Indiana Considers an Upper Tier CCW Permit

[MorePowerWes]

As far as "felons" with guns goes.... Either you've served your time and repaid your debt to society. Or you have not. I know of several "felons" who are not of any danger to ANY of us. And yet have been stripped of their RIGHT to defend themselves because of past mistakes. If someone has demonstrated a propensity to violence and has been convicted as such they should be sentenced appropriately in the first place. Otherwise, non-violent offenders should not be stigmatized and have their 2nd amendment RIGHT taken away.

 

[MorePowerWes]

And... as far as Indiana's LTCH goes.. Leave it alone!! The only way I could support an "enhanced" license/permit is if we were allowed to open carry otherwise (like Kentucky).

 

[Hammerhead]

People who believe that we need to have more licensing requirements, or any licensing requirements, need to be reminded of Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

 

[walleyepw]

We need to recognize the Constitution and the Amendments. Our representative goverment needs to open the law books and read them compared to the Contitution and the Amendments, if the violate the constitution and admendments then they need to be repealed.

 

[Viper1973]

Screwing with the LTCH is a horrible idea. Anyone wanting more states can just add on UTAH or ARIZONA. In my county, it's nearly impossible to get the local town marshal to sign off on anything!

That's why I went lifetime so I'd never have to deal with him again.

 

[Viper1973]

Personally I think each and every one of us should be contacting our representation in Indianapolis to make sure this thing dies...

Given the anti-gun sentiment currently around the country all that will happen is that this piece of legislation will be used to either nullify our existing LTCH or to impose further restrictions on us moving forward.

If anything we should be trying to get the school zones thing revoked instead of trying the 'if we do this other states will accept us' crap which has no basis whatsoever in fact and is entirely speculation.

I for one called my representatives and think we all should before this thing gets passed and later bites us in the butt.

 

[Spanky46151]

I guess I question the expertise of anyone who refers to a LTHC as a CCW.

 

[aaron580]

I guess I question the expertise of anyone who refers to a LTHC as a CCW.

^ this. We should not even have to apply or a LICENSE for carrying, but we did and now they are trying to take that away. Pretty stupid... I hate CC because its so uncomfortable. I cant imagine doing it all the time...

 

[Viper1973]

Amen... Now if just enough of us call and voice our complaints so this thing dies!

WHAT was whoever proposed this thing thinking! Take one of the easiest and most non-restrictive permits in the country and screw it up for everyone.... epic FAIL

 

[Car Ramrod]

WHAT was whoever proposed this thing thinking

They wanted to be able to carry in another state that benefited them.

 

[ModernGunner]

I'll get one if it passes.

As far as training: Sorry, I believe everyone SHOULD be trained in the proper use and safety of firearms.

MORE importantly, I fervently believe that everyone should be able, and required to demonstrate a proficiency with firearms before they're allowed to OC or CC in public. If they can't hit what they shoot at, I have to question whether that person is then a greater asset or a greater liability to the public, which is where they're carrying that weapon. If they can't hit what they shoot at, in reality they're not an asset to themselves, and likely a liability to others.

The problem with not having such a 'requirement' (of proficiency) is that there are those who will simply and consistently refuse to train themselves, refuse to demonstrate they've acquired the necessary skills not to be a liability to others, yet still demand the same opportunity. That simply doesn't wash.

Do these same people drive without a driver's license? Do they work at a skilled job (Welder, Boilermaker, Electrician, Lawyer, Doctor) with some form of 'licensing' and some demonstration of their skills in that chosen profession? Would they allow me to come work in their profession or work at their company without some sort of knowledge / training FIRST, and also require a demonstration of my skill sets that qualifies me to get the same job and pay they have? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL NO'.

Would I not only be required to have the appropriate 'license', somehow demonstrate my skill sets for that job, but perhaps also be REQUIRED to join some union / association in order to receive the same benefits? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL YES'.

And, I have as much right to earn a living as I or THEY do to carry a weapon in public places. Earning a living, as good of one as I can, is NO 'less' a right than being able to carry a weapon. Truly, ANY person that's a member of a union / bar / association affiliated with their job OR hold's a valid driver's license cannot be anti-licensing / qualification without being, at some level, hypocritical, can they?

So, if the 2-tier licensing is passed, I'll simply do what I'd do if I wanted to join such a profession or work for such an employer. I'll meet (or exceed) whatever training / education / licensing is needed and meet (or exceed) whatever demonstration of skill sets is needed.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Spanky46151]

I'll get one if it passes.

As far as training: Sorry, I believe everyone SHOULD be trained in the proper use and safety of firearms.

MORE importantly, I fervently believe that everyone should be able, and required to demonstrate a proficiency with firearms before they're allowed to OC or CC in public. If they can't hit what they shoot at, I have to question whether that person is then a greater asset or a greater liability to the public, which is where they're carrying that weapon. If they can't hit what they shoot at, in reality they're not an asset to themselves, and likely a liability to others.

The problem with not having such a 'requirement' (of proficiency) is that there are those who will simply and consistently refuse to train themselves, refuse to demonstrate they've acquired the necessary skills not to be a liability to others, yet still demand the same opportunity. That simply doesn't wash.

Do these same people drive without a driver's license? Do they work at a skilled job (Welder, Boilermaker, Electrician, Lawyer, Doctor) with some form of 'licensing' and some demonstration of their skills in that chosen profession? Would they allow me to come work in their profession or work at their company without some sort of knowledge / training FIRST, and also require a demonstration of my skill sets that qualifies me to get the same job and pay they have? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL NO'.

Would I not only be required to have the appropriate 'license', somehow demonstrate my skill sets for that job, but perhaps also be REQUIRED to join some union / association in order to receive the same benefits? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL YES'.

And, I have as much right to earn a living as I or THEY do to carry a weapon in public places. Earning a living, as good of one as I can, is NO 'less' a right than being able to carry a weapon. Truly, ANY person that's a member of a union / bar / association affiliated with their job OR hold's a valid driver's license cannot be anti-licensing / qualification without being, at some level, hypocritical, can they?

So, if the 2-tier licensing is passed, I'll simply do what I'd do if I wanted to join such a profession or work for such an employer. I'll meet (or exceed) whatever training / education / licensing is needed and meet (or exceed) whatever demonstration of skill sets is needed.

Pretty simple, really.

Sorry, but I believe your beliefs are mistaken. Rights don't require any qualification and should only be able to be abridged through legal due process. I continue to be dismayed by those, like you, who claim to know best on how the rest of the unwashed masses should earn access to our Constitutional guarantees. I'm thinking you may feel more at ease in CA, CO or NY.

 

[nate1865]

I'll get one if it passes.

As far as training: Sorry, I believe everyone SHOULD be trained in the proper use and safety of firearms.

MORE importantly, I fervently believe that everyone should be able, and required to demonstrate a proficiency with firearms before they're allowed to OC or CC in public. If they can't hit what they shoot at, I have to question whether that person is then a greater asset or a greater liability to the public, which is where they're carrying that weapon. If they can't hit what they shoot at, in reality they're not an asset to themselves, and likely a liability to others.

The problem with not having such a 'requirement' (of proficiency) is that there are those who will simply and consistently refuse to train themselves, refuse to demonstrate they've acquired the necessary skills not to be a liability to others, yet still demand the same opportunity. That simply doesn't wash.

Do these same people drive without a driver's license? Do they work at a skilled job (Welder, Boilermaker, Electrician, Lawyer, Doctor) with some form of 'licensing' and some demonstration of their skills in that chosen profession? Would they allow me to come work in their profession or work at their company without some sort of knowledge / training FIRST, and also require a demonstration of my skill sets that qualifies me to get the same job and pay they have? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL NO'.

Would I not only be required to have the appropriate 'license', somehow demonstrate my skill sets for that job, but perhaps also be REQUIRED to join some union / association in order to receive the same benefits? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL YES'.

And, I have as much right to earn a living as I or THEY do to carry a weapon in public places. Earning a living, as good of one as I can, is NO 'less' a right than being able to carry a weapon. Truly, ANY person that's a member of a union / bar / association affiliated with their job OR hold's a valid driver's license cannot be anti-licensing / qualification without being, at some level, hypocritical, can they?

So, if the 2-tier licensing is passed, I'll simply do what I'd do if I wanted to join such a profession or work for such an employer. I'll meet (or exceed) whatever training / education / licensing is needed and meet (or exceed) whatever demonstration of skill sets is needed.

Pretty simple, really.

I strongly disagree.

I suppose you likewise support limiting peoples' ability to speak or communicate before they pass a third party's qualification exam? After all, Hitler caused a lot of people to die with the persuasive words he used to get power and tell people what to do with their weapons.

It's for the children.

ETA: We have this idea that all men are created equal and are presumed innocent before proven guilty. So, we don't start revoking freedoms - especially those given special recognition in the Bill of Rights - because we presume they are going to do something evil.

 

[MTC]

They wanted to be able to carry in another state that benefited them.

Nailed. His real motive became more obvious in post #189 in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/the_legislation_of_the_2nd_amendment/251671-2013_legislative_session.html

As noted before. In nearly every thread where someone who lived here has advocated for a state-mandated "training requirement", the real reason turned out to be for their own personal convenience when visiting or traveling through Ohio.

 

[MTC]

MORE importantly, I fervently believe that everyone should be able, and required to demonstrate a proficiency with firearms before they're allowed to OC or CC in public. If they can't hit what they shoot at, I have to question whether that person is then a greater asset or a greater liability to the public, which is where they're carrying that weapon. If they can't hit what they shoot at, in reality they're not an asset to themselves, and likely a liability to others.

The problem with not having such a 'requirement' (of proficiency) is that there are those who will simply and consistently refuse to train themselves, refuse to demonstrate they've acquired the necessary skills not to be a liability to others, yet still demand the same opportunity. That simply doesn't wash.

Do these same people drive without a driver's license? Do they work at a skilled job (Welder, Boilermaker, Electrician, Lawyer, Doctor) with some form of 'licensing' and some demonstration of their skills in that chosen profession? Would they allow me to come work in their profession or work at their company without some sort of knowledge / training FIRST, and also require a demonstration of my skill sets that qualifies me to get the same job and pay they have? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL NO'.

Would I not only be required to have the appropriate 'license', somehow demonstrate my skill sets for that job, but perhaps also be REQUIRED to join some union / association in order to receive the same benefits? We all KNOW the answer is 'HELL YES'.

And, I have as much right to earn a living as I or THEY do to carry a weapon in public places. Earning a living, as good of one as I can, is NO 'less' a right than being able to carry a weapon. Truly, ANY person that's a member of a union / bar / association affiliated with their job OR hold's a valid driver's license cannot be anti-licensing / qualification without being, at some level, hypocritical, can they?

Sure they can. A job is not a right. Nobody owes you - or anyone - a job. Nobody owes you a living. Nobody owes you a damn thing.
You are, however, arguing for the licensing of a specifically enumerated, fundamental, constitutional right.

If you have to apply for permission/authorization/license/permit, you do not have a right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infringed through statutes mandating licensing/background checks/registration, etc., and you want it to remain that way or become even more so. You are a proponent of gun-control laws.

Pretty simple, really.

Yes, it is.

 

[T2D4]

...After all, Hitler caused a lot of people to die with the persuasive words he used to get power and tell people what to do with their weapons...

when you resort to hitler analogies, you've lost the argument.

 

[R.G.Gray]

If you have to apply for permission/authorization/license/permit, you do not have a right.
Amen! Think about it....all LTCH holders have asked permission once, now they want you to ask again (like a dog for a treat).

 

[Bunnykid68]

when you resort to hitler analogies, you've lost the argument.

Except, that even with the Hitler analogy he is still correct though

 

[Viper1973]

In today's political, anti-gun climate... It's absolute lunacy for ANY of us to even suggest doing anything with our current LTCH system. It just opens up a can of worms and gives politicians the ability to write in more restrictions and hoops to jump through and even more later on.

Why take something that's already relatively easy to get, fairly well recognized, available non-expiring and virtually hassle-free and screw with it! Any one wanting MORE reciprocity already has several options available to them that are completely independent.

Since this piece of legislation is now out of the Senate and into the House, ALL of us need to start ringing our legislators phones off of the hook and get them to kill SB555 before we all get screwed over.

In a different political climate when they're not already trying to kill our rights it may be worth considering, but DEFINITELY NOT NOW!

 

[Hammerhead]

ModernGunner - Freedom is scary.

Viper - The only thing that needs to be done to our current licensing scheme is to eliminate it entirely. How? By reminding the legislature that if they won't do it for us, then we'll get a judge or jury to do it. How can we get a judge or jury to do it? By arguing with Murdock v. Pennsylvania applies equally to all rights guaranteed by the Constitution.