INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[melensdad]

I got a phone call from the INDY STAR a few minutes ago. They asked me to confirm that I wrote a letter to the editor. I confirmed in the affirmative. They said they "MAY" publish my letter.

Folks, let me just say, the way to get the word out is to write LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, it puts your message on the OP ED page of the newspaper and gives it prime space on the INDY STAR "OP ED" WEB PAGE.

Letters to the Editor LINK > > > IndyStar.com | Letters to the Editor | The Indianapolis Star

The Indy Star is reporting the facts and they are that undesireables are slipping under the radar and getting permits they should not be getting from the Indiana State Police. If the local and state law enforcement people cooperate and weed out these few rejects every gunowner will benefit. I read INGO posts from admitted (former??) pot heads and dopers who have LCH's with no outcry from members so obviously many of us also look the other way. You reap what you sow.

True!

The LTCH should be proof that we are good guys. If felons and violent individuals are getting a LTCH then we should press the Indiana State Police to crack down on their process. I don't want violent criminals carrying guns 'legally' under our system. The system is reasonable, but the I.S.P. is apparently ignoring the local recommendation. That must be remedied.

 

[06orange1300c]

I too am amazed at how few people have a permit here in Indiana. I live in the 47130...the number was amazingly low in my opinion. For as simple as the process is, I can't imagine that more don't have them, On the other hand...I think there are probably at least that many that carry without a permit.

 

[Beau]

They really are cherry picking. I've posted a couple of what I feel to be good ones.

Edit: They posted one of mine. I'm up to four now.

 

[Roadie]

OK, this is SO biased. He says it isn't about guns being good or bad, BUT he allows THIS comment through...

[Comment From Paul ]
A while back I went to a Best Buy with my daughter. On the way out a man came in with about a 7 yr old boy and a gun in a holster. It looked like the wild west. My question is how old is this law? I am 57 yrs old and lived in Indiana since I was 5. This is the 1st time I have ever seen this. It made me feel less safe. I don't know why this guy felt he had to carry the gun, but I certainly did not feel safe with him carrying that gun around. My thought is most who carry around a gun like this want to find a reason to use it.

 

[MrsGungho]

They really are cherry picking. I've posted a couple of what I feel to be good ones.

I just saw one from you, or someone pretending to be you

 

[Roadie]

He posted one of mine, wow! lol

I am "James" btw. He hasnt answered it yet though.

 

[Beau]

OK, this is SO biased. He says it isn't about guns being good or bad, BUT he allows THIS comment through...

I noticed that too. Comment has nothing to do with the article.

 

[Roadie]

..and the chat ends. Wow, that was effective. oy

 

[MrsGungho]

and the chat is over with no really hard questions posted or answered. did we expect anything less?

 

[Lucas156]

I stated that the article was biased at least he let that through chat is over I guess

 

[Beau]

Ken ... Shouldn't the state try to enforce the laws it has? Should there not be speeding laws because people will speed anyway?

I really wanted to respond to this. They closed the chat though.

 

[cosermann]

On principle, if we're going to have LTCH'es, I'd rather see FOUR guys get them who "shouldn't have", than see ONE guy who SHOULD have a LTCH be denied.

It's sort of an innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. Our system is setup this way because of the poor historical track records of governments. We accept that fact that many guilty folks go free so that we minimize the number of truly innocent people who are wrongly convicted (and it still happens).

Tighten the LTCH process too much and we'll have many who are eligible for LTCH'es who are wrongly denied. That's not acceptable to me.


Not to mention that the judgement samples in the Star's data are statistically invalid.

 

[Michiana]

On principle, if we're going to have LTCH'es, I'd rather see FOUR guys get them who "shouldn't have", than see ONE guy who SHOULD have a LTCH be denied. Tighten the LTCH process too much and we'll have many who are eligible for LTCH'es who are wrongly denied. That's not acceptable to me. quote]

In my opinion that is a Pollyanna approach to who can carry a dangerous weapon in public. The one guy who might get unjustly denied a carry permit probably is a zero chance of being a danger to society but the four undesirables most likely would be a serious threat. Maybe you are willing to throw the dice when it comes to the safety of YOUR family but I am not with mine. The solution is to fix the system so these undesirables are filtered out by the process, not letting them get through as you suggest.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

OK, this is SO biased. He says it isn't about guns being good or bad, BUT he allows THIS comment through...

[Comment From Paul ]
A while back I went to a Best Buy with my daughter. On the way out a man came in with about a 7 yr old boy and a gun in a holster. It looked like the wild west. My question is how old is this law? I am 57 yrs old and lived in Indiana since I was 5. This is the 1st time I have ever seen this. It made me feel less safe. I don't know why this guy felt he had to carry the gun, but I certainly did not feel safe with him carrying that gun around. My thought is most who carry around a gun like this want to find a reason to use it.

This cracks me up. Okay, so first off, I have to preface with I work at Best Buy, in Geek Squad... in Bloomington. That being said, we are probably one of the most armed places in Bloomington. Obviously we don't carry to work, however I think approximately 5 out of the 12 of us have LTCH, and 8/12 have either a pistol or rifle, or both.

It cracks me up. I wonder how safe he would feel knowing that. Oh, also, we all carry knives... and some of our knives aren't piddly little knives, we carry some decent folding blades to work.

 

[dwh79]

Very interesting info from Star. I am one of 13.6% in my area.

 

[Frankingun]

The more I think about it, the angrier I get about this "article". With 300,000 or more permits, some will slip through. And I don't want opinions to play too much into permit issuing. That's what "may issue" jurisdictions do. We don't want to do that.

 

[public servant]

In my opinion that is a Pollyanna approach to who can carry a dangerous weapon in public. The one guy who might get unjustly denied a carry permit probably is a zero chance of being a danger to society but the four undesirables most likely would be a serious threat. Maybe you are willing to throw the dice when it comes to the safety of YOUR family but I am not with mine. The solution is to fix the system so these undesirables are filtered out by the process, not letting them get through as you suggest.

Sorry...I've had professional dealings with a large percentage of the 15 individuals named in the article. And none of them should ever have been allowed to legally carry a firearm...IMO.

Hopefully ISP will now begin to use the "proper person" clause that has been available to them to keep permits from being issued to those that don't deserve them.

I think ISP should be following the recommendations of local LE as to whether or not the permits should be issued...as long as the local LE can justify the recommendation...not "just because we say so". Politics should have no place in it...based only on facts.

I'm not foolish enough to believe these criminals would not have carried a weapon without the permit. That's why judges and juries need to start sending these mopes to prison for a long, long time when they are caught illegally possessing firearms. But you also have to have the general public backing up the decision. It costs taxpayer money to keep them in prison. If you want to get tough on crime...you'll have to agree to pony up the costs involved. And start putting the pressure on local prosecutors to stop plea bargaining the charges down.

Someone mentioned being outraged that the Star spread these people's pictures and personal info all over the pages of their paper. Nothing the Star printed wasn't a matter of public record. Pictures, criminal history, arrest reports, court records... Don't like your stuff thrown out there for the world to see? Stay out of the system. But believe me...these 15 don't care who knows. Most of them are career criminals.

I don't like the Star...but they weren't too far off the mark with this article. It's the Star...so you know it's going to be written left of center. I didn't see anything in it that should be of major concern for responsible gun owners and "proper persons" who hold permits. And they won't lose a dime over litigation because of it.

I think the pressure has been put on the ISP to stop rubber stamping these permit applications. In a perfect world...we wouldn't need the permit process. All the dangerous crooks would be locked away. We don't live in a perfect world.

Of course...if you want to treat a LTCH permit like the Nobel Peace Prize...we can just continue handing them to everyone.

 

[Michiana]

This cracks me up. Okay, so first off, I have to preface with I work at Best Buy, in Geek Squad... It cracks me up. I wonder how safe he would feel knowing that. Oh, also, we all carry knives... and some of our knives aren't piddly little knives, we carry some decent folding blades to work.

To be completely honest I don't feel a bit safer knowing the Geek Squad carries knives; big or small.

 

[Hotdoger]

My second post. Maybe I come from a more middle of the road political position than most here. I didn't see anything wrong or threatening about the article. It wasn't about the 4 guys who are pictured on the front page. They're just the sensational examples that the media use to make their point. It wasn't against the right to bear arms or the LTCH or against law abiding citizens.

The crux of the article, it seems to me, were the 456 times they found local police were against issuing the permit, but the ISP went ahead and did it anyway. The article was about using discretion and the ISP errs on the side of not using it. The ISP admits some get through the cracks. The paper points out that some of these guys are dangerous, and by the way you made 456 mistakes.

The system has a flaw in it and it should be fixed. I don't think anyone here wants felons to have a permit. And I'm guessing everyone here is of good reputation and community standing. I don't feel offended, except maybe I can see someone feeling that their permit is now tainted a bit.
That's the part they left out of the story.
2¢

Problem with standing in the "middle of the road" is sooner or later you are going to get run over.

 

[public servant]

Problem with standing in the "middle of the road" is sooner or later you are going to get run over.

Standing along the far left side or the far right side of the road can be just as dangerous sometimes. Sooner or later someone's going to slide off the edge...and there you stand...