A 2A infringement I never thought of, until today.

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!
  • K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    I was exiting 465 today when I saw one of the professional homeless that haunts the exits of the metro area and had a thought...

    He makes good money doing this... What if I had a mind to rob him? (hypothetical thought of course)

    I thought about it and realized that the 2A in Indiana only effectively applies to the "rich"... as in those who can afford a home/apartment or have a fixed domicile.

    A TRULY homeless person or even one homeless by choice (i.e. car living) has no set "home" and so by the effect of the current laws only has the legal ability to own edged or blunt weapons in Indiana and many other states, especially those with Licensing/Permit requirements. Even Indiana requires a $100+ fee and a current physical address to have a valid LTCH. Sure, there are long guns, but those are bulky, obvious, and attract unwanted attention as well as still requiring avoiding the 1000ft school Felony zone or special handling (SBS).

    So would that make gun control, especially licensing schemes, not only unconstitutional and racist in origin... but also class warfare? (see what I did there?)

    (Edits made thanks to reminders by G.F.G.T. and K.F.)
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    A true homeless person or even one homeless by choice (i.e. car living) has no set home and so only has the legal ability to own edged or blunt weapons under the laws of Indiana and many other states, especially those with Licencing/Permit requirements. Even Indiana requires a physical address to have a valid LTCH. There are long guns sure, but those are bulky, obvious, and attract unwanted attention.

    Ok, I'll play. Why do you think the homeless guy cannot own a firearm?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Discrimination via SES and not explicitly race is the reason there were Son of Ham laws and Army Pistol laws in the South in the Jim Crow Era. Economic discrimination but motivated by racial hatred is why you have laws in the South like Maryland's Pistol Roster Law in the 1980s.

    Racism via economic barriers even transpired in the North, e.g. Illinois melting point law which was passed to prevent non-White from acquiring cheap handguns.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    I was exiting 465 today when I saw one of the professional homeless that haunts the exits of the metro area and had a thought...

    He makes good money doing this... What if I had a mind to rob him? (hypothetical thought of course)

    I thought about it and realized that the 2A in Indiana only effectively applies to the "rich"... as in those who can afford a home/apartment or have a fixed domicile.

    A true homeless person or even one homeless by choice (i.e. car living) has no set home and so only has the legal ability to own edged or blunt weapons under the laws of Indiana and many other states, especially those with Licencing/Permit requirements. Even Indiana requires a physical address to have a valid LTCH. There are long guns sure, but those are bulky, obvious, and attract unwanted attention as well as still requiring avoiding the 1000ft school Felony zone or special handling (SBS).

    So would that make gun control, especially licensing schemes, not only unconstitutional and racist in origin... but also class warfare? (see what I did there?)
    Unless they shoot you with a blackpowder pistol. No license needed
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    The greater restriction is the financial hurdle one must be able to clear to legally exercise that right. Whether you're homeless or not, this "poll-tax" should have been thrown out years ago. For many of us, those that are able to purchase guns "pretty much" whenever we want, a $125 to buy a LTCH isn't so much of a financial hardship. But there are many people out there to which that is a considerable chunk of change.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    But isnt it a moot point? Is it truly a loss if they cant afford a gun anyway? (assuming they truly are homeless and living hand to mouth)

    Am I prevented from fishing because I cant afford a license if I cant afford to get to a body of water anyway? (or buy a fishing rod/bait/etc)

    Existential thought; is it really a right denied if you cant exercise it for OTHER upstream reasons? Does Nascar actually infringe on my "right to race" if I cant afford the $20,000 entry fee, even if I cant afford to buy the $200,000 car and requisite crew? Or does my inability to afford the tools negate the other barrier?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    But isnt it a moot point? Is it truly a loss if they cant afford a gun anyway? (assuming they truly are homeless and living hand to mouth)

    Am I prevented from fishing because I cant afford a license if I cant afford to get to a body of water anyway? (or buy a fishing rod/bait/etc)

    Existential thought; is it really a right denied if you cant exercise it for OTHER upstream reasons? Does Nascar actually infringe on my right to race if I cant afford the $20,000 entry fee, even if I cant afford to buy the $200,000 car and requisite crew? Or does my inability to afford the tools negate the other barrier?

    Apples and oranges. The keeping and bearing of a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right. Racing in a privately owned racing league is not.
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    But isnt it a moot point? Is it truly a loss if they cant afford a gun anyway? (assuming they truly are homeless and living hand to mouth)...

    does my inability to afford the tools negate the other barrier?

    Let's say they owned the firearm before they became homeless. I also mentioned the nomads like people who CHOOSE to live in their cars or Semi's... Indiana does not consider vehicles or cardboard boxes or makeshift structures "homes". (Not talking "stand your ground")
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    Apples and oranges. The keeping and bearing of a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right. Racing in a privately owned racing league is not.

    Correct, it was the easiest example I could come up with and not a direct correlation. (I just saw a facebook post on Daytona) But you get the point. Is it really infringed if you couldnt for other reasons?
    And also why I used quotes around the point of it being a "right".
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    Correct, it was the easiest example I could come up with and not a direct correlation. (I just saw a facebook post on Daytona) But you get the point. Is it really infringed if you couldnt for other reasons?

    A man with no tongue has no freedom of speech. :):


    You could say if you don't have a home you have no 3rd amendment rights either.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    Correct, it was the easiest example I could come up with and not a direct correlation. (I just saw a facebook post on Daytona) But you get the point. Is it really infringed if you couldnt for other reasons?

    Ehhh...predicating the right on whether one can afford to exercise it is disenfranchisement. As mentioned above, what if I had a 1911 that my granddad gave me before I lost my job and lost everything else I owned? What if my niece was a struggling, single mom, with a stalker problem and I loaned her a gun to protect herself from the creep? Will we also make her a criminal should she get caught taking her gun with her while running her errands? In both cases, coming up with over $100 just to get permission to exercise a right is just as bad as (worse in my opinion) establishing a poll tax to keep the "wrong people" from not exercising their rights the we think is best.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom