Indiana HB1029 - LTCH identifier on driver's license

[brotherbill3]

YOUR IMAGC - Legislation Update for the Day

LINK to IMAGC POST: https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/744695435622354

Again - please like and share etc if you're on Facebook.
(or to other venues, forums and what not that you may use)
The goal is to spread the word and educate those who support the cause and pull those who should into the cause.


Thanks for tips and important stuff for the commentary (this thread) and to clarify: when I wrote "LEO's can call in ..." I know they can look it up on the in car laptop computer in some/many/all? areas . ... or contact dispatch and the info comes from the ISP data base.


THE POST / LEGISLATION:


- - IGA 2015 - HB 1029 – “BMV Documentation Indicating a Handgun License” or Showing LTCH Status on your Indiana Driver’s License

Digest Summary:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1029#

• Provides that an individual must indicate on an application for or a renewal of a driver's license, permit, or identification card whether the individual possesses a handgun license (license).
• Requires the bureau of motor vehicles (bureau) to verify whether the individual has a license by contacting the superintendent of the state police department.
• Requires the bureau to place a notation on the individual's driver's license, permit, or identification card that indicates that the individual possesses a license.
• Makes a technical correction.

While I can see the “good intentions” of this legislation, I am also reminded of the old saying that: “The road to (a bad place) is paved with good intentions.” Yes, this bill would eliminate the need to carry your separate LTCH; although this is NOT a current requirement, having been eliminated several years ago. It would make it more ‘convenient’ for officers to check your status; because it is shown; though that makes it no more ‘reliable’; unless you are also required to update your DL-ID with any change to your LTCH status. Currently, officers can call or have their dispatch call / verify the current status of an LTCH via the ISP database.

Convenience is great, as is officer safety. But at what cost is this convenience? We do not have a “legal requirement” (codified) that we must inform an officer we are carrying, though it may be a good idea – in SOME situations. We are not opposed to law enforcement doing their jobs, safely; certainly it is a dangerous profession, and we have family and friends serving as LEOs. And while IMPD has issued a policy statement not to disarm citizens lawfully carrying; not all departments follow this, and some officers have been known to disarm and disassemble a lawfully carried weapon, for little reason.

Also of concern are several other factors. Indiana has a privacy requirement, such that citizens LTCH status is not public information. This prevents the news media and the general populace from spreading a “who carries” list – we saw this occur in New York Last year. Why would we now want to alter that? Putting this information on a driver’s license opens up a whole arena of who can view this info, without consent or need. Information cannot be so readily shared, and yet be private.

Along the same lines, think of all the times you utilize your driver’s license as simply “Proof of Identification”. Using a credit card, or buying any number of items; at the pharmacy, liquor store, bank or any other number of places. Most of us probably have filed and provided our ID as we apply for or start a new job. Employers are prohibited from asking if you own or carry a firearm, as it applies to the ‘parking lot’ provisions in the IC. With this law, they would not need to ask. I personally do not hide that I own guns, shoot or hunt; and have not worked where ownership has been an issue. But they have no need to know if I have an LTCH or carry a firearm on my own time.

Similarly – we have seen reports of folks in other states (less friendly to our 2A rights) being subjected to questionable searches for having a “pro-2A” bumper sticker. Imagine being pulled over for a minor traffic infraction or a warning, providing your ID and the officer seeing that you are an LTCH holder. Some states that would automatically trigger a search, even if you are not in possession of a firearm.

Let’s not forget, we are subject to “permit / license” to carry a handgun. To obtain this right (or is that privilege?) we undergo scrutiny that is at best a questionable excess of our “4th amendment” rights to searches/seizures, there being no cause or proof provided that we have committed a crime. We do this voluntarily (at the moment) to provide a positive defense against the crime of carrying a gun (which is supposed to be a protected right!?!?!?) Providing our status as an LTCH holder to all anyone who requires to see our driver’s license, when it is used as our “government issued ID” is not in keeping with any of the ideals of our republic.

I will try to provide a sample letter to the committee chairman / members opposing this shortly, I the comments. (Unless someone else wants to provide an example. Thanks!) I will also try to note / update you if this is going to be considered, as we watch the committee calendars.

Please LIKE / SHARE and COMMENT – so we can get the word out and prevent more slippery slope infringements to our rights with ‘good intentions’.

--- BB3


Sponsor: Rep. Doug Gutwein, R, Dist.16 https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/legislators/legislator_doug_gutwein_992/

Committee: Roads and Transportation
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/committees/roads_and_transportation_1700

Committee Chairman: Rep. Edmond Soliday, R, Dist 4
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/legislators/legislator_edmond_soliday_864/
(Email: h4@iga.in.gov)

 

[EOD Guy]

No thanks. I will be contacting my state rep on this.

 

[AndersonIN]

Keep it coming guys/gals............Just got off the phone with Rep. Gutwein's office and you could hear the voice change when I told him what I wanted to talk about. By the end of the conservation he did say that they'd gotten a great deal of response!!! LOL

Then I explained to to him "What I think it is, is an attempt to pacify liberals and Democrats to show them Oh look at how much I'm working with you to garner a votes or assistance with something down the road." I said "Look I have enough problems in my own district with my liberal Democrat Terri Austin voting on anti gun bills and I don't need Republicans trying to appease them."

Then I got the typical Rep. Gutwein is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment Rights yada yada yada.

Keep those call and letters coming!!!!!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

We need to get aaay out in front of this one!

Just called Gutwein's office. Asked to speak to someone familiar with the proposed bill. He said that would be him. He said what are your questions? I said I just have one; why?

He had no idea. Left my name address and phone for a response.

Anyone want to guess when that will happen?

Next up. My rep and senator.

ETA: Talked to Rep. Bauer's office. Dolly (His LA) asked if I were kidding. She asked me to call Gutwein's office. I explained that I did and his LA (Legislative Assistant) had no idea. She was amused by that.

She took my name and number and will email Gutwein to answer me.

Still no reply so I'll be on the phone again tomorrow.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Keep it coming guys/gals............Just got off the phone with Rep. Gutwein's office and you could hear the voice change when I told him what I wanted to talk about. By the end of the conservation he did say that they'd gotten a great deal of response!!! LOL

Then I explained to to him "What I think it is, is an attempt to pacify liberals and Democrats to show them Oh look at how much I'm working with you to garner a votes or assistance with something down the road." I said "Look I have enough problems in my own district with my liberal Democrat Terri Austin voting on anti gun bills and I don't need Republicans trying to appease them."

Then I got the typical Rep. Gutwein is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment Rights yada yada yada.

Keep those call and letters coming!!!!!

Did you ask him why?

 

[AndersonIN]

Did you ask him why?

Oh, yes and the assistant said "I think it's so the police can be aware that the individual has a weapons permit." And I said "And?" And he replied "And what?". I said do you think that this proves that the individual has their gun on on them in the car? Don't you know that the police have access to that information now? He replied Yes I think they do. (Probably from prior calls I bet LOL) Then I asked if they had any statistics as to the # of policemen shot during car stops by individuals that have a license to carry? Of course he said no! So I further asked So your telling me this Rep. is requesting a law that he doesn't even know if a need exists for it?

Then we got into the reason why I thought he did it stated above!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Talked to Gutwein's L.A. again this morning. As stated above, it's purpose is to "let police know". I explained to him that it's already tied to the LE database. I asked him to have Rep Gutwein reconsider. It's a solution searching for a problem since LE already knows. Also explained to him that it's also going to inform my bank teller, the clerk at the grocery store, the airlines, etc., etc., etc.

He said the bill will be assigned to the Roads and Transportation committee chaired by Soliday. Called them and voiced my objection. He said the bill hasn't been assigned to them yet but he took my info and objection, asked me to watch for it on the schedule.

ETA: House main phone: 800-382-9842

 

[AndersonIN]

Talked to Gutwein's L.A. again this morning. As stated above, it's purpose is to "let police know". I explained to him that it's already tied to the LE database. I asked him to have Rep Gutwein reconsider. It's a solution searching for a problem since LE already knows. Also explained to him that it's also going to inform my bank teller, the clerk at the grocery store, the airlines, etc., etc., etc.

He said the bill will be assigned to the Roads and Transportation committee chaired by Soliday. Called them and voiced my objection. He said the bill hasn't been assigned to them yet but he took my info and objection, asked me to watch for it on the schedule.

ETA: House main phone: 800-382-9842

My biggest issue is that this is also an avenue into your home life. I've seen on here were doctor's are now asking (especially if you have children) "Do you have a gun in the house?"! Much less your home owner's insurance company etc.

 

[chipbennett]

Email I just sent to the bill's authohr, Rep. Gutwein:

Representative Gutwein,

I am writing to inquire regarding HB 1029, which you authored, that will add an LTCH endorsement to the Indiana driver's license. I am curious what the purpose of this legislation is?

I am concerned about the impact to privacy for LTCH holders if this bill were to take effect. The driver's license is the de facto identification for most adults, and must be presented in many situations that do not involve firearms or the need to know that one may be carrying a firearm.

What public good is HB 1029 intended to serve, that would take precedence over what I would consider to be obvious and substantial privacy concerns?

Thank you in advance,

Chip Bennett

(Automated response I received before I could even post this reply)

Thank you for contacting me via e-mail. I appreciate your willingness to share this information with me. Due to the extremely large volume of e-mail my office receives daily, I have begun sending this automatic response.


Rest assured that your concerns matter to me. My legislative staff and I review all e-mail and letters I receive from our district.
If you have requested publication information or assistance with a state agency, your request will be handled in a timely manner.
If you have included comments about specific legislation, I will carefully consider your views as legislation is debated and considered for final passage on matters that concern our district and state.


Sincerely,
State Representative Douglas Gutwein

 

[chipbennett]

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?

Did you complete your government-mandated training regimen before exercising your right to free speech? Or religion?

Training, of course, is inherently a good thing. The problem is that the government has no business mandating it in order to exercise a natural, God-given, and constitutionally protected right.

 

[chipbennett]

I figure we pick our battles. Is an 8hr NRA basics course that much of an ask? if it gives some peace of mind to those who dont like us carrying guns, and keeps them off our backs (wishful thinking huh?)

I couldn't care less about the peace of mind of those who wish to disarm me and otherwise to deny my freedom to exercise my natural, God-given, and constitutionally protected rights. They can go pound sand, and then take a long walk off of a short pier.

And yes: mandating a training course is a bridge too far. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Let's mandate government-approved training for every other constitutionally protected right, and then we can talk.

On a more practical/less philosophical level: it is an infringement. I travel for work, and we have two children. The ability for my wife to attend an 8-hour training course is virtually nil. Would such a law pass, she would be prevented from exercising the right to keep and to bear arms, merely because our schedule does not easily permit time for her to get away for such a training course.

In Missouri, only I got my CCW, because of a similar requirement. When we lived in Ohio, we both went to the course, but my parents had to drive from Indy to Cincinnati, to stay with the girls for the weekend, so we could attend the two-day, 12-hour course together. Thankfully, in Indiana, we didn't have to deal with such nonsense.

 

[chipbennett]

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

What room does "shall not be infringed" leave for compromise?

Just curious.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Grandma's liberty trumps your comfort level.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

Obvious privacy concerns are obvious.

Or not, apparently.

It's nobody's business but my own whether I am carrying a firearm, or whether I hold a LTCH. The driver's license is the de facto identification for every aspect of daily adult life. Thus, an LTCH endorsement would force me to divulge otherwise private information to people who should not be privy to such information.

 

[chipbennett]

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 would know one way or another as an LEO. So how does a DL LTCH endorsement help you? (Obvious answer: it doesn't, because the information is redundant.)

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Joe Redneck's liberty trumps your comfort level, just as with Grandma.

And there seems to be a glaring lack of blood running in the streets of States that issue permits with no training requirements.

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.

In the constitution, "well regulated" means "property trained". But the individual right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon a "well regulated militia". The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute, and is a prerequisite to the existence of a well-regulated militia.

So, "well regulated" does not include mandatory CCW training (which is 95% legal training, not firearms training), fingerprints, background checks, or application fees. And even if "well regulated" did include such things, it would not empower the government to force those things on individuals in order for individuals to exercise their absolute, shall-not-be-infringed right to keep and bear arms.

 

[MikeDVB]

Hopefully somebody will post up when it does get assigned to committee so I know, for sure, who to call.

 

[injb]

Hopefully somebody will post up when it does get assigned to committee so I know, for sure, who to call.

The bill page here shows it as referred to Roads and Transportation (if you click on the "Bill Actions" section).

This page shows the bills assigned and current agenda for that committee - as you can see 1029 is on the "Bills Assigned to this Committee" list. It looks like they are meeting Wednesday but 1029 is not on that agenda.

 

[MikeDVB]

Thanks. I think it best I give them a call anyways.

 

[oldpink]

"Compromise"

I want to marry this JPEG and get it to have my kids, especially the "anime eyes" part.
Classic!