Is Indiana #1?

[JettaKnight]

Is Indiana #1? No. Not even in the top ten.
As was mentioned earlier, much depends on one's grading criteria. My top tier (in no particular order) is Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming (Vermont gets disqualified due the prohibition on suppressors). Idaho, Montana, Utah, and a few others make up tier 2 (again, depending on your grading system).

Indiana would be hands down #1 with the elimination of IC 35-47-2-1(a).

Indiana requires a single application and fee and then you're GTG for life. I believe all of those states require CC permits that require renewal ($) and/or some training. So, if the fact that OC is prohibited w/o a license is a dis-qualifier for you, well, to each his own.

A quick check yields some things:

• WY bans colleges, professional sporting events, and bars
• UT reqs. 0.0 BAC if carrying
• AZ - polling places off limits, can't drop your kids off at school if there's a loaded gun in the car. But, college kids can keep theirs in their locked car. "No guns" signs carry the force of law.
• MT - weird law on carrying in restaurants...
• ID - looks pretty good.
• AK - bars & other people's home w/o prior notice off limits

Personally, I prefer laws that doesn't focus on the method of carry, because in the end, what does that really matter regarding safety / public policy / effectiveness? I mean, either way, the person has a handgun. If I want to OC in MT, does that mean I have to have a gun belt that goes around my parka?

The other factor that can't be read from laws is the general public attitude. It's all fine and dandy if you can technically OC, but everyone will constantly call the cops, then in practicality, that's not so good. Pretty much the states you list are all "pro-gun", but so is Indiana for the most part.

Pretty much all these "top ten" states have a few differences, and that will likely come down to preference and habits. Since I like beer, and I often end up on college campuses, IN law suits me just fine.

 

[MTC]

Indiana requires a single application and fee and then you're GTG for life. I believe all of those states require CC permits that require renewal ($) and/or some training. So, if the fact that OC is prohibited w/o a license is a dis-qualifier for you, well, to each his own.

No. The top tier are constitutional carry, and it's called that for a reason e.g. not being statutorily required to obtain permission for the bearing of one's arms, openly or concealed. Notwithstanding any secondary considerations one might find, the Right is what matters.

Pretty much all these "top ten" states have a few differences, and that will likely come down to preference and habits. Since I like beer, and I often end up on college campuses, IN law suits me just fine.

The introduction of other factors will move any given State up or down on one's personal grading list. At any rate, arguments in favor of - or expressing satisfaction with - licensing schemes (however cheap or easy) contributes to a type of complacency and inertia, and is one of the main reasons (but by no means the only reason) Indiana will likely not get constitutional carry in the foreseeable future.

 

[Ruffnek]

Considering the totality of laws like ownership restrictions, licensing, required training (which makes carrying more cost-prohibitive to some), what and how guns can be carried/transported

This is our metric. Totality. We're focusing more on restrictions here. If you have Constitutional carry but you're limited to ten rounds, are you really more free than the guy who can have a 33-round stick in his holstered Glock but has to pay $125 once for a pink wallet card?

If you'd prefer a harder question: If you can own a suppressor, are you more or less free than the guy that can own "assault weapons"?

 

[Route 45]

I don't think think that a license/permit system should be required for carry, but I prefer our system in Indiana (lifetime LTCH) to a state that has "constitutional carry," but several exceptions as to where you can carry. We've got it pretty good here in Indiana.

Interesting that Utah has a required BAC of 0.0 if carrying. I was under the impression that you had to have a 0.0 BAC to live in Utah.

 

[Ruffnek]

Interesting that Utah has a required BAC of 0.0 if carrying. I was under the impression that you had to have a 0.0 BAC to live in Utah.

 

[JettaKnight]

No. The top tier are constitutional carry, and it's called that for a reason e.g. not being statutorily required to obtain permission for the bearing of one's arms, openly or concealed. Notwithstanding any secondary considerations one might find, the Right is what matters.


The introduction of other factors will move any given State up or down on one's personal grading list. At any rate, arguments in favor of - or expressing satisfaction with - licensing schemes (however cheap or easy) contributes to a type of complacency and inertia, and is one of the main reasons (but by no means the only reason) Indiana will likely not get constitutional carry in the foreseeable future.

I'd just stick the practical reality instead of the mye-riites theoretical. Con. Carry isn't the be-all end-all Holy Grail of gun rights. I'd support it, and it'd be good, but till then...


And besides, those other states you ranked higher than IN don't have Con. Carry.

 

[MTC]

I'd just stick the practical reality instead of the mye-riites theoretical. Con. Carry isn't the be-all end-all Holy Grail of gun rights. I'd support it, and it'd be good, but till then...


And besides, those other states you ranked higher than IN don't have Con. Carry.

They don't? Hmmm...
Last check showed constitutional carry states as:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Idaho (residents only)
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Dakota (additional restrictions make this one borderline)
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

Nothing theoretical about it.
It would appear that because I included Montana and Utah (for reasons other than constitutional carry), or that one can in many instances find something odd, quirky, or possibly objectionable, you are using that to sidetrack the issue.
Hopefully the OP has, or can get, enough info to answer his original question according to his own preferences.

 

[JettaKnight]

They don't? Hmmm...
Last check showed constitutional carry states as
...

Wow, news to me... handgunlaw.us needs to update some things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

 

[Hohn]

Is Indiana #1? No. Not even in the top ten.
As was mentioned earlier, much depends on one's grading criteria. My top tier (in no particular order) is Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming (Vermont gets disqualified due the prohibition on suppressors). Idaho, Montana, Utah, and a few others make up tier 2 (again, depending on your grading system).

Indiana would be hands down #1 with the elimination of IC 35-47-2-1(a).

I lived in Wyoming when stationed in Cheyenne. Pretty much the closest thing to a Libertarian's paradise as exists in the USA.

 

[SmileDocHill]

I lived in Wyoming when stationed in Cheyenne. Pretty much the closest thing to a Libertarian's paradise as exists in the USA.

To be fair, in Wyoming handguns are almost worthless. At any given moment the person closest to you is about 1 mile away.

 

[HKUSP]

I understand the discussion that's happening, but there are other factors I can't get away from. Large populations of poisonous spiders and snakes. Bears, and the possibility of a horrendous natural disaster also keep popping into my mind. I also really hate cold weather and snow but I can live with the winters here.

This is all in all a pretty good place. I'm staying. There's always room for improvement no matter where you are.

 

[zer0day]

I like Utah. Spent a couple months there and covered the whole state for work. Once you get outside the major cities its really nice. 2a friendly. I dont recall pricing on gas and food. Taxes either. Lot of outdoor activities. Seen a lot of people varminting there. Moab, st.george were couple of my favs. Orbital atk is out there along with other military installations.
Im gonna go back thats for sure.


Sent from my burner phone using Tapatalk!

 

[2A_Tom]

To be fair, in Wyoming handguns are almost worthless. At any given moment the person closest to you is about 1 mile away.

Sounds like Heaven.

As for me Indiana is #1. I live in Indiana and I have a lifetime LTCH. I would Prefer Constitutional Carry and will support it for others, but since I have an LTCH it will make no difference to me.

 

[Ruffnek]

Sounds like Heaven.

As for me Indiana is #1. I live in Indiana and I have a lifetime LTCH. I would Prefer Constitutional Carry and will support it for others, but since I have an LTCH it will make no difference to me.

Pretty much my conclusion. And having an LTCH won't hurt even if we did get Constitutional carry, still need a license in some states for reciprocity.

 

[Ingomike]

Sounds like Heaven.

As for me Indiana is #1. I live in Indiana and I have a lifetime LTCH. I would Prefer Constitutional Carry and will support it for others, but since I have an LTCH it will make no difference to me.

That is a reasonable conclusion. I would like to add to the conversation that there is a little more than just gun laws, as important as they are. Indiana is #3 of the states with the most freedom. It is relatively easy to start a business, we have few water use restrictions and the like. We are just a generally free state.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org

We take rides to dinner and have a couple of drinks, would hate not being able to carry then, like in so many states. I suspect many of the carry regulations are intended to be a poison pill to create a trap to limit carry either voluntarily or by law after getting caught on petty charges.

MM

 

[Ruffnek]

That is a reasonable conclusion. I would like to add to the conversation that there is a little more than just gun laws, as important as they are. Indiana is #3 of the states with the most freedom. It is relatively easy to start a business, we have few water use restrictions and the like. We are just a generally free state.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org

We take rides to dinner and have a couple of drinks, would hate not being able to carry then, like in so many states. I suspect many of the carry regulations are intended to be a poison pill to create a trap to limit carry either voluntarily or by law after getting caught on petty charges.

MM

I agree that the gun laws aren't the only factor, but, at least for me, they're at the top. There are some states mentioned upthread that are more restrictive on this or that, but I could live with it.

The carrying in places that serve alcohol laws... I can at least see that they're well-meaning. Now hear me out before I put on my flame suit: I don't agree with a government or establishment trying to regulate MY morality and decision making, but alcohol impairs the good judgement of otherwise squared-away individuals rather easily.

 

[Thor]

Now hear me out before I put on my flame suit:

 

[2A_Tom]

I agree that the gun laws aren't the only factor, but, at least for me, they're at the top. There are some states mentioned upthread that are more restrictive on this or that, but I could live with it.

The carrying in places that serve alcohol laws... I can at least see that they're well-meaning. Now hear me out before I put on my flame suit: I don't agree with a government or establishment trying to regulate MY morality and decision making, but alcohol impairs the good judgement of otherwise squared-away individuals rather easily.

Actually I do not imbibe, but I couldn't go to a restaurant that serves alcohol.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree that the gun laws aren't the only factor, but, at least for me, they're at the top. There are some states mentioned upthread that are more restrictive on this or that, but I could live with it.

The carrying in places that serve alcohol laws... I can at least see that they're well-meaning. Now hear me out before I put on my flame suit: I don't agree with a government or establishment trying to regulate MY morality and decision making, but alcohol impairs the good judgement of otherwise squared-away individuals rather easily.

No flame suit needed. But a question, So folks that have a couple of glasses of wine or beers with dinner should not be allowed to have a way to defend themselves?

MM

 

[Ruffnek]

Actually I do not imbibe, but I couldn't go to a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Yeah, it is kind of a "baby with the bath water" situation for those of us who don't drink. There are a couple states where that law says you can't consume, rather than not being able to enter at all.

No flame suit needed. But a question, So folks that have a couple of glasses of wine or beers with dinner should not be allowed to have a way to defend themselves?

MM

It depends entirely on the individual. I'm a very sizable guy and back when I did drink, it took a pretty hefty amount before I was impaired. My buddy on the other hand is a shrimp, he can have a couple drinks and be well beyond impaired. Much like speed limits, the laws are written with the lowest common denominator in mind.

If you're like me and a couple drinks don't have much effect, then yes, I think you should be good to go. If you're like my buddy, I think you should consider your designated driver to also be your designated shooter.