have a chance of passing the training.

 

[chipbennett]

What about the obvious problem: We introduce this second license with the training requirement and down the road someone decides that it is redundant and we have our present license by recognition of right rather than by fiat dropped with the 'enhanced' license remaining or perhaps with the requirements raised to the point at which only lawyers who are competitive shooters have a chance of passing the training.

The obvious problem is that a state-issued license is required, at all, to exercise a natural, constitutionally protected right. All other permutations of "obvious problems" derive from this underlying problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The obvious problem is that a state-issued license is required, at all, to exercise a natural, constitutionally protected right. All other permutations of "obvious problems" derive from this underlying problem.

I agree. I was simply pointing out that this could turn into a vehicle for losing ground, the fact we properly own the ground in question notwithstanding.

 

[cce1302]

We don't get to vote in Utah or 48 other states. If we could, I'd vote for constitutional carry in every one of them.




Heck, I'd even incorporate the second amendment on a federal level if I could.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Heck, I'd even incorporate the second amendment on a federal level if I could.

That should be a slam dunk given that it is recognized as a natural right rather than a state-granted privilege. Of course, actually following our founding documents has been out of fashion for quite some time now.

 

[BugI02]

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

You have no idea how much I envy no guns signs lacking the force of law

 

[2A_Tom]

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?

You want to impose more hoops on everyone , so you don't have to pay twice. How thoughtful of you,

I RESPECTFULLY question this persons moderatorship.

I appeal my potential ban to Bill of Rights. I really am not wanting to step over the line, but I originally took the OP as sarcasm. Maybe I'm dense or missing something.