States comparison / Open Carry / Licensing

[jtdet01]

Question: Any others arrive to Indiana from other states and compare states for licensing requirements, open carry laws, concealed carry laws, etc.

I grew up in Indiana, moved to Michigan for many years, and moved back to Indiana.

I recieved my CPL(Concealed Pistol License) from Michigan before coming back to Indiana and got my LTCH. Michigan does not restrict open carry, rifle or handgun. License required for concealment of pistol. Michigan CPL requirements were a little stricter for getting CPL and that CPL is recognized (reciprocity) by more states than Indiana's LTCH.

While the debates are going on about new laws, I wanted to open a discussion of comparison of states' laws. I certainly do not believe we need more laws. I believe in light of recent events, new laws will be discussed and we should have a fair amount of knowledge about what may be considered and discussed.

Other questions to discuss:

Why does Indiana require a license to open carry?
In my opinion, openly carrying a firearm is clearly the Right to Bear Arms of any citizen. (Of course, felons and such lose rights.)

Why would Michigan consider open carry different than concealed carry, but Indiana considers open carry the same as concealed carry?
In my opinion, carrying a firearm (openly or concealed) would be in line with the Right to Bear Arms, a right to any citizen. Open versus concealed should be legally equivalent as in Indiana. (Of course, felons and such lose rights.)

Why is Indiana's LCTH not 'recognized' with reciprocity in all other states*?
The problem seems to be that all states believe that some licensing is needed and they determine the requirements differently and they draw the line differently. (* Of course, Illinois and some other states have it all wrong)

In my opinion, there should be some training requirements and some licensing, which is recognized across all states. However, where do we draw the line?

Are there other significant differences in laws from states that may be discussed during these recent discussions of new laws?

 

[Bubbajms]

This thread belongs in "Carry Issues" or something, not general firearms discussion.. Mod?

 

[lovemywoods]

It's been moved.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why does Indiana require a license to open carry?

Because in 1935 Indiana adopted part of the Uniform Firearms Act which was a model statute from a law school faculty lounge that required a license to carry a handgun.

From pre-statehood to 1935 a license to open carry was not required but from 1820 to 1935 concealed carry was prohibited unless one was travelling.

Why would Michigan consider open carry different than concealed carry, but Indiana considers open carry the same as concealed carry?

Because Michigan adopted a different statute.

Why is Indiana's LCTH not 'recognized' with reciprocity in all other states*?
The problem seems to be that all states believe that some licensing is needed and they determine the requirements differently and they draw the line differently. (* Of course, Illinois and some other states have it all wrong)

Because Indiana is not aggressive in seeking comity agreements and because such agreements require a lot of work. It took me from 2001 to 2005 to complete the Texas-Indiana agreement. Don't make me re-tell the problems I had with Texas!

In my opinion, there should be some training requirements and some licensing, which is recognized across all states. However, where do we draw the line?

Training and licensing is not recognized across all states.

Are there other significant differences in laws from states that may be discussed during these recent discussions of new laws?

Could you please restate this question? I have no idea what you are asking here.

 

[jtdet01]

Kirk, thank you for your well-informed answers. The answers are very valuable to this discussion, which is what I am looking to get started.

I am really interested in the 'rational' of the existing laws. As you pointed out that Michigan adopted a different statue, I am interested in the reasons why one versus another.

Thanks for pointing out "its a lot of work" to establish the reciprocity agreement between states. I did not realize we have somebody so connected with these agreements.

I expect the national debate of gun laws will use the differences of states' laws as a reason for federal regulation and restrictions.

I am asking for perspectives from others about the differences from state to state?

 

[conan1rice]

im not going to complain about Indiana's law. We are one of the few states that allows me (19 yr old) to carry and still has a lifetime license.

 

[Bill of Rights]

im not going to complain about Indiana's law. We are one of the few states that allows me (19 yr old) to carry and still has a lifetime license.

We are the only state with a lifetime license. To the OP, the reasons are varied. We are recognized by state governments as being "permitted" to carry (and don't get me started on the impropriety of an official, governmentally-issued "permission slip" for which I have to pay) in 28 states, including our own.

AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO,
FL, GA, ID, IN, IA,
KY, LA, MI, MS, MO,
MT, NH, NC, ND, OK,
PA, SD, TN, TX, UT,
VT, WI, WY

Of the remaining 22, one, IL, currently has no recognition of ANY right to carry, even for its own citizens. Ten (CA, CT, HI, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI) recognize no other state, but have a method in place for their own to carry, though navigating that process is difficult, expensive, and restrictive. Of those, eight will issue a non-resident permit. CA, HI, NY do not.
Of the remaining eleven, most cite a training requirement or a fundamental difference in our laws, with ours not being as strict as theirs. One, (WA) however, cites as a reason they don't recognize our LTCH is that we have the temerity to issue it to people under the age of 21. Never mind that they don't have to recognize it for those individuals, the mere fact that we would issue a LTCH to someone who obeys the law but with whom they don't agree should carry by sole reason of age means they don't recognize us.

Sure, we could change our laws to be more strict... But that's an appeasement strategy. What if the new laws still were not strict enough for their liking? At what point do we say, "No. We will no longer restrict any further." Draw the line where we are and let them change toward liberty; when you sit down to negotiate what you already have, you've already lost.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am really interested in the 'rational' of the existing laws.

The rational? Do you mean "rationale"?

The rationale or motive is always race. Control of The Other, whether that Other is Italian, Chinese, African-American, a Republican, inter alia.

In the South the rationale was repression of slaves and freed Blacks--the antebellum Slave Codes, Jim Crow, suppression of Republicans which fought against the Klan--the armed wing of the Democrat Party, etc.

In the Midwest the rationale for anti-carry laws, e.g. Indiana's prohibition of concealed carry or Speedway's anti-concealment ordinance, were the suppression of violence among butternuts (Southerners that immigrated North for work, both before the Civil War and after WWII) and the attempt to suppress organized and semi-organized crime (bank robbers, e.g. Dillinger). Thus Indiana adopted part of the Uniform Firearms Act in 1935 in the midst of the bank robbery activity throughout the Midwest.

In the East the rationale was to suppress immigrants (e.g. New York City's Sullivan Law was designed to repress Italians as they were cutting into the rice bowls of the Irish). In the West anti-carry laws were motivated by hostility to Chinese, free Blacks fleeing West (e.g. Ronnie Raygun's signing the Mulford Act to disarm Black militants).

As you pointed out that Michigan adopted a different statue, I am interested in the reasons why one versus another.

Because the Michigan legislature chose to go another way. Not being snarky, but just that simple.

In the 1930s there were a lot of different model statutes being passed about including the Uniform Firearms Act, Uniform Pistol Act, inter alia. Michigan chose something else.

Thanks for pointing out "its a lot of work" to establish the reciprocity agreement between states. I did not realize we have somebody so connected with these agreements

After Steve Carter won election in 2000, I contacted a fellow Lafayette attorney who just happened to be Steve Carter's best friend and roommate in law school. I asked for an introduction and took it from there. I thought Arizona's agreement was a familiar model for Texas-Indiana.

Mr. Carter, NRA A+ rated, was extremely cooperative and diligent on this issue.

Of the remaining eleven, most cite a training requirement or a fundamental difference in our laws, with ours not being as strict as theirs.

Of my many conversations with the Texas Department of Public Safety, Indiana's lack of training was NEVER mentioned. Not once. DPS frustrated me to no end by their continual fixation on irrelevant points.

DPS: "Indiana recognizes carry licenses from the Baltic States!"

KF: "Yes, but Texas does not have to, we only want you to recognize your fellow state of Indiana."

DPS: "But if Indiana recognizes Estonia, Texas will have to do so!"

KF: "How do you figure that?"

DPS: "It is in the Constitution . . . somewhere."

[That is one of the more coherent conversations that I had with DPS]

DPS had such feet of clay on reciprocity that the Texas legislature transferred the reciprocity authority to the Texas Attorney General in 2004. This helped us tremendously.

 

[kludge]

Why does Indiana require a license to [STRIKE]open[/STRIKE] carry?
In my opinion,[STRIKE] openly[/STRIKE] carrying a firearm is clearly the Right to Bear Arms of any citizen.

Fixed.

 

[rnmcguire]

It's all BS because the 2nd Amendment is my license/permit/whatever you want to call it. Unfortunately our government has infringed our right to bear arms and gotten away with it for the most part. Our founding fathers gave us the right to carry firearms and they didn't say we needed a piece of paper or any training before hand.