OC at NRA convention with Illinois CCW

[ATM]

Everyone will agree. It is clearly bacon.

But back to the debate...

I tried to type "both", but it came out [STRIKE]wrong[/STRIKE] better.

Bacon uber alles!

 

[SteveM4A1]

Ich weiss nicht, warum sprechen wir Deustche, aber ich liebe es!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Then look at my post #73. The law states "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally..." then goes on to list a whole series of things. So by your logic these terms must apply in IN.

As for UT, there's no requirement for a licensee to conceal so are they OK to OC in IN even though it say "concealed?"

Those are in a different section of the code than the actual licensing I believe. So they would not be a part of the terms of the license.

Depends on the UT code. As I said in another post, they could call it a license to conceal pink polka dots and it wouldn't matter, but what the code says regarding the license matters. Does the code issue the license for the basic reason of carry like IN? Or does it issue it for a more restrictive version like IL? From my brief scan of it, other than calling it a permit to carry a concealed firearm, it unlike IL does not restrict it to concealed. So from my again brief scan I would say method of carry is not one of the terms of their permit and as such they would be free to OC in IN.

Another thing in the IL code under the licensing section is that they are required to have the license on them whenever they are carrying a concealed firearm. While IN does not have that requirement anymore, that is one of the terms of their license so even in IN they would be required to have it on them.

Do you see how convoluted this always becomes when nearly all the examples revolve around attempting to support foregone conclusions which differ?

The reasoning behind the laws and what they were drafted to accomplish becomes lost and the mentality of the populace adapts to accepting explanations of how they can best steer clear of trouble as adequate interpretations of those laws.

In exploring the actual limitations placed upon individuals, I find that most folks tend to argue for only the specific liberties which they can prove that the state grants or permits to them, rather than scrutinizing and defining the limits to which their liberties have been removed.

So I'll ask a new question. When Indiana decided it should recognize other carry licenses to except non-residents from our unlicensed carry prohibition, do you think their purpose or intent was to:

a) ensure that by at least some minimum standard only a verified "proper person" would be able to lawfully carry in Indiana.

b) ensure that Indiana enforces whatever carry parameters would be applied to non-residents in their home states while carrying here (by whatever means we may).

c) bacon

I know everyone will end up agreeing to disagree (again) but I have found some new insights during this discussion and have chosen to pursue those above the usual back and forth which has never panned out. Thanks for the continued participation.

I'm not looking at it with a foregone conclusion. At one point I would have agreed with you, further checking into it changed my mind. Especially checking into exactly what meaning terms thereof mean.

I look at it both ways, in part to find the limits of both.

D) Bacon and a desire to allow as many people as legally can per the US and State Constitutions. Although if they meant it, we wouldn't need a license at all....
But that the terms thereof were included to act like any other reciprocal licenses, such as DL, Marriage, etc.

But that is just off the top of my head, do you happen to have any copies or links to the debates or papers about why it was introduced? Without those we and the courts have to go by the language of the law. Which means they would have to take terms thereof at face value and require the holder to abide by whatever terms their state issues. Such as concealed, revolver only, specific firearms, must have license on them, required to wear a large hat and pointy boots whenever carrying, etc. If those things were part of the terms of the license. If any or all of those things were the law in that state, but not a term of the license it wouldn't matter at all in IN.

 

[ATM]

I'm not looking at it with a foregone conclusion. At one point I would have agreed with you, further checking into it changed my mind. Especially checking into exactly what meaning terms thereof mean.

I look at it both ways, in part to find the limits of both.

That's good to know and I respect that. I should have specified just the appearance from debating methods and the general thought processes presented throughout past discussions of this topic here and elsewhere.

D) Bacon and a desire to allow as many people as legally can per the US and State Constitutions. Although if they meant it, we wouldn't need a license at all....

Since doing nothing would have accomplished that, they must have had another purpose in making unlicensed carry illegal and only excepting licensed carriers.
That's what I'd like to examine as the court likely would if this is ever litigated - speculate the intent of the prohibition and the intent of the recognition exception.

But that the terms thereof were included to act like any other reciprocal licenses, such as DL, Marriage, etc.

Without examining these intents, where shall we draw the boundaries that proceed beyond the borders of the issuing state with the signifying document?
Certainly the terms of maintaining licensed status, but not necessarily any or all local conditions applicable to the licensees under the issuing state's laws.

But that is just off the top of my head, do you happen to have any copies or links to the debates or papers about why it was introduced?

No, I don't have any such records referencing original intent which is why it is a speculative exercise. Considering the vast references available explaining original thoughts and intents behind the drafting of the constitution and the amount of speculation which has still occurred, I don't think they would afford any ironclad protection even if they existed.

Without those we and the courts have to go by the language of the law. Which means they would have to take terms thereof at face value and require the holder to abide by whatever terms their state issues. Such as concealed, revolver only, specific firearms, must have license on them, required to wear a large hat and pointy boots whenever carrying, etc. If those things were part of the terms of the license.

Language may be interpreted and redefined to mean nearly anything. Currently accepted definitions can mean the opposite of what they were once held to mean. Face value itself can mean many differing things. For recognition purposes, terms of validity makes sense to me. Regarding what could be considered further terms of allowance or exception, it is my opinion that, generally, such "terms" are conditions of conduct upon the licensee in the issuing state that need not be adhered to elsewhere.

Recognizing a license according to the terms thereof is vague enough that there should be some scrutiny in determining its just application.
The most restrictive interpretation which could be applied against an individual should not be given preference if a less restrictive interpretation exists which is adequate to satisfy the probable intent or purpose of the law.

If any or all of those things were the law in that state, but not a term of the license it wouldn't matter at all in IN.

Another thing we still agree on.

 

[Paul30]

So in states that have no carry license but allow you to do so because, well, it's a right, is it a requirement that those with Illinois license do so concealed only because they were issued a license form another state that has no legal jurisdiction in their state? I hate to beat a dead horse, again, but I have family who live in KY and they visit IN a lot. They also own property in IN, but are legal KY residents. Could they get an IN license since their jobs are actually in IN and they are property owners? A lifetime LTCH would put them in the definite legal side of things. It would be nice to have a definite answer, but it sounds like there is no clear answer until someone is charged with it and the courts make a decision.

 

[ATM]

So in states that have no carry license but allow you to do so because, well, it's a right, is it a requirement that those with Illinois license do so concealed only because they were issued a license form another state that has no legal jurisdiction in their state?

No, the current argument only exists because IN does require that one be licensed to carry here. States that duly respect the RKBA require no such symbol of infringement.

I hate to beat a dead horse, again, but I have family who live in KY and they visit IN a lot. They also own property in IN, but are legal KY residents. Could they get an IN license since their jobs are actually in IN and they are property owners? A lifetime LTCH would put them in the definite legal side of things.

Yes, having jobs in IN would qualify them to apply for our LTCH. See IC 35-47-2-3(a)(3)

It would be nice to have a definite answer, but it sounds like there is no clear answer until someone is charged with it and the courts make a decision.

While true, I'm happy with leaving it vague and just discussing it as a hypothetical exercise. If the legislators tried to "fix" this, I suspect they would make it far worse.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the legislators tried to "fix" this, I suspect they would make it far worse.

Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).

We need to make this the slogan of the Indiana General Assembly.

 

[cbhausen]

Greg Garrison just told everyone listening to his program we're not allowed to carry at the NRA convention. Unfortunately, this was he was signing off for the day. Hopefully he will retract this on-air tomorrow. I'm sure he's being inundated with calls and e-mails correcting him.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Greg Garrison just told everyone listening to his program we're not allowed to carry at the NRA convention. Unfortunately, this was he was signing off for the day. Hopefully he will retract this on-air tomorrow. I'm sure he's being inundated with calls and e-mails correcting him.

I didn't get to listen to the last hour today but I did listen to the podcast and I didn't hear anything about the NRA at the end