Indiana passes Constitutional Carry

[JcMack]

Yesterday 3/22/2022 signed the bill which puts Constitutional Carry in place 7/1/2022. We've had carry with a permit virtually forever. It appears we here in Indiana are 1 of 19 states with " Red Flag" laws. I would have much rather seen the Red Flag law repealed than allow any idiot over 18 carry a gun.
Before you jump on my case I would ask you to consider that NW Indiana in the last 20 years has become an extension of Chicago's South Side. Chicago's worst vermin are moving here and bringing with them their ghetto attitude about right and wrong. Cons. Carry is a major threat to everybody because there is no training or even the slightest gun knowledge involved to carry a gun and our over worked State and local LEO's don't need the additional grief and danger.

 

[B_Still]

The bad guys who are gonna gun violence are gonna gun violence regardless of the law. Just won't be able to jail them for possession anymore, but how often does that happen anyway?

I don't know the formal studies, if there are any, but I don't think Const. Carry would have any direct effect on crime rate.

I grew up in Indiana and now live in Virginia. With a CHL. Had a traffic stop on a military base, and after running my tags the officer came back to my window and the first thing he said was "Where do you keep your gun?" Caught me a little off guard, and it felt like an invasion of my privacy. It's a felony to have a gun on a federal installation, so OF COURSE I did not have it with me. Felt like a test. As if I had a duty to inform him that I am a CHL holder even if I had no gun in the car.

Don't assume every LEO is a 2A fan.

Does your new law include a "duty to inform" a LEO that you're carrying? That's the other side of the public safety issue: a stressful LEO encounter with an anxious LEO who assumes the worst, as they should to protect themselves, but might not handle it well.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[M29since14]

I understand your concern, but also agree that B_Still's point of bad guys doing what they please regardless of the niceties of law should be overriding, IMO. Indiana has never required training to carry a handgun, at least that I know of. I'm not sure that is such a good thing. I do understand the concern about who gets to say what is pass/fail in a training scenario, and how that could be used onerously. It's a tough call, in that consideration. I think I favor training, and not just training in name-only. Give it some teeth. Especially in the area of our laws. (Shooting and gun handling should be addressed, too, of course.) I suppose that is a moot point, now.

I support the legislation, mainly because I think our federal Constitution should mean what it says. We're supposed to be a "nation of laws," but if we don't follow the Constitution it's a pretty hollow claim. There has been too much "interpreting." Apply the Constitution as written. If it no longer applies, there are clearly defined methods for changing it, or deleting anything there, but please don't trample on it with this (bleep!) living document BS!

 

[ladder13]

Congrats Indiana

 

[B_Still]

I understand your concern, but also agree that B_Still's point of bad guys doing what they please regardless of the niceties of law should be overriding, IMO. Indiana has never required training to carry a handgun, at least that I know of. I'm not sure that is such a good thing. I do understand the concern about who gets to say what is pass/fail in a training scenario, and how that could be used onerously. It's a tough call, in that consideration. I think I favor training, and not just training in name-only. Give it some teeth. Especially in the area of our laws. (Shooting and gun handling should be addressed, too, of course.) I suppose that is a moot point, now.



I support the legislation, mainly because I think our federal Constitution should mean what it says. We're supposed to be a "nation of laws," but if we don't follow the Constitution it's a pretty hollow claim. There has been too much "interpreting." Apply the Constitution as written. If it no longer applies, there are clearly defined methods for changing it, or deleting anything there, but please don't trample on it with this (bleep!) living document BS!

I respect your opinion on training requirements, and having a military background I generally agree on the importance of training. But your two paragraphs are contradictory.

2A is no less articulated in the Constitution than any of the other rights. Should the government infringe upon my 1A right until I've been "adequately" trained on how to wield it.

Everyone should get training on gun ownership. But a statutory requirement to do so is an infringement. My opinion.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Rustyt1953]

Welcome #24 from #23.

 

[M29since14]

...Everyone should get training on gun ownership. But a statutory requirement to do so is an infringement. My opinion.

In good conscience, I cannot disagree. That is what makes the compulsory "training issue" such a sticking point, isn't it? I've got no solution.

In Indiana, we don't do it. I'm OK with that. I was lucky enough to have a father that taught me the importance of safe gun handling, a respect for others, the wisdom of staying out of any sort of conflict, and keeping my contact with police to a respectful but ABSOLUTE minimum (which means, in old fashioned speak, "behaving"). I fear a lot of today's youngsters haven't had the benefit of that type of "training."

We will see how this goes. I'm not expecting any sort of paradigm shift in public safety after the law takes effect. The bottom line here will always be that if you do something foolish with a firearm, the consequences that have always existed will still exist. Hopefully most people will understand that.

 

[walter o]

Here on the gun forum we are gun people .We know safety and firearms ability to kill or Mame .Some people do not know this and need to be taught or at the least schooled about the consequences of shoot ing another person,Not talking gun control but common scene.I know and understand the O.P.thoughts and as it has often been stated on this forum common sense is not common

 

[John_M52]

Indiana LEO's are split on the issue. A traffic stop with an armed citizen is common, but you know it when either they inform you or when you run their DL. With the new law you won't know until/unless they inform. Officers are concerned for their own safety, but also for the safety of others when they make a stop or whatever. At least you used to know if a law abiding citizen was potentially armed. Criminals won't care. I'm not sure this moves the needle. One thing for sure, Indiana is responsible for all gun crime in Chicago.

 

[John_M52]

As far as training requirements go....queue the slippery slope... but I wish everyone was trained.

 

[B_Still]

Indiana LEO's are split on the issue. A traffic stop with an armed citizen is common, but you know it when either they inform you or when you run their DL. With the new law you won't know until/unless they inform. Officers are concerned for their own safety, but also for the safety of others when they make a stop or whatever. At least you used to know if a law abiding citizen was potentially armed. Criminals won't care. I'm not sure this moves the needle. One thing for sure, Indiana is responsible for all gun crime in Chicago.

"One thing for sure, Indiana is responsible for all gun crime in Chicago."

Just curious... how so?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Llance]

"One thing for sure, Indiana is responsible for all gun crime in Chicago."

Just curious... how so?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

Just my guess B_Still, he was speaking with his tongue firmly locked to the side of his cheek. In the Chicago area all gun crime is blamed on easy access to guns in NW Indiana. The mantra of the liberals of Chicago's political's
.