-
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/
Handgun training in Indiana
- Thread starter Harry2110
- 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:
I'm usually a state's rights kind of person, but the constitution does say keep and bear arms. This should be the only national carry law we need. I think states shouldn't be allowed to write laws that prevent or hinder that. I think there should be a requirement to make people responsible for what they do with their firearms. You shoot people or property that didn't need shot, you get consequences. States should get to decide what those consequences are.
It's a proven fact that NOTHING good for gun owners can come out of ANY legislation crafted by an anti-gun legislator. That's like expecting lemon juice to magically turn into honey. Indiana currently has a system that works and works well. I see no reason (safety or otherwise) why it should be messed with. When folks start messing with a good thing that's when it goes down the crapper!
Thank you for the perspective. I'll agree with you that there are too many data points to give a comprehensive review here or in a blog, for that matter, for any but a full-time researcher, such as Dr. Lott.
I'll further agree that carry laws have been incrementally in our favor, generally speaking, over the last many years. (I can't claim the time period you do, but the pattern is clear.) Further, the benefit of reciprocity is one that I think would be good. The simple solution would be to say that Full Faith and Credit applies as much to the carry of a firearm as it does to any other right and/or any other document issued by one state in re: others. I don't think that solution is any more likely than you do, the simplicity of it notwithstanding.
The national reciprocity law you seem to favor is problematic. Not only would it be more restrictive than our law, and completely unnecessarily so, but it would also open the door to federal control of the inevitable permit, and given the clowns presently in power, I think we can all see how bad an idea that would be.
SCOTUS will continue to interpret. So far, Heller and McDonald have gone in our favor. I think that the opinions were as "wishy washy" as they were solely to gain Kennedy's vote on them, as any interpretation more strict would likely have had him dissenting and thus, turning the Court against us.
You're also correct that several states have restrictive laws on who can carry, where they can carry, what they can carry... all of which violate the clear text of the 2A. I've made the point before that where the 1A specifies "Congress shall make no law...", holding the restrictions on governmental action against religion, free speech, free press, free assembly, and right of petition solely at the federal level, the 2A has no such specificity, which would, under the 10A, mean that the power to restrict and control arms would be one denied to government at any level, and reserved thusly to the people, individually.
My translation: If you want to say that I can't bring a gun into your business or your home, that is your choice, however, government is not to be involved other than in the issue of trespass.
We have, at this writing, recognition in 29 states, not including our own. That's 60% of the country. In 1986, the first year I'm aware of in which such things were tabulated, we could carry in perhaps six, those being the states with "shall issue", like we were and are, and Vermont, which has never had any "permit". I don't have the figures to say which states had unlicensed Open Carry at that time. Some of the other 20 states (OH, for example) have unlicensed OC even today. The fact is that the tide is already greatly in our favor, and the reciprocity law you favor would certainly restrict that further, as I said. How many states have "no carry at a bank" or a theater, or a public gathering, or a sporting event, or a restaurant that makes 50% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, or any restaurant at all? Why? Do these laws make anyone safer, or do they just make more victim zones? I recognize that we differ. I'll also agree with you on the point of "the hell with other states"... I don't do much traveling, but yes, that view is narrow. Valid, but narrow.
Needless to say, I do not favor national reciprocity by a national carry law. On this point, we both have to recognize that the benefit or detriment of the law is a matter of personal preference. I'm of the opinion that, like IL, the other states will eventually "see the light"... or they won't. The beauty of federalism is that each state makes its laws as work best for the residents and voters there. All states don't have to be identical. For that matter, they shouldn't be; I do think that if a law is passed, there should be some real-world justification for it, and some real-world facts to back it up.
I don't recall asking you for the accident rates in training vs. non-training states. I may have, but I think that was someone else. I think that's a valid point of comparison, but admittedly, I don't have those figures. I believe Mr. Freeman might, and invite him to post them if so. Regardless, whichever side asked for the evidence is far less important than what the evidence shows, once it is reviewed. That is, if we are to examine this honestly, we both have to be willing to concede the facts, if they go against our argument. I'll wait to see what those facts are and from what source they are compiled before answering, but I have a feeling that they will bear out that a statutory requirement of training is no guarantee of fewer negligent discharges/injuries/deaths.
To your final point, of course instruction and practice are beneficial. That's not germane, however, because many things are beneficial, but they're not and should not be mandatory. Do we require education and practice prior to allowing someone to leave Ace Hardware with a hammer? No, and yet, hammers have been and continue to be used as weapons of violence. Do we require certification prior to permitting the ownership and use of kitchen knives? Should we ask John Wayne Bobbitt if that should be required? I can go on to rope (used to fashion a noose) or a car (used in a garage to create carbon monoxide poisoning), or sporting equipment, and the point is still intact. For that matter, it is even more solidified, since neither rope, car, or football is the equipment involved in the exercise of a right. They all are simply tools, just as is a firearm, a sword, or a bo staff. Only one of those supposedly requires training, however, and to me, that makes not a lick of sense.
As for what you wish to see, that is your choice. It so happens, I agree even on that point. I don't WANT to see unskilled gun owners... but I'm not willing to forcibly impose my will on them to make my wishes their responsibilities. I'm all for training... I am an instructor for Appleseed, (and full disclosure, before anyone calls foul for me making a profit on training.... I've never received a penny in payment for my services there, though they did once reimburse me for a hotel bill.) and though I've not taught for them in far too long, I still remember how and hope to return to that at some future date. Our students come to learn because they choose to, not because they're forced to... and they do learn. Were we to make such training mandatory, I think we would see very different results, and none of them positive.
As I said above, I think that this all comes down to personal preference and belief. Our primary point of difference is the benefit vs. detriment that a national reciprocity law would be. I don't see it as a benefit, just a shortcut that removes liberties. You see it differently. I again thank you for presenting your viewpoint. I hope we both learned something from this interchange.
Blessings,
Bill
I'll further agree that carry laws have been incrementally in our favor, generally speaking, over the last many years. (I can't claim the time period you do, but the pattern is clear.) Further, the benefit of reciprocity is one that I think would be good. The simple solution would be to say that Full Faith and Credit applies as much to the carry of a firearm as it does to any other right and/or any other document issued by one state in re: others. I don't think that solution is any more likely than you do, the simplicity of it notwithstanding.
The national reciprocity law you seem to favor is problematic. Not only would it be more restrictive than our law, and completely unnecessarily so, but it would also open the door to federal control of the inevitable permit, and given the clowns presently in power, I think we can all see how bad an idea that would be.
SCOTUS will continue to interpret. So far, Heller and McDonald have gone in our favor. I think that the opinions were as "wishy washy" as they were solely to gain Kennedy's vote on them, as any interpretation more strict would likely have had him dissenting and thus, turning the Court against us.
You're also correct that several states have restrictive laws on who can carry, where they can carry, what they can carry... all of which violate the clear text of the 2A. I've made the point before that where the 1A specifies "Congress shall make no law...", holding the restrictions on governmental action against religion, free speech, free press, free assembly, and right of petition solely at the federal level, the 2A has no such specificity, which would, under the 10A, mean that the power to restrict and control arms would be one denied to government at any level, and reserved thusly to the people, individually.
My translation: If you want to say that I can't bring a gun into your business or your home, that is your choice, however, government is not to be involved other than in the issue of trespass.
We have, at this writing, recognition in 29 states, not including our own. That's 60% of the country. In 1986, the first year I'm aware of in which such things were tabulated, we could carry in perhaps six, those being the states with "shall issue", like we were and are, and Vermont, which has never had any "permit". I don't have the figures to say which states had unlicensed Open Carry at that time. Some of the other 20 states (OH, for example) have unlicensed OC even today. The fact is that the tide is already greatly in our favor, and the reciprocity law you favor would certainly restrict that further, as I said. How many states have "no carry at a bank" or a theater, or a public gathering, or a sporting event, or a restaurant that makes 50% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, or any restaurant at all? Why? Do these laws make anyone safer, or do they just make more victim zones? I recognize that we differ. I'll also agree with you on the point of "the hell with other states"... I don't do much traveling, but yes, that view is narrow. Valid, but narrow.
Needless to say, I do not favor national reciprocity by a national carry law. On this point, we both have to recognize that the benefit or detriment of the law is a matter of personal preference. I'm of the opinion that, like IL, the other states will eventually "see the light"... or they won't. The beauty of federalism is that each state makes its laws as work best for the residents and voters there. All states don't have to be identical. For that matter, they shouldn't be; I do think that if a law is passed, there should be some real-world justification for it, and some real-world facts to back it up.
I don't recall asking you for the accident rates in training vs. non-training states. I may have, but I think that was someone else. I think that's a valid point of comparison, but admittedly, I don't have those figures. I believe Mr. Freeman might, and invite him to post them if so. Regardless, whichever side asked for the evidence is far less important than what the evidence shows, once it is reviewed. That is, if we are to examine this honestly, we both have to be willing to concede the facts, if they go against our argument. I'll wait to see what those facts are and from what source they are compiled before answering, but I have a feeling that they will bear out that a statutory requirement of training is no guarantee of fewer negligent discharges/injuries/deaths.
To your final point, of course instruction and practice are beneficial. That's not germane, however, because many things are beneficial, but they're not and should not be mandatory. Do we require education and practice prior to allowing someone to leave Ace Hardware with a hammer? No, and yet, hammers have been and continue to be used as weapons of violence. Do we require certification prior to permitting the ownership and use of kitchen knives? Should we ask John Wayne Bobbitt if that should be required? I can go on to rope (used to fashion a noose) or a car (used in a garage to create carbon monoxide poisoning), or sporting equipment, and the point is still intact. For that matter, it is even more solidified, since neither rope, car, or football is the equipment involved in the exercise of a right. They all are simply tools, just as is a firearm, a sword, or a bo staff. Only one of those supposedly requires training, however, and to me, that makes not a lick of sense.
As for what you wish to see, that is your choice. It so happens, I agree even on that point. I don't WANT to see unskilled gun owners... but I'm not willing to forcibly impose my will on them to make my wishes their responsibilities. I'm all for training... I am an instructor for Appleseed, (and full disclosure, before anyone calls foul for me making a profit on training.... I've never received a penny in payment for my services there, though they did once reimburse me for a hotel bill.) and though I've not taught for them in far too long, I still remember how and hope to return to that at some future date. Our students come to learn because they choose to, not because they're forced to... and they do learn. Were we to make such training mandatory, I think we would see very different results, and none of them positive.
As I said above, I think that this all comes down to personal preference and belief. Our primary point of difference is the benefit vs. detriment that a national reciprocity law would be. I don't see it as a benefit, just a shortcut that removes liberties. You see it differently. I again thank you for presenting your viewpoint. I hope we both learned something from this interchange.
Blessings,
Bill
Last edited:
HeadlessRoland
Shooter
Believe it.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator -
texkevAdministrator
Members online
- Tryin'
- tangleridgeslim
- actaeon277
- nkhrfh
- 12many
- ISP 5353
- Fester
- Shadow01
- williamnewman1
- jedi
- rkwhyte2
- rbhargan
- drm-hp
- ChrisK
- Malware
- GodFearinGunTotin
- indyblue
- BigMoose
- deo62
- PappyD
- Mauser Fanatic
- krvincen
- 22LRFan
- jcj54
- doddg
- cstoltie
- sadclownwp
- Creedmoor
- flyingsquirrel
- BehindBlueI's
- sapthol
- cedarhillfarms11
- 510picker
- 55fairlane
- Steel and wood
- MrHank
- BeDome
- BD63
- vitamink
- shootersix
- Robert B.
- brizzad
- Glock22
- Goodcat
- JBLee
- maxipum
- Cavman
- SEH0521
- Greg1
- texkev
