Indiana LTCH Training Requirements

[SKSnut]

If the Indiana LTCH were recognized in as many states as is say the non-resident Utah and Florida permits, would you be willing to obtain the required minimum training and possibly have the Indiana LTCH to include a picture of the holder?

yes definately. I think the pink slips are a joke. Carring a handgun is serious business and they give u a piece of paper a 5th grader with a scanner could counterfiet in 10 seconds.just my

 

[public servant]

I would like to see an LTCH a little more durable, at the very least for lifetime holders.

And that was my thought on the matter. My brother-in-law has a Tennessee permit. It looks nearly identical to a Tennessee driver's license. It's got to be difficult to keep that thin piece of paper for 40 or 50 years. Not to mention the ease at which they now could be counterfeited.

 

[Joe Williams]

Let's say Indiana did away with the LTCH. Would anyone get behind requiring someone who purchases a handgun being required to take a safety class? Again...if the LTCH requirement was lifted.

I would be behind the state OFFERING training, and being required to either check "already done" or "no thanks" when you buy a gun.

If someone gets ignernt with a gun, their refusal to accept training would be just one more thing for juries in criminal and/or civil trials to consider.

 

[jeremy]

Let's say Indiana did away with the LTCH. Would anyone get behind requiring someone who purchases a handgun being required to take a safety class? Again...if the LTCH requirement was lifted.

My answer is still a big flat NO.

Government mandated training were does that even sound like a good idea. What is next training to use a knife. Sounds funny does it not. Could happen. Look at all the Government Mandated class for your safety in industry by OSHA. Where would it stop.

There are laws in place that already deal witht the problem of ignorance with a firearm. When someone/anyone messes up just build a new jail around them. Max out the penalties for failure. I mean that is why all those laws are on the books, right...

 

[jeremy]

yes definately. I think the pink slips are a joke. Carring a handgun is serious business and they give u a piece of paper a 5th grader with a scanner could counterfiet in 10 seconds.just my

And that was my thought on the matter. My brother-in-law has a Tennessee permit. It looks nearly identical to a Tennessee driver's license. It's got to be difficult to keep that thin piece of paper for 40 or 50 years. Not to mention the ease at which they now could be counterfeited.

And how difficult do you actually believe it is to obtain a false Drivers License? I but there are probably 10-20 operations in Indy alone that can fabricate a one for you...

I would almost bet the little pink paper with $.20 of lamination is more durable and lasts longer than the plastic driver license type are by the way... How long does you credit card survive in your wallets? I am lucky if mine is still good for 3 years. My Military ID has never made it the full 6 years of any of my enlistments either...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Firearms training is far too important to be left to the government.

Have you talked to anyone that lived in a state with government training (e.g. Texas), it is univerally of poor quality, if not a joke.

If we must change the LTCH, let us abolish its requirement.

If you want to carry in more states, you can do like Kirk and carry the water to have reciprocity extended to the states he goes (Texas) and/or get a Florida or Utah license.

 

[Eddie]

I voted no. The right to keep and bear arms is not supposed to be infringed. It is already too infringed as it is. If the government thinks that folks need more training then it should offer free ammo, free range time and free instructors. Sure, it would cost money, but they could always cut something non-essential to fund it, like the LTCH program for example.

 

[Joe Williams]

I voted no. The right to keep and bear arms is not supposed to be infringed. It is already too infringed as it is. If the government thinks that folks need more training then it should offer free ammo, free range time and free instructors. Sure, it would cost money, but they could always cut something non-essential to fund it, like the LTCH program for example.

Actually, I think you are on to something. I think a safety program instead of a LTCH would provide considerably more benefits.

 

[dross]

I think there should be a training and license requirement for everyone who chooses NOT to carry.

 

[calcot7]

The only reason I had to take a minute and think about answering this question would be that our LTCH's may be honored by other states. But we would still have to take a class...............and those classes are already available locally so .............no. Indiana is one of the few states that have this system correct. The 2nd Ammendment already gives us the right to keep and bear arms!

 

[jeremy]

I think there should be a training and license requirement for everyone who chooses NOT to carry.

Once again dross you nailed a great answer!

 

[aikidoka]

I voted no. Required training makes getting the license too costly for some people.

 

[LawDog76]

Ok, well I know this is going to start a bunch of **** but here goes.
We need a Federal Issued license that ALL states MUST honor. To obtain this Federal license you would be bound to regualtions as Police officers are. Any guns you want to carry, you MUST qualify with. If you can't hit the target, you can't carry it for personal defence (Hunting, target shooting and all that stuff would still be ok). The guns you qualify with would be listed on the back of the license. I'm not saying give "Big Brother" a list of every gun we own, not by any means. I know a bunch of people don't want the goverment to know about what and all the guns we own but you and I both know they have a very good idea what we have. The fact that you ever applyed for a hunting license is tip #1 there may be a gun in your home. Tip #2, you applied for a carry permit. And theres tip #3, remember the paperwork you filled out so you could take your new gun home from the dealer? Well a copy of that goes to the ATF, a Federal Goverment Agencey. If for some reason the ATF didn't get that paperwork, there's the phone call to N.C.I.C. the dealer made where he gave all your info to them so you may actually take your new gun home. All that is kept on file at yet, Another Goverment Agency.

Here's the main reason I think you must qualify with your weapon before you can carry it for person protection. There's someone out there (and probably one in every town) thats carrying the bigest, most powerful handgun they could get ahold of because of some "Shoot 'em up" movie or movies they watch all the time and the think guns are "cool" and haven't really earned a respect for them yet. The time is going to come around when they actually have use it to defend theirself and they are going to miss because they have NO training what so ever and they're going to hit an innocent bystandard.

 

[JohnP82]

I am caught in the middle here. I do not mind the idea of basic training if it meant nationwide carry. On the other hand I believe as a responsible gun owner people should want to be trained. My worry about mandatory training is that people will do what they have to do to pass the course, but will not take anything away from the class. We have to pass a test to get a driver's license and there are still a ton of people out there that can't drive for crap. I believe mandatory gun training would have the same effect. Just my .

 

[DissonantEscapist]

at the risk of repeating what's already been said,



Training should NOT be required for an Indiana LTCH. If the state police want to toss in a flier reminding the new LTCHer they might want to find out what to do somewhere, great, but that is as far as it should ever go.


Anyone who wants it for reciprocity is free to get a permit from a state that issues to non-residents and is recognized more places than Indiana. The reason some states don't recognize us now is that they think it's too easy to be licensed here. It should be easy; it's a right.


Common sense may dictate that someone using a tool that can injure him/her or someone should find out how to use it properly, but that is the responsibility of the user, not the public, to follow up. Freedom includes freedom to screw up and get hurt; you can't have one without the other.


Given the low bar set for approved training in many states, a common, but less talked about, reason legislators often write in these requirements is more to set a higher economic hurdle for being allowed to exercise a Constitutionally-recognized right, a la poll taxes to vote -- which were eventually outlawed. It is there to reduce the likelihood that those who are not the "right people," as defined by the powers that be, will be able to exercise their rights. Taken to extremes, that leads to "May issue" instead of "Shall issue," or an outright ban on legal carry by the populace.

 

[jeremy]

Ok, well I know this is going to start a bunch of but here goes.
We need a Federal Issued license that ALL states MUST honor. To obtain this Federal license you would be bound to regualtions as Police officers are. Any guns you want to carry, you MUST qualify with. If you can't hit the target, you can't carry it for personal defence (Hunting, target shooting and all that stuff would still be ok). The guns you qualify with would be listed on the back of the license. I'm not saying give "Big Brother" a list of every gun we own, not by any means. I know a bunch of people don't want the goverment to know about what and all the guns we own but you and I both know they have a very good idea what we have. The fact that you ever applyed for a hunting license is tip #1 there may be a gun in your home. Tip #2, you applied for a carry permit. And theres tip #3, remember the paperwork you filled out so you could take your new gun home from the dealer? Well a copy of that goes to the ATF, a Federal Goverment Agencey. If for some reason the ATF didn't get that paperwork, there's the phone call to N.C.I.C. the dealer made where he gave all your info to them so you may actually take your new gun home. All that is kept on file at yet, Another Goverment Agency.

Here's the main reason I think you must qualify with your weapon before you can carry it for person protection. There's someone out there (and probably one in every town) thats carrying the bigest, most powerful handgun they could get ahold of because of some "Shoot 'em up" movie or movies they watch all the time and the think guns are "cool" and haven't really earned a respect for them yet. The time is going to come around when they actually have use it to defend theirself and they are going to miss because they have NO training what so ever and they're going to hit an innocent bystandard.

Yep it sure is going to stir the pot…
Why?! Let us try and keep the Feds out of this please. They don’t have the “Midas Touch” it is a little closer the “Porta-John Touch”. Everything they touch turns to complete crap. Social Security, Medi-care, Medi-cade, Welfare, Commerce, Financing, I am sure there is more…

Regulations that LEO are bound by. I don’t think so. The Laws that are all ready in place work pretty well when they are enforced. More are not the answer. Plus how exactly do the Rugalations for LEO’s keep them more in check? They don’t LEO’s still go out and commit crimes on a regular basis.
Because, Qualifying every year makes all officers that much more qualified than Average Joe… How many LOE’s have shot someone either on accident over the years?! I have friends and associates that are LEO’s I have seen several who the only thing they know of firearms are what they are taught on their service piece. I know LEO’s that are more dangerous than some of the Average Joes, because they believe that “they” are the only ones “properly trained”.

 

[LawDog76]

Kicking myself in the *** for not going into details once again. (Where's the icon for that? lol)

I'm not saying the person has to requalify every year, just once to obtain the License and if and when they change what they want to carry. They shouldn't have to go through all the tactical shooting but just enough to prove they can hit the target and control the gun they want to carry.

Never said regulations kept LEO's in check btw.

As far a leaving the Feds out.....well you brought them in when you bought from a dealer.

 

[jeremy]

Kick away I am more than happy to watch...

If you were to implement the qualifing idea. How exactly would you enforce it? How would you fund it? The ISP are all ready at their limits keeping up with the current program. Quite often not able meeting their lawfully mandated timelines for issue.

So if the Reg's don't keep them in check why include them... We all ready have to many laws on the books that are not enforced. Why include more?!

And for the record YOU brought up the fed subject with the Fed License idea. I just pointed out several reasons that the idea is a failure from the start.

 

[MTC]

We need a Federal Issued license that ALL states MUST honor. To obtain this Federal license you would be bound to regualtions as Police officers are. Any guns you want to carry, you MUST qualify with. If you can't hit the target, you can't carry it for personal defence (Hunting, target shooting and all that stuff would still be ok). The guns you qualify with would be listed on the back of the license.

Permanent licensing. Permanent registration. Provisional, malleable and revocable granting of privilege on a national scale.

Here's the main reason I think you must qualify with your weapon before you can carry it for person protection. There's someone out there (and probably one in every town) thats carrying the bigest, most powerful handgun they could get ahold of because of some "Shoot 'em up" movie or movies they watch all the time and the think guns are "cool" and haven't really earned a respect for them yet. The time is going to come around when they actually have use it to defend theirself and they are going to miss because they have NO training what so ever and they're going to hit an innocent bystandard.

So instead of the most commonly used armed felon/officer safety argument, you've chosen the public safety/incompetent handler argument. The many variations of these are the main reasons we're where we are right now with the licensing and registration schemes. Take away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the few. No, worse - take away the rights of the many because of the potential actions of the few. This is what you're advocating, because "there's someone out there who might..."

The people shall have a right to bear arms. You either believe in it - or you don't.

 

[Mike H]

Training? For exercising a constitutional right? No.
Its bad enough that we have a LTCH let alone PAY for a LTCH, so we can exercise our God given right of self defense.