Member of Greenfield, IN ruling council flips out over new state gun law

[Caleb]

I'm glad you decided to join INGO Councilman Carwein.....

lol

 

[Irish]

Mr. Kase:
Well, 'tis a shame that you should find me out so soon. Clever lad.


For the other Ladies and Gents:
Apologies if I have offended those who were having so much fun. But, of course, that's the privilege that an armed colonial America bestowed upon us all -- the right (why, even the very audacity) to stand and speak one's mind even if it disagrees with the King's own majority.

I contributed my comments only because I know the man who has been the butt of your ridicule here and, passing no judgement on the wisdom of his action, felt that in the interest of truth and fairness that the other side of the story should be told. My perspective is simply that of an avid 2nd Amendment supporter who also happens to know the man, the issue ... and the media.

Thanks.

 

[Caleb]

Mr. Kase:
Well, 'tis a shame that you should find me out so soon. Clever lad.


For the other Ladies and Gents:
Apologies if I have offended those who were having so much fun. But, of course, that's the privilege that an armed colonial America bestowed upon us all -- the right (why, even the very audacity) to stand and speak one's mind even if it disagrees with the King's own majority.

I contributed my comments only because I know the man who has been the butt of your ridicule here and, passing no judgement on the wisdom of his action, felt that in the interest of truth and fairness that the other side of the story should be told. My perspective is simply that of an avid 2nd Amendment supporter who also happens to know the man, the issue ... and the media.

Thanks.

Tell you what, since you know him so well....invite him to the Indianapolis open carry picnic so we can get to know him better.

 

[SSGSAD]

Irish, I am going to have to ask YOU, to educate me.... I have lived in In., all my lfe, 55 years, now, and have been carrying for 34 years or so.... I need to know, what is an In., ccp ????? I have an In., LTCH ?????
Can you, explain ?????

 

[thompal]

If an anti-gun activist starts carrying a gun to protect himself, would you take away his gun? You should congratulate this guy for making a move in OUR DIRECTION!

No, I would LOUDLY deride him for being an arrogant hypocritical elitist, who believes that citizens aren't important enough to warrant defending ourselves, but he, and his 'class' of people (politicians), are, being important and all, deserving of the full exercise of their rights. I would repeatedly tell them that they are an insult to the Constitution and have no place in American politics.

 

[davidparrish60]

lmfao.... Irish, or should i say Councilman Carwein!!!

 

[Relatively Ninja]

I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder

Certified Computing Professional? Good for you, but please try to stay on topic. This is a forum about guns.

 

[Josh Ward]

I received a reply from him today:



I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

I got back the EXACT same thing....

 

[Irish]

I’ve lived in IN all my life as well, (and even have a few years on you SSGSAD). What I was referring to is a concealed carry permit. Guess I could’ve said Indiana handgun license, license to carry handgun or personal protection permit. Just habit using the ccp term. Pardon the alphabet soup.

I’d be happy to invite him. Don’t know whether he’d come or not (what with everyone here being so friendly and all towards him ...just kidding) but if not, I can say with some certainty that it wouldn’t be due to an aversion to firearms or to any who legally carry them.

Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative -- who may not have had the brightest idea for making his point but it was then slanted by a reporter and ended up in an understandable-but-undeserved sh**storm over here.

And coming from a gun rights person, I just thought you folks should --and would want to -- know.

 

[4sarge]

Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative -- who may not have had the brightest idea for making his point but it was then slanted by a reporter and ended up in an understandable-but-undeserved sh**storm over here.

And coming from a gun rights person, I just thought you folks should --and would want to -- know.

WE Do NOT Need Politicians such as this Representing Legal Gun Owners If this was the Best that he could do to Promote the 2nd Amendment then WE are ALL Doomed. IMO, his little anti gun stunt Backfired and Now he's crawling under any Rock possible and it's Ironic that You are now an INGO Member and vigorously Defending his anti gun performance

 

[canav844]

Hi folks:

New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.

Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.

I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.

This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of independent-thinking elected official that I, at least, am happy to have in office.

Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.

The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.

The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.

While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.

I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.

And that's my opinion.

If that's the point he is really trying to make then he should be (making it so local ordinance does not prevent it then) OCing at the council meetings and wearing the Armor in the state house.

There is no logical way to point out the hypocrisy by wearing the vest at the council meeting unless he is attempting to make the point that carry should not be allowed at such meetings

 

[jgreiner]

Well, I see the next open carry event has planned itself.

Exactly...just WHEN is the next city council meeting?

 

[jgreiner]

I received a reply from him today:



I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.

<I had asked the reporter to ask Bev Gard and Bob Cherry why they felt that they should be exempt at the state house while everyone else had to live by there lawmaking.>

I see English was not his strong subject in school. It should be their, not there.

 

[jgreiner]

Hi folks:

New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.

Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.



The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.

I would think the someone with those kinds of credentials would realize that we don't have lifetime IN CCP holders. We do, however, have lifetime LTCH holders, which I happen to be.

If that REALLY was his intention, to just make the point that state offices should have the same rules applied to them as city ones, then he could have done so without trying to be a media w***e. And he would have been taken far more seriously. By doing it his way, he has been branded a fool. And we have far too many fools in government positions as it is.

 

[Irish]

4sarge:
Never said he was doing it to promote the 2nd Amendment. That wouldn't be true. Just said it was not done as an anti-2nd Amendment statement. Guess I don't see the irony you mention. I happen to know the fellow, and I presume that you and others do not. Just trying to provide some insight into a misunderstood situation. If no one wants to listen, that's up to them, but it doesn't change the situation. I just hated to see a fellow I know as a good man and a cause I deeply believe in get crossways with one another as an unintended consequence.

IMHO, we as gun owners have enough real enemies out there that we don't need to be beating up on some fellow who apparently had a poor idea but meant no harm.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

An unprovable axiom:

Me too. Be nice guys. You get more flies with chocolate (oh, that's ants)... nevermind...

Ants just HATE chocolate! Otherwise, an XX¹º rep fer ya!!

 

[Irish]

Sorry, 4sarge. Meant to add:
As to your statement that I am "defending his anti gun performance" that mischaracterization is the whole point. I know Greg and know it was not intended as an "anti-gun performance."

jgreiner:
Old habits die hard, I guess. Rightly or wrongly, I have called my license a concealed carry permit for better than 20 years. Never really ran into anyone till now who didn't know what I meant by it.

I agree there would have been much better ways for the councilman to have made his point. I know he never intended it to be taken the way it was.

 

[4sarge]

4sarge:
Never said he was doing it to promote the 2nd Amendment. That wouldn't be true. Just said it was not done as an anti-2nd Amendment statement. Guess I don't see the irony you mention. I happen to know the fellow, and I presume that you and others do not. Just trying to provide some insight into a misunderstood situation. If no one wants to listen, that's up to them, but it doesn't change the situation. I just hated to see a fellow I know as a good man and a cause I deeply believe in get crossways with one another as an unintended consequence.

IMHO, we as gun owners have enough real enemies out there that we don't need to be beating up on some fellow who apparently had a poor idea but meant no harm.

Sorry, 4sarge. Meant to add:
As to your statement that I am "defending his anti gun performance" that mischaracterization is the whole point. I know Greg and know it was not intended as an "anti-gun performance."

jgreiner:
Old habits die hard, I guess. Rightly or wrongly, I have called my license a concealed carry permit for better than 20 years. Never really ran into anyone till now who didn't know what I meant by it.

I agree there would have been much better ways for the councilman to have made his point. I know he never intended it to be taken the way it was.

Ok, He's either Pro Gun, Anti Gun, or Neutral. Wearing a Vest to Prove What Point? Another Politician seeking Publicity.

Irony, Your 6 TOTAL INGO Posts all in Defense of some Misguided Politician who like's to seek Publicity while wearing a Flak Jacket or Bullet Proof Vest. What Conclusion am I to Draw

 

[GuyRelford]

Hi folks:

New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.

Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.

I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.

This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of independent-thinking elected official that I, at least, am happy to have in office.

Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.

The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.

The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.

While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.

I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.

And that's my opinion.

I have no trust of the media, but how do you "slant" his wearing a flak jacket to protest the new preemption statute, which the vast majority of us appreciate and support? He either did it or he didn't.

Just my opinion.

 

[Irish]

TFT:

Good point. Oh, I think you'd have to say he "did it." As to slant, well, bias is generally not in what you report, but rather what you don't report ...in other words, choose to leave out.

If you ask most anyone in local govenment, they'll tell you that their roles are frequently made far more difficult by the actions of state (and federal) legislatures (unfunded mandates, exemptions, and the like). Greg perceived that the state had opened up local government buildings to handgun carry, but still exempted many, if not most, state government buildings. From what I understand, he made it clear at the meeting that his point was to draw attention to yet another example of lawmakers exempting themselves (or in this case their workplaces) from laws that they enact for others to obey. That emphasis was omitted in large part from the press report upon which the furor has been based.

I and all the folks with whom I generally associate agree that the preemption statute which was strengthened considerably in this year's General Assembly (with much work and support from the ISRPA and the NRA, I might add) is a very good thing. But it shouldn't be applied only where some are expected to obey the new law while others are exempt.

This just happened to be about firearms but I think Greg's anger would have been the same at any new law that he felt the legislature was creating for everyone but themselves. Unfortunately, he probably chose a poor way to draw attention to it and the media did nothing to help the situation-- but rather, through omission, only fanned the flames of the always "hot" (in the press) gun issue.