What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Proposed changes to Indiana gun laws
- Thread starter MCINDIANA
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
I was talking to a judge yesterday and asked him if he'd been following the legislative session. He had not, and our conversation had turned in the direction of people needing to stand up for themselves, so I asked him about 1071, which I briefly described. His first comment was that felons would use it to carry, and I corrected that misconception immediately. We got interrupted and I didn't hear any more on the subject from him, sadly.
I suppose I can't expect someone to follow such things, or to follow them on the subjects we consider important, just because their job brings them into contact with the criminal element more often than most of us, but when that's where the mind of a man whose job it is to remain impartial goes first, I have to agree with Act... Perception matters.
The victims of abuse need this to pass. That's my primary motivation in backing 1071, however, I also want to see it amended to include HB 1159, or to send that topic to summer study, in that order of preference. Senator Bray has my note, as does my own senator. They'll be getting more as well.
Blessings,
Bill
We have a lot of work to do here. This is why CC heading for a summer study is a victory.
What if the summer study determines that OC is better?
I have a lifetime LTCH, I'll still be glad to have it even if it's no longer necessary as I forget my wallet quiet often and worry about what an interaction might entail.
I want more people to carry, It needs to be normalized in our culture again.
I want more people to carry, It needs to be normalized in our culture again.
I think the point of going to summer study is to examine CC in terms of JFC.
CC = OC < JFC
I think the point of going to summer study is to examine CC in terms of JFC.
CC = OC < JFC
I think you need a few parenthesis in your equation Bill, maybe the "IF" function from Excel
As long as we're moving the ball in the right direction we're getting closer to the goal. CC = Constitutional Carry; cc = concealed carry, or cubic centimeter, carbon copy... let it be known CC (in caps) = Constitutional Carry: CC=OC+cc+JFC (new math!!)
I feel the same way. I have my Lifetime LTCH and my wife does too. But my son and daughter wouldn't have to as well as countless others. If you want to carry out of state, then by all means, go through the LTCH process.
AmmoManAaron
Master
Unfortunately, according to the link post by the OP to American Gun Owners Alliance they are against HB 1095. I'm not sure why since it actually eases a restriction. HB 1095's purpose to put Indiana's definition of "armor piercing" in line with the ATF. As it stands now in Indiana HyTek coated, powder coated and any other modern coating that uses a polymer to coat the bullet is outlawed due to the current flawed definition of armor piercing. The proposed bill looks to remove that restriction. Here's the link to the proposed bill https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1095#document-e1cd2cf5. Read the entire bill, it's only 2 pages and you will see there is nothing in there about plastic coatings in the armor piercing definition. This bill would put Indiana's definition the same as the AFT's and remove a restriction.
I guess the confusion is coming from the bill's very poorly worded synopsis that has "Plastic-coated ammunition." as the first 3 words.
No, I'm doing a write up for HB 1095, it's a bad law and will hurt collectors and shooters. The Indiana law doesn't have a grandfather clause. The Fed law only applies to manufacture and import - possession and sale are OK. AP ammo that's already here is legal under Federal law but would be illegal under HB 1095. If they want to do something responsible, just repeal the existing Indiana law and leave it at that.
There is still a fair bit of WWI and WWII German steel core 9mm ammo floating around in collecting circles since almost all German 9mm military ammo was steel core. It's nice to have period ammo for display with your Luger or P-38. This bill would hurt collectors.
On the shooting side, there has been gobs of steel core surplus imported over the decades prior to the Fed ban. A lot of this still turns up and gunshows and estate sales, but most of the time the sellers at shows and bidders at auctions don't even know what they have becauase it's not labeled as AP on the original packaging. It was just "ball" ammo to the various military users since the steel core was primarily intended a cost saving measure (steel is cheaper and more easily sourced than lead). This law would turn a lot of unknowing collectors and shooters into criminals.
Some common ammo that I see that would be illegal and create criminals out of unknowing citizens:
Czech, Swedish, and Yugo 9mm steel core
Russian, Chinese, Czech, and Yugo 7.62x25 steel core
Chinese and East German 7.62x39 steel core
Most surplus 7.62x25 is steel core, so just about anything imported prior to the Fed ban would be illegal under this new Indiana law. I'm doing a better and longer write-up opposing HB 1095, but this is the quick and dirty version.
The above is just the more common stuff, I have far more examples of less common items in my ammo collection. Things like KTW cartridges and the like are now solely in the realm of collectors because of the manufacturing ban. A single pack of KTW often sells for $100 or more - gang bangers, car jackers, and such aren't buying or using this stuff because they don't know it exists and probably wouldn't care anyway. Books for collectors have been written on this subject, including rarity and values for the items.
Last edited:
I think you need a few parenthesis in your equation Bill, maybe the "IF" function from Excel
With respect, I must disagree. You've placed the abbreviation for "open carry" in caps, just as Constitutional carry is, while concealed carry is relegated to lower case. Your equation is fine, but your variables need better declaration and definition.
Perhaps either CC=cc+oc+jfc or CC=Cc+Oc+JFc would do what you want, but my earlier equation equating cc and oc, and defining jfc as greater than either, was erroneous. I believe the corrected version would be that oc+cc=jfc=CC, given that variable 1 "oc" plus variable 2 "cc" together comprise all lawful carry, which thus would be variable 3, "jfc" and when all may lawfully carry, that is equivalent to variable 4, "CC".
And while we're discussing this, a small visual test comes to mind
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Blessings,
Bill
OP sounds like all those people who are against getting rid of hughes cuz 'I got mine already, I paid good money, why isn't my investment secure'.
I'm against constitutional carry because it lets criminals carry is a BS reason to not have it pass; criminals already carry, and if found with a gun usually get off scott free
I'm against constitutional carry because it lets criminals carry is a BS reason to not have it pass; criminals already carry, and if found with a gun usually get off scott free
I think we need a factor to estimate Total Carry Potential (TCP) by estimating Potential Handgun Carriers (PHC). What percentage of non-prohibited persons (NPP) who do not possess an LTCH will carry after CC? PHC = NPP - (OC+CC). NPP multiplied by the PHC factor plus (OC+CC) = TCP.
Considering we don't know how many current LTCH holders carry or how often? I don't think anyone can prove us wrong!
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- BeDome
- OneBadV8
- d.kaufman
- snorko
- Mister K
- schmart
- Longshot308
- printcraft
- dmazzio
- El Conquistador
- SharkyZiff
- Tradesylver
- Dog1
- XDdreams
- bobzilla
- gemihur
- CB1911
- Bobby
- Gravyman
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Packing Wood
- Sagamore - One
- KLB
- jy951
- JTuttle
- BoilerWes
- 812 rimfire
- Pepi
- JStang314
- pharmboy
- jbm1521
- MC1983
- lafrad
- lance
- glocktoys
- slims2002
- tca1352
- Longhair
- abn198582
- sig1473
- Dechrissen
- TacOpsGuy320
- jsharmon7
- LokhXIV
- Mauser Fanatic
- Cameramonkey
- wizardfitz
- Creedmoor
- red_zr24x4
- SpinDrift762
