Indiana HB1029 - LTCH identifier on driver's license

[Bill of Rights]

I hear you, I'm trying to compromise. I think most people on both sides have forgotten the meaning of that word!

Compromise: verb - settle a dispute by mutual concession. Example: "in the end we compromised and deferred the issue", to meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal,make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; give and take


Back on subject with respect to OK, yes, the 8 hr course is part of the application process. It's also part of the FL process (I have that one too). Both are shall issue states. The shall issue requires that an issuing authority provide the permit without bias or discretion. It does not remove the requirement for the applicant to meet defined, objective criteria such as fingerprinting, background checks, and/or proficiency training prior to the issue of the permit. In other words, if you complete your part of the process, the state SHALL issue your permit.

Compromise is when you give some and I give some to each get a part of what we want. However, when you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost. Here's a compromise: You vote to pass this and I will guarantee you will never get my vote again, and I will make sure 35,000 other Hoosiers know what you did so you'll never get a vote from them either. Not only that, I'll make sure whatever business you're in outside the legislature, once your ass is back in the private sector, never sees one bloody dollar of mine. I hope you voted big on medicaid and services for the homeless, as you're about to join them if you vote for this.

As to the shall issue process, that there is something to issue at all that you shall have in order to be "allowed" to lawfully exercise a God-given and Constitutionally-protected right is already a step away from individual liberty.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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?

Because it's no one else's business, including a LEOs. If you have a reason to ask me about whether or not I have a gun on me, ask me. If not, MYODB. If I deserve a ticket for something, issue it and let's both be on our ways. If you think I'm going to lie to you when you ask, and you decide you have PC or RAS to search me, that's your prerogative. I'm not winning any argument with you at the side of the road. With the deck stacked that high in your favor, I'm not giving a millimeter.

If you wonder why, look up Daniel Harless.

He sure thought must-inform was a good idea!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[drillsgt]

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.

i'm all for training, i've done a lot of it myself but not mandated. I'd wager a good amount of these stories we see everyday about people successfully defending themselves did not have "formal" training as we think of it. In the end you don't need to give the beard 800.00 plus 1500 rounds of ammo to survive and even then it's never a guarantee (I wouldn't mind giving tmacs a few dollars though). I taught the course in MI and made good money at it and was fortunate to have an attorney friend to help out. In MI an attorney or POST certified individual has to teach the law portion, I was allowed to teach it myself in one county but not in others I worked in. It worked out well for us but it was just an additional hoop to work through if you're an instructor, we don't need that nonsense here.

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

Does this training requirement for second amendment rights come before or after the 20 hours of grammar lessons to exercise your first amendment right?

Perhaps we should have our religion of choice required to be on our license too. It'll make the brown shirts job easier when they decide who goes on the train.

 

[Roadie]

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.

You are making the same mistake anti gunners make.. It's Well Regulated MILITIA, not well regulated PEOPLE nor well regulated ARMS..

Not to mention, Well Regulated at the time of the Founders meant "In Good Working Order", not "Following Government Instituted Rules"

 

[Roadie]

Compromise is when you give some and I give some to each get a part of what we want. However, when you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost. Here's a compromise: You vote to pass this and I will guarantee you will never get my vote again, and I will make sure 35,000 other Hoosiers know what you did so you'll never get a vote from them either. Not only that, I'll make sure whatever business you're in outside the legislature, once your ass is back in the private sector, never sees one bloody dollar of mine. I hope you voted big on medicaid and services for the homeless, as you're about to join them if you vote for this.

As to the shall issue process, that there is something to issue at all that you shall have in order to be "allowed" to lawfully exercise a God-given and Constitutionally-protected right is already a step away from individual liberty.

Because it's no one else's business, including a LEOs. If you have a reason to ask me about whether or not I have a gun on me, ask me. If not, MYODB. If I deserve a ticket for something, issue it and let's both be on our ways. If you think I'm going to lie to you when you ask, and you decide you have PC or RAS to search me, that's your prerogative. I'm not winning any argument with you at the side of the road. With the deck stacked that high in your favor, I'm not giving a millimeter.

If you wonder why, look up Daniel Harless.

He sure thought must-inform was a good idea!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Does this training requirement for second amendment rights come before or after the 20 hours of grammar lessons to exercise your first amendment right?

Perhaps we should have our religion of choice required to be on our license too. It'll make the brown shirts job easier when they decide who goes on the train.

 

[SteveM4A1]

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.

You really need to read up bud. Start here, it is an excellent, factual article.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[actaeon277]

I hear you, I'm trying to compromise. I think most people on both sides have forgotten the meaning of that word!

Compromise: verb - settle a dispute by mutual concession. Example: "in the end we compromised and deferred the issue", to meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal,make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; give and take


Back on subject with respect to OK, yes, the 8 hr course is part of the application process. It's also part of the FL process (I have that one too). Both are shall issue states. The shall issue requires that an issuing authority provide the permit without bias or discretion. It does not remove the requirement for the applicant to meet defined, objective criteria such as fingerprinting, background checks, and/or proficiency training prior to the issue of the permit. In other words, if you complete your part of the process, the state SHALL issue your permit.

OK, but if grandma doesn't understand the self defense laws of her state, and cant hit the broad side of barn enough to pass a CCW test, then I'd be happy that she's not packing heat in public until her aim's better and she knows when she can and cant exercise the option of lethal force. There's nothing to stop her from having a gun at home in the meantime.

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.

You are making the same mistake anti gunners make.. It's Well Regulated MILITIA, not well regulated PEOPLE nor well regulated ARMS..

Not to mention, Well Regulated at the time of the Founders meant "In Good Working Order", not "Following Government Instituted Rules"

In good working order/equipped.


So, i guess rjh would be ok with people being killed because their training was going to someone not NRA certified, but has been safely shooting for 30 years.
I guess I shoulda let an ex gf get killed by her husband, cause she didn't have the money right away for a class, and couldn't wait even longer for a class.
And the friend of a friend who's bf was having steroid rage. Silly me. Shouldn't have taught her either.
Not knowing the law. Takes a lot to teach "TO PREVENT YOURSELF FROM BEING KILLED".

I'm all for voluntary training, and recommend it to the people I teach.
But mandatory?

How about this.... Before asking for mandatory training, you must be subjected to someone irrational and stronger than you, trying to kill you.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Compromise"

 

[actaeon277]

And has anyone looked at what some places require for training? Knowing about flintlock rifles.....
I like history, I like guns. But WTF would someone using a glock have to know about a flintlock?


Do states with mandatory have less accidental shootings or less accidental felons? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet NO.

How about the costs, are poor people not allowed defense?
Read about Emily Miller in DC. Her fees were as much as the gun.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I'd say $125 is unreasonable for something that both my state's and country's constitution is supposed to protect. That is a lot of money in ammo I could use for my training...

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Not a fan.
how about we adopt bmv policies like arizona who have lifetime driver licenses instead?

 

[Bfish]

Who is the best person to contact to express our disdain for this? Obviously senator or rep but in all seriousness who should I go to in order to get the farthest/most effect.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I've moved this to the 2a forum.
My assumption is there will be lists made soon enough, and everyone will help to get the word out, to contact your reps

but for now:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/legislators/

 

[pudly]

If you want to contact your state reps, you can find their names and contact info here:

Indiana General Assembly, 2015 Session

 

[brotherbill3]

Well said to all who said "NO" on SB 48 (training garbage) and "NO" on HB 1029 (DL garbage)

and thank for helping point out extra reasons for "NO" ... not that I was ever gonna say "maybe" to either. you all just helped remind me of more NOs.

 

[brotherbill3]

If you want to contact your state reps, you can find their names and contact info here:

Indiana General Assembly, 2015 Session

Actually - you want to start with the Committee Chairmen (persons?) and Members where these will be discussed - BEFORE the full legislative body votes.
- The bills and committee lists are available at the same link. ... more later.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what this means.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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?

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.

You know, this is a small example that ties into a discussion in another thread regarding the FOP and their seemingly reliable support for all things that expand government and/or intrude on peoples' privacy.