LTCH test/class?...what do you guys think?

[alfahornet]

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

[IndyGunSafety]

Originally Posted by alfahornet

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

I agree, but I stand to profit from a required class. But that's not why I agree. I have plenty of students. It's those that during the course introductions speak of there experience and training (maybe taking the class with their spouse) and then demonstrate CLEARLY that they have NO IDEA how to handle a gun safely that concern me. I see it all the time and it does concern me.

But as others have said, it's a slippery slope! If we give a little they will take 10 miles!

[wally05]

Originally Posted by alfahornet

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

The main difference (it's a big one) is that driving is not a right, it's a privelege that can be revoked by the state. No tests. If they want to offer some sort of discount for attending the class, then fine, but no required classes. That would definitely turn into something else down the road. The antigunners are never happy. We give them an inch, they'll take a football field.

[4sarge]

Originally Posted by Shay

Why not just get the UT permit?

Originally Posted by jeremy

If you guys want to live in a state that requires testing to prove you are smart enough own a firearm then move there...

The Majority here in Indiana actually think that we should not even need a permit to start with...

Originally Posted by wally05

The main difference (it's a big one) is that driving is not a right, it's a privelege that can be revoked by the state. No tests. If they want to offer some sort of discount for attending the class, then fine, but no required classes. That would definitely turn into something else down the road. The antigunners are never happy. We give them an inch, they'll take a football field.

Leave the Indiana Process Alone. Obtain a Florida or Utah Permit if you must but the Indiana Law is Clear and works for the rest of us

[in625shooter]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

Leave the Indiana Process Alone. Obtain a Florida or Utah Permit if you must but the Indiana Law is Clear and works for the rest of us

There are good points on both sides. I'm not saying Indiana ways don't work but getting another states permit might not be feesible forever. This might effect some people, Others might not care. Some states are looking (Colorado was, don't know if it passed there) at putting stipulations on which say Florida, Utah or whoever permits they honor. What I mean by that is the state might honor say state A's permit but only if you are a resident of state A. If you are a resident of state B but got a permit for state A just to circumvent their law due to your own state not being honored your LTCH in the state you are not a resident of is not honored!

So I guess it boils down to if all the other (or enough) states ever change like that would it make a difference to you to either change here or you just not carry in the state in question!

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by in625shooter

...Some states are looking (Colorado was, don't know if it passed there) at putting stipulations on which say Florida, Utah or whoever permits they honor. What I mean by that is the state might honor say state A's permit but only if you are a resident of state A. If you are a resident of state B but got a permit for state A just to circumvent their law due to your own state not being honored your LTCH in the state you are not a resident of is not honored!...

There are six such states: CO, FL, MI, KS, NH, SC. WV used to be that way, but is no longer, as of (I think) July of this year.

And there is no reason to change our laws because some other state doesn't like them. Far better, I think, to continue to show that our crime rates are lower by not restricting their citizens from carrying here than theirs are by disallowing ours from carrying in their state.

Blessings,
Bill

[Timjoebillybob]

Originally Posted by Shay

I want a mandatory 65 hour class (5 hours of range time) and a 200 question written test (with at least 15 essay questions) and a 250 round shooting test (95% score to pass) to weed out the poor, any lower intelligence individuals, badly skilled and other undesirables. It should cost no more than $1500. Mandatory LTCH insurance or some sort of bond would be a great idea too. Annual re-certification would be necessary of course to reconfirm an applicant's commitment and continued lawfulness.

Sure but to teach the class requires a mandatory 650 hour class (50 hours of range time) a 2000 question written test etc etc because the teachers should know more than the students, and should cost no more than $15,000. And mandatory insurance that would cover whatever wrong doing was done by the students and montly recerts of course. Yes I know your post was sarcasm and so was this one.

Originally Posted by 4sarge

Leave the Indiana Process Alone. Obtain a Florida or Utah Permit if you must but the Indiana Law is Clear and works for the rest of us

Indiana law is not entirely clear, see the various recent polls about what is legal without a ltch and all the other threads with questions. And while I have a lifetime ltch so it works for me in this state doesn't mean I wouldn't like some changes, such as no license needed to carry, sbs being legal, carry on school property, no local infringement ie parks and such, those being the big 4, I can come up with more but for right now those are the biggies.

Originally Posted by Jack Ryan

How about not. Just plain NOT.

Here's a better idea. You guys who don't like the way it's done in Indiana go some place you like better.

How can you be so UnAmerican? If you don't like it you change it, you don't move. Heck did the founding fathers move or did they fight for what they wanted? While I will fight for it not to become mandatory for training to be required to carry, I will also fight for not needing a ltch to carry, and also for non violent felons to be able to own/carry, and even for violent ones to do the same if they have served their time and are no longer deemed a threat to others(if they are deemed a threat, keep their butts locked up) and I will even fight to have voluntary training to add an endorsement to our ltch if it will get more states to honor it.

Originally Posted by in625shooter

I'm not saying Indiana

Originally Posted by in625shooter

I'm not saying Indiana

Originally Posted by in625shooter

I'm not saying Indiana

Originally Posted by in625shooter

I'm not saying Indiana

Originally Posted by in625shooter

I'm not saying Indiana

Etc etc.
I've heard of double taps and post whoring but this if the first time I've seen full auto whoring. Perhaps another one or 12 of these might help Or is that the problem?

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Timjoebillybob

...
Indiana law is not entirely clear, see the various recent polls about what is legal without a ltch and all the other threads with questions. And while I have a lifetime ltch so it works for me in this state doesn't mean I wouldn't like some changes, such as no license needed to carry, sbs being legal, carry on school property, no local infringement ie parks and such, those being the big 4, I can come up with more but for right now those are the biggies.

IN law is very clear. People's understanding of IN law is what is lacking, mostly due to misinformation passed around by those who mean well but don't check their facts before speaking.

Originally Posted by Timjoebillybob

How can you be so UnAmerican? If you don't like it you change it, you don't move. Heck did the founding fathers move or did they fight for what they wanted? While I will fight for it not to become mandatory for training to be required to carry, I will also fight for not needing a ltch to carry, and also for non violent felons to be able to own/carry, and even for violent ones to do the same if they have served their time and are no longer deemed a threat to others(if they are deemed a threat, keep their butts locked up) and I will even fight to have voluntary training to add an endorsement to our ltch if it will get more states to honor it.

Actually, our Founders did both: they left England in the face of religious persecution and changed it here. Fight for what you think is right, but understand that it matters not what compromises we offer. It is said that when you sit down to negotiate what you already have, you've already lost. The expected progression from allowing a change to "voluntary training" is to incrementally change it: "Well, see, we've had voluntary training for X years, so why not just make it mandatory now? Surely no one will take a stand against public safety."

Originally Posted by Timjoebillybob

Etc etc.
I've heard of double taps and post whoring but this if the first time I've seen full auto whoring. Perhaps another one or 12 of these might help Or is that the problem?

I should say that at one point, I entered a post a single time and had some 20-odd copies of it show up. I dropped a PM to the only online mod and asked him to please delete the extras after I went through and changed all but one of them to a ".". I don't know that that's what happened here, but I can't discount it. (and I don't , either! )

FWIW.

Blessings,
Bill

[ddenny5]

Originally Posted by alfahornet

Shall issue absolutely - but being required to sit through a class on basic law, firearms operations and basic profiency wouldn't be a bad idea. Yes it may be joke and a pain in the butt for those that already know it but in the end fewer people with licenses be out there that have little to know firearms proficency. You need to pass a test for driving license, a handgun isn't any less dangerous. And add a picture to the license so that more states honor it. My I know not everyone here agrees with this.

The problem with your argument with drivers licenses is that driving is a privilege not a right. However, gun ownership is a right under the Constitution. If you are going to make a requirement for gun training then make it a law that every law abiding citizen in the state must take gun training as safety class and make them purchase a firearm. It they do not do so then fine them for not doing so. Now seriously, most people that do want to buy a handgun will go out with friends or family to a gun range and shoot or get some form of informal training. I know of several people I have taken personally to the range to see what gun might best suit them. There is no training required for a right.

[jeremy]

Absolutely not!

I am all ready annoyed over the crap tacked onto my 2nd Amendment!