Indiana HB1029 - LTCH identifier on driver's license

[Bennettjh]

The 2A says nothing about X hours of training to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about having a license either but that's another argument.

I had to show my DL when I used a check today. It wasn't any of the cashiers business if I have a LTCH or not. I don't see what the point is of having an identifier on the DL is but I'm against it.

 

[pudly]

Seems that allowing people to hold gun ownership against people who they previously had no way to even suspect might carry is the point. Concealed means concealed, unless someone finds an excuse to ask for ID. I can't think of any other contentious political item that we are forced to display on state issued ID. Why this one?

 

[rjh78]

Wow. Do you really think Granny's going to be taking long range shots at random people who may or may not be a true threat?

Most elderly folks I know are more concerned with a close range attack. Because they are generally smaller, weaker, slower a criminal has no qualms about getting up close and personal with an elderly victim. In those types of cases I think the threat of great bodily harm or death is pretty clear. Do they really need an 8 hour class to make that type of determination.

So lets replace grandma with Joe or Jane Doe who thinks they know everything, or thinks carrying a gun protects them magically without training, or thinks they can take it anywhere, or doesnt think about background when shooting, and so on. I've seen plenty of middle aged guys who barely know which bit to hold. I'm looking at it not as an infringement on 2A, but as a little bit of common sense and public safety.

re: Training Requirement

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People always seem to forget the first bit. What is some training (and fingerprints and background checks and application fees) if not regulation?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm enjoying intelligent debate with fellow gun lovers.

 

[Rhoadmar]

So lets replace grandma with Joe or Jane Doe who thinks they know everything, or thinks carrying a gun protects them magically without training, or thinks they can take it anywhere, or doesnt think about background when shooting, and so on. I've seen plenty of middle aged guys who barely know which bit to hold. I'm looking at it not as an infringement on 2A, but as a little bit of common sense and public safety.



People always seem to forget the first bit. What is some training (and fingerprints and background checks and application fees) if not regulation?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm enjoying intelligent debate with fellow gun lovers.

How many times have these things happened in states that don't require training?

 

[bwframe]

LTCH should not be tied to the driver's license database at all. Including through police dispatch, how do we get that undone?

Contact ISP, it is their database.

I could be mistaken, but I believe it will take more than private individuals to undo this move that ISP has made without the people's approval. I believe it will take legislative action similar to removing our LTCH information from being public record?

 

[pudly]

How many times have these things happened in states that don't require training?

Don't expect a straight answer to this. There are several constitutional-carry states. Much like the "concealed carry will lead to blood in the streets" claim, we haven't seen elevated gun-related problems in those states.

 

[halfmileharry]

It reduces the need to carry another piece of identification. I guess, I can see the argument of wanting to keep it out of view of the public (because an ID is required for a lot of things). I looking at it from a LE perspective, as if you are identifying yourself to us, we would know one way or the other.

My EXTRA piece of Identification is a small pink credit card sized piece of paper.
It's NOT hard to carry or keep handy.
I got pulled over 2 years ago in Hamilton County and the nice polite officer that pulled me over asked me IF I had a gun on me. Not any other statement to make his introduction.
HE KNEW I had a LTCH, and I had a LTCH in my wallet.
NO NEED FOR MORE LE intrusion and power over the masses.

 

[Alamo]

Texas went through both of these issues (handgun license notation on Driver's License and training) over the past couple of legislatures.

There was a bill to add a notation to the TxDL that would let it serve as a CHL as well, and I do believe the motivation was some constituent asking his rep to cut down on the number cards and picture-taking and whatnot. It ran into the same objections listed in this thread as well. I certainly would not want my DL to ID my CHL status. Especially to law enforcement. A Texas peace officer can find out relatively quickly by running the DL number, but AFAIK, out-of-state LE cannot do this quickly (like at a traffic stop). I think it has been clearly documented that LE in some states are NOT constitutionally hip with the 2A, and any hint of a firearm will get you a car search and other hassles. Not all LE are created equal. Nor does every Tex, Dick, and Harriet who has a legit need to ID me also have a legit need to know I can carry legally.

(Btw, I have never seen an Indiana LTCH -- do they not have pictures on them? Texas CHL looks just like the DL, plastic card with a pic).

Anyway, the bill died a quiet death and I doubt it will be resurrected.


As to training: I also wasn't aware until now that the Indiana LTCH did not require training (at least I don't see it listed on the ISP website). I would fight very hard not to add this to the process. Yes I think people should be trained, but the risk of a government choke point is far too big (see Washington, D.C.), and yes it is obnoxious to create another barrier to exercising a constitutional right.

Moreover, from a policy standpoint, I think those who want to inflict a government required training requirement should come up with some actual data and studies that show such a requirement has anything at all to do with actual performance by LTCH (or CHL) holders. I would have to check, but I believe the TSRA (Texas State Rifle Association) lobbyists pointed out to our representatives and senators with the fact that there's been nothing to show that state-required training does anything positive. You can spitball straw grandmas all you want, but looking at the experiences of the various states, I don't believe anyone has shown that a lot of training, a little training, or no training at all makes any difference in crimes committed by licensees, or bad shoots, etc. It doesn't mean that no one will do something ignorant, but that the number of ignorant acts between a "trained" LTCH population and an "untrained" one is insignificant.

This was used to whittle down Texas's training requirements. Originally it was something like 10 hours of classroom + range time for initial issue, and four or five hours classroom for renewal (I think I had to shoot for renewal as well). We weren't able to eliminate it all together, but it has come down by increments. Nowadays the initial class is only four hours + 50 rounds, and renewal is online, certify you know the law, pay your $$, and get your plastic. And no surge in uneducated CHL-totin' grannies missing their barns.

 

[cmr13]

Bad idea, I don't like it.

 

[96firephoenix]

CHL looks just like the DL, plastic card with a pic).

This I would not mind seeing. I believe MI's licenses are like this...

 

[printcraft]

...... I'm looking at it not as an infringement on 2A, but as a little bit of common sense and public safety.

Common sense gun restrictions.......

No, making ANY "requirement" to exercise a right is not the answer.
Encouraging education and training is the only answer.
The only legislative thing that should be done in this regard is giving tax credits for firearms classes.
Period.

Beyond that, you can't train out all the stupid out of a stupid person.
How many people drive a 3000 lb. car every day that barely know which way to turn the wheel?
They don't think before they turn in front of that truck that's doing 60 mph toward them and are now pinned under the truck.
I'm pretty sure that was covered in drivers education, and a drivers license is "required" to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[ModernGunner]

The idea of 'compromise' is ' you give something, you get something'. If gun owners 'give' the LTCH designation on their DL, what do they get in return? Nothing that's apparent in that bill.

I believe strongly in 'mandatory' training. Meaning that no one should be carrying a firearm in the public domain without being thoroughly trained in firearms (typically, that's a handgun).

However, perhaps more 'appropriate' is the concept of mandatory qualification, showing a level of proficiency with that firearm. Simply sitting in a classroom, then perhaps shooting a .22LR 10 rounds (a gun they don't carry, or perhaps don't even own) does nothing to further that end.

I MUCH prefer 'voluntary mandatory training'. Meaning that the individual is responsible enough that, having elected to carry a firearm, they've taken it upon themselves to get (or have gotten) the training they need and demonstrated (at least to themself) a high level of proficiency with the firearm they've chosen to carry. Alas, such is often not the case.

I'm fairly sure a .gov / .IN mandatory requirement isn't a good answer. However, 'self governance' doesn't appear to be either as there are many that simply go purchase a gun and carry it, more-or-less 'hoping' they'll know how to use if (god forbid) that time comes.

I have no ready solution for that conundrum.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I just don't see any valid reason to do this. It looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[printcraft]

NO MANDATORY ANYTHING FOR EXERCISING A RIGHT.
LTCH IS ALREADY AN INFRINGEMENT.

Just to be clear.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[CTS]

So, I'll admit I am probably a little more liberal than many of us here on INGO. I am also a businessman. What I see with requiring some training is an opportunity for more revenue for the shooting community. Ranges, the NRA and private firearms instructors stand to benefit from a requirement for training. Plus it wouldn't hurt for some people to get some training. We all know people who rarely, if ever shoot and then they go out and get a LTCH.

When I lived in VA. and they signed the bill to allow CW permits, they required training. I used to teach the NRA basic class so that people could get their permit. It provided sound instruction plus introduced more people to the concept of joining a club and getting involved in the shooting sports.

What am I missing as the downside to this? Or is it just another government intrusion into our lives?

Once training is mandated, the manner of the training can be mandated. Who certifies which instructors can provide acceptable training? Will it be wide in scope...narrow? How much will training cost? If instructors have to go through an expensive state certification program or are forced to maintain a costly license, those costs will be passed along to students. What if they only certify 2 instructors for the whole state and make a rule that only 8 students can be in a class with one instructor...etc. It's a lot easier to get these smaller step by step "safety measures" in once training is mandatory, as a backdoor ban. Illinois for example...

 

[dusty88]

I personally think it's a good idea.

Edit: as far as the latch identifier on a DL. What is the basis of opposition to this?

For one thing, it opens up the possibility of one status influencing the other.

 

[DRob]

Haven't there been several threads here in reference to LTCH info being available to officers when they check a driver's license? If they already have that information, I see no point in putting it on a DL. Merging the info for LE purposes, I'm OK. But not making it visible to the store clerk/bank teller/whomever for the myriad of other occasions for which we must show ID.

 

[MikeDVB]

This I would not mind seeing. I believe MI's licenses are like this...

I wouldn't mind it so long as I'm not obligated to update the picture. If it 'expires' due to the picture being too old then it's not 'lifetime'.

I don't like the idea of the marker on the DL. I could see Law Enforcement liking the idea of it from a 'doing my job' standpoint but personally if I want somebody else that may need to see my ID, such as the nice lady at the front desk of the hotel on my next business trip, to know I potentially have a firearm - it will be when and how I so choose.

 

[Woobie]

As to training: I also wasn't aware until now that the Indiana LTCH did not require training (at least I don't see it listed on the ISP website). I would fight very hard not to add this to the process. Yes I think people should be trained, but the risk of a government choke point is far too big (see Washington, D.C.), and yes it is obnoxious to create another barrier to exercising a constitutional right.

Moreover, from a policy standpoint, I think those who want to inflict a government required training requirement should come up with some actual data and studies that show such a requirement has anything at all to do with actual performance by LTCH (or CHL) holders. I would have to check, but I believe the TSRA (Texas State Rifle Association) lobbyists pointed out to our representatives and senators with the fact that there's been nothing to show that state-required training does anything positive. You can spitball straw grandmas all you want, but looking at the experiences of the various states, I don't believe anyone has shown that a lot of training, a little training, or no training at all makes any difference in crimes committed by licensees, or bad shoots, etc. It doesn't mean that no one will do something ignorant, but that the number of ignorant acts between a "trained" LTCH population and an "untrained" one is insignificant.

This was used to whittle down Texas's training requirements. Originally it was something like 10 hours of classroom + range time for initial issue, and four or five hours classroom for renewal (I think I had to shoot for renewal as well). We weren't able to eliminate it all together, but it has come down by increments. Nowadays the initial class is only four hours + 50 rounds, and renewal is online, certify you know the law, pay your $$, and get your plastic. And no surge in uneducated CHL-totin' grannies missing their barns.

Bravo, sir, well said.

I think training is a great idea. Uncle Sam has bought me a fair amount of it. I'd like to be able to afford some private courses as well. But let's say this proverbial granny mentioned above is on a fixed income, and she can't afford to give Travis Haley a few hundred bucks, buy a plane ticket and several hundred rounds of ammo. Even if we're not talking to that extreme, this is a financial burden we are talking about. So if she can't afford it, is she now SOL? I'm really glad to find out some of you think so. This is a country where we say a $5 voter ID card disenfranchises certain voters, therefore we won't require them. I daresay a lot more damage has been done at the ballot box by dead people than by untrained grannies on the loose with handguns.