Indiana Considers an Upper Tier CCW Permit

[HICKMAN]

why not just get a Florida permit?

Only one it doesn't cover that Utah does in MN I think.

All you need for training is an NRA basic pistol class from what I hear.

 

[iCarry]

What the heck is an Indiana CCW permit??? If this guy is such an authority on which he speaks why does he refer to the main topic of his discussion incorrectly? I'm so tired of ignorant statements and incorrect info being disseminated.

You beat me to it. IN doesn't have a CCW!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What makes you think Ohio will recognize anything?

We don't and that is part of our objection.

Support of SB555 is based on speculation that it will assist reciprocity. We have no evidence of such assistance. It seems to me that we are making assumptions and then going forward.

You guys know the old joke about the engineer, the chemist and the economist on the island, right?

"Assume a can opener."

 

[Bunnykid68]

.

 

[g00n24]

a couple years back I posted a thread proposing the same thing here to see how INGO felt. Most people flamed me for it thinking I was proposing a replacement...but I guess we all know many people don't like to read past the first few lines of the OP.
I have always felt this would be a great option if it opened up more reciprocity, as long as the current LTCH stayed as is...

Or better yet, go to constitutional carry and offer this "upgraded" LTCH as an option to be able to carry in other states.

 

[rhino]

Given the accessibility of Florida, Utah, and Arizona permits among others, I don't see a point to this.

What would get me excited would a license to carry that was actually valid everywhere in the state of Indiana. I could be persuaded to disallow it inside of jails and prisons that are secure if there was a provision for secure storage of carry weapons while there. This crap invalidating our current LtCH with casinos, schools, and various gov't buildings just because they have a courtroom is, well, crap.

 

[lonehoosier]

We don't and that is part of our objection.

Support of SB555 is based on speculation that it will assist reciprocity. We have no evidence of such assistance. It seems to me that we are making assumptions and then going forward.

You guys know the old joke about the engineer, the chemist and the economist on the island, right?

"Assume a can opener."

And that's why I'm against it. The only way I can be on board with it if we had constitutional carry for Indiana residents and we know that will not happen anytime soon. I will be making phone calls in the morning to KILL this bill in the house.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Permit , license who cares your still asking big brothers permission, get over it

 

[mbills2223]

You win this thread.

 

[CPT Nervous]

What do I win?

 

[mbills2223]

What do I win?

10,000 interwebz aaaand...some rep.

 

[CPT Nervous]

10,000 interwebz????!!??!! I've got work to do...



Thanks!

 

[techres]

Tier 2 in place. 2014
Tier 1 discontinued. ~2020

Logical reasons used:

"Reasonable blah blah"
"Required training blah blah"
"Rotating income from licencing blah blah"
"Weeds out blah blah"
"Won't someone please think of blah blah"
"Why keep unsafe license reg blah blah"

About this time people discover the beauty of "requirements" that once were "options".

They change.

Often for the worse.

IIRC the LTCH originally was issued as an option which later became a requirement. My memory is hazy, but I would strongly guess that when the LTCH was brought into being (1932?) you could open carry without it. Now the LTCH rules over open carry and some want to go a step further.

Scraps from the father's table may promise a meal to be had.
But you are the one getting had if you think they're gonna invite you to the table because you beg enough.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Marked for later research

 

[waltherppk]

Oops, this has been updated since I posted last night. It did pass the senate... Indiana General Assembly

 

[mrjarrell]

Tier 2 in place. 2014
Tier 1 discontinued. ~2020

Logical reasons used:

"Reasonable blah blah"
"Required training blah blah"
"Rotating income from licencing blah blah"
"Weeds out blah blah"
"Won't someone please think of blah blah"
"Why keep unsafe license reg blah blah"

About this time people discover the beauty of "requirements" that once were "options".

They change.

Often for the worse.

IIRC the LTCH originally was issued as an option which later became a requirement. My memory is hazy, but I would strongly guess that when the LTCH was brought into being (1932?) you could open carry without it. Now the LTCH rules over open carry and some want to go a step further.

Scraps from the father's table may promise a meal to be had.
But you are the one getting had if you think they're gonna invite you to the table because you beg enough.

And this right here is more than reason enough to not want this to pass. Today's option become tomorrows requirement. Not impressed and not something I want to see here.

 

[ryknoll3]

I'll put good money on that if this "Better" CCW goes into effect, and there is much of any interest among Indiana residents, it will be a requirement soon.

 

[ryknoll3]

Also, I don't see any need that this thing fills. There are plenty of other options if you want to expand your CCW carrying state list. Utah, Arizona, Florida, etc...

Another reason why I think this sets up to be the new permit "in waiting".

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've given my thoughts in the other thread. These, I'll address to Mr. Phillips' comments:

1) What states won't recognize our LTCH because of the absence of a photo?
2) What evidence is there that we're less safe because of a lack of a training requirement?
3) Do you know something about a guarantee from the other 9 states that recognize others but not ours that our IFRL will be recognized where the LTCH is not?

Now... it's going to sound to those who've read both threads that I'm arguing both sides of this. I suppose it might be seen that way, but the reason for that is that I'm not fully convinced it's good OR bad. I can see benefits in that others outside Indiana will now be able to send some cash our way, but that benefit does not outweigh our basic human rights, IMHO. I can see the benefit of widened recognition, if it happens, but do we want to take the chance that we'll add more restrictions to no good purpose AND at the same time, take a chance on pushing the LTCH out in favor of the IFRL?

I won't lie. If this passes, I'll probably get one, solely because I'll also be doing the instructor thing, too. I haven't decided for sure either way. I support a minimum level of training, but not as a requirement for anything, and if I can help people know more about what they're doing with a firearm before they start carrying it around, I want to do that. To be absolutely clear, though, in no way do I support that training becoming mandatory, and if I do decide to do the instructor thing, I think that will bolster my position when I go to testify to shoot down any bill like that.

And just to make it perfectly clear, none of my actions in re: this or other legislation have anything to do with any form of profit motive. Suggestions to the contrary will not be looked upon favorably.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[theweakerbrother]

Some animals are more equal than others.