If, when, then...

[Que]

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.

I am not sure how dense you are, but I'm sure you are missing something if you believe I'm suggesting the enactment of more hoops.

 

[VERT]

I can see where Que is coming from. Many of us spend money to get non-resident license. I could also argue that if a person is genuinely too "poor" to afford the training then they probably can't afford to stay proficient. (Do Not read anything into that statement!) Training requirement might make the sheeple feel better. Training might give us more reciprocity. Even UT and FL permits are losing ground.

OK I am convinced, I say mandatory training and periodic shooting exam not to exceed the difficulty given to law enforcement. But I want constitutional carry in return. Plus I want my new enhanced license to remove gun free zones. I doubt the libs will be willing to compromise.

 

[Tanfodude]

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.

At first, I thought you needed a purple on your post, but as I kept reading, it didn't need it. Do the same thing in reading Que's posts, his replies clearly explains the intent of his questions.

 

[2A_Tom]

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.

No sarcasm intended at all.

I am not sure how dense you are, but I'm sure you are missing something if you believe I'm suggesting the enactment of more hoops.

It sounds as if you are saying that if Indiana instituted mandatory training you would be OK with that infringement, because, it MIGHT give broader reciprocity.

I can see where Que is coming from. Many of us spend money to get non-resident license. I could also argue that if a person is genuinely too "poor" to afford the training then they probably can't afford to stay proficient. (Do Not read anything into that statement!) So a lady, barely making it, dosen't deserve the privalage to self defense.Training requirement might make the sheeple feel better. Yes. it is a newfound civil right to feel safe, so we infringe on others privilage to be safe. Training might give us more reciprocity. Even UT and FL permits are losing ground. Right, since other States that have mandatory training are losing ground, we can do better that is GUARANTEED!

OK I am convinced,I say mandatory training and periodic shooting exam not to exceed the difficulty given to law enforcement. But I want constitutional carry in return. Plus I want my new enhanced license to remove gun free zones. I doubt the libs will be willing to compromise.

I certainly hope that last sentence is sarcasm, because the two clauses are contradictory.

At first, I thought you needed a purple on your post, but as I kept reading, it didn't need it. Do the same thing in reading Que's posts, his replies clearly explains the intent of his questions.

Sorry, I don't see it. All I see is "a harder road for all 'might' make it easier for some."

 

[Que]

It sounds as if you are saying that if Indiana instituted mandatory training you would be OK with that infringement, because, it MIGHT give broader reciprocity.

That is not what I suggested. I inquired as to why someone who is totally against training in their own state will so easily agree to pay the fee and do what's necessary to meet the training requirement in another state? The question has been answered and it appears that training requirements are fine, just as long as it's not required in Indiana.

Now, do you possess the license/permit from another state in order to carry there or other states that do not recognize Indiana's license?

 

[Trigger Time]

I won't jump through the Utah hoop. I don't even wanna pay for the unconstitutional ltch but I gave in like a hypocrite. But I fought last year for constitutional carry and I'll do it again this year.

 

[Caleb]

I don't support the requirement that the government "think" we need to make mandatory for an constitutional right, nor the discrimination of training for 2nd amendment right vs no training requirement for freedom of speech. Having said that, if I were traveling through those states the rquired training would gain me access to, the question would be, "do i...."

1) Travel unarmed taking risk of my person or other persons traveling with me...

2) Complete training and carry protection.

3) Not complete training, carry protection, risk jailtime.

 

[VERT]

I certainly hope that last sentence is sarcasm, because the two clauses are contradictory.

Half serious, half sarcasm. Even if we were to get constitutional carry in IN there would still need to be some sort of voluntary enhanced license. The non-resident options are slowly eroding. Constitutional carry will also do nothing to eliminate gun free zones such as schools or CoE property, at least as it pertains to out of state travel.

In response to comments about women barely making it having the right to protect themselves. Of course they do! To suggest otherwise is an example of reading into to things. Problem is that unlike TV and INGO people need to have a least a little bit of familiarity with firearms if they intend to use them safely. Good thing there are actually people out there who donate a considerable amount of time and resources to provide those opportunities.

 

[Caleb]

constitutional carry concerns me a bit....I'm all for it, but i can see politicians using it to wipe our current laws and put stricter laws into place....a bait and switch if you will.

 

[VERT]

constitutional carry concerns me a bit....I'm all for it, but i can see politicians using it to wipe our current laws and put stricter laws into place....a bait and switch if you will.

I do think it is possible at the state level though.

 

[cce1302]

constitutional carry concerns me a bit....I'm all for it, but i can see politicians using it to wipe our current laws and put stricter laws into place....a bait and switch if you will.

That's sort of the opposite of constitutional carry.

And I'll just leave it at that.

 

[BugI02]

Exactly. Constitutional carry is recognition that it is your natural right to bear arms without the need of a goverment permit of any kind.

 

[Caleb]

I understand that....what I'm saying is, if they could wipe our current laws with constitutional carry, they would just as well wipe that and pass stricter then current laws....

 

[Bill of Rights]

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?)

Which states, Chip? I'm not aware of any that base whether you can carry a handgun or not on the presence of a photo on a card. I'm always willing to learn, though.

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.

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you start out losing.

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.

Point one: No one's banning you for disagreeing. Point two: Neither Que nor any other mod answers to me. If you want to appeal any of our actions, you need to take it to Fenway. Point three: The OP was not sarcasm, it was a request for information and understanding. I took it to mean, "OK, you guys are doing something I can't fathom. 'splain it to me, please?" And thus, I tried and failed to do so. I think.

I can see where Que is coming from. Many of us spend money to get non-resident license. I could also argue that if a person is genuinely too "poor" to afford the training then they probably can't afford to stay proficient. (Do Not read anything into that statement!) Training requirement might make the sheeple feel better. Training might give us more reciprocity. Even UT and FL permits are losing ground.

OK I am convinced, I say mandatory training and periodic shooting exam not to exceed the difficulty given to law enforcement. But I want constitutional carry in return. Plus I want my new enhanced license to remove gun free zones. I doubt the libs will be willing to compromise.

I believe that in agreeing to this, you have erred. That is but my opinion, however.

I understand that....what I'm saying is, if they could wipe our current laws with constitutional carry, they would just as well wipe that and pass stricter then current laws....

Then at the next election, we pass them out of office and select better, more liberty-conscious representatives.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

Which states, Chip? I'm not aware of any that base whether you can carry a handgun or not on the presence of a photo on a card. I'm always willing to learn, though.

Most states that don't recognize Indiana's LTCH do so because either they don't recognize any other states' licenses, or because Indiana doesn't have a training requirement. But I thought there were at least some states that didn't recognize Indiana's LTCH under the "substantially similar" clause, due to lack of photo on the LTCH. I could be completely wrong about that.

 

[BugI02]

I understand that....what I'm saying is, if they could wipe our current laws with constitutional carry, they would just as well wipe that and pass stricter then current laws....

Sorry. Didn't mean to be pedantic. Part of me longs for one clear standard adopted by all states so it isn't such a major research job to plan to carry in another state. And a large part of me is very wary of the same for fear that the common standard would be more restrictive than what I already have. Perhaps we could get some gun-friendly organization ala the NRA to write a general framework that we could lobby our respective states to adopt unaltered. The Holy Grail would be constitutional carry being that standard, but I feel i don't have enough time left on earth to see that day.

 

[VERT]

That's sort of the opposite of constitutional carry.

And I'll just leave it at that.

Exactly. Constitutional carry is recognition that it is your natural right to bear arms without the need of a goverment permit of any kind.

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you start out losing.

Blessings,
Bill

A lot of us keep mentioning Constitutional Carry (myself included) vs the training requirement for a "permit/license". I don't think any of us want to see more restrictions placed on our RTKBA. Just for grins I jumped on handgunlaw.us and quickly glanced at laws in those states that have what is considered to be constitutional carry (i.e. no permits). The list of gun free zones were considerable! Schools, courthouses, bars, posted private property. That is not exactly what I would consider regognition of a natural right. My understanding is that our defense in IN for the 1000' federal gun free school zone is our LTCH. To change that would require a change in the law or Supereme Court ruling at the national level. At least in the short term and at the state level I do not see getting away from some type of voluntary handgun license. But if we have to jump through more hoops to get training, etc I want to see the gun free zones go away. I do not consider this to be negotiating something we already have. What we have now is patch work of 50 different state laws and the feds sticking their nose in everything. While the idea of national no GFZ and constitutional carry is romantic, I think it is an objective that can't be reached. I do think it is possible to eliminate licenses at the state level for residents and develope some sort of recognized method to allow carry in more places similar to what we have with LEOSA.

 

[chipbennett]

Ah, yes, LEOSA: the some animals are more equal than others of RKBA.

I agree that returning to the intended state guaranteed by the second amendment is unrealistic, at least for now. I'd be happy with federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued, resident carry licenses, and a repeal of all GFZ laws. Illinois and New Jersey can impose on their own residents whatever unconstitutional restrictions they want (and that the residents allow), but that should have no bearing on my exercise of a natural right in those states (especially since I have no vote/control over their unconstitutional laws).

 

[VERT]

I have mixed feelings about national recipcrocity via a change in federal law. I would rather the States hash it out for themselves. Personally I would like to see the Feds acknowledge the second admendment and not stick their nose in things. But at this point a win is a win.

I feel like LEOSA hung us out to dry a bit. I have a lot of friends who are LEO and they all (save one) support us "less equal animals" being able to carry the same as they do. I have to think that will help the rest of us at some point.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have mixed feelings about national recipcrocity via a change in federal law. I would rather the States hash it out for themselves. Personally I would like to see the Feds acknowledge the second admendment and not stick their nose in things. But at this point a win is a win.

I feel like LEOSA hung us out to dry a bit. I have a lot of friends who are LEO and they all (save one) support us "less equal animals" being able to carry the same as they do. I have to think that will help the rest of us at some point.

I understand your concerns, especially in that what Caesar grants, Caesar can take away in addition to the implications regarding federalism, but my own conclusion rests on this:

All of the rights addressed in the Constitution are natural rights, not granted by the government, which means that government has no right to interfere with them. Member states of a federal system which accepts this idea have signed on to the idea that these are natural rights. No act of congress or court should be necessary to 'incorporate' to apply such rights at the state level. You don't see states erecting modern incarnations of the Sedition Act, do you?