IC 35-47-2 regulates the carrying of handguns and provides a procedure for obtaining a license to carry a handgun. Part of the procedure is that the Superintendent of the Indiana State Police Department makes a determination that the applicant is a “proper person” within the meaning of IC 35-47-1-7. There are a number of criteria for being a “proper person” — mostly referencing the nature of one’s prior criminal history and mental stability. One of the criteria under the current law is that the applicant must not have a record of being an “alcohol abuser” which is defined under IC 35-47-1-2 as “an individual who has had two (2) or more alcohol related offenses, any one (1) of which resulted in conviction by a court or treatment in an alcohol abuse facility within
three (3) years prior to the date of the application.”
SB 36, introduced by Sen. Tomes, would make alcohol abusers eligible as “proper persons” to obtain a handgun license. (Drug abusers would still be ineligible.) Additionally, the licensing process includes a review of the application by the law enforcement officer receiving the application. Sen. Tomes’ bill would forbid the application itself or a subsequent interview by the investigator from questioning the applicant about “any criminal convictions the applicant may have for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the law concerning operating a vehicle while intoxicated.”
Nothing mixes quite like handguns and alcohol.
Senator Tomes takes the early lead for the 2016 session for head-slapping bills introduced so far. He had months and came up with the bathroom bill and this gem.
I’d like to think that this level of inanity would be hard to top, but I’ve read this blog long enough to know there’s always some legislator out there with something even dumber tucked away in their mind.
So instead of a 3 year wait, one must wait the 1 year to be off probation to apply for the LTCH?
OK, hard to see how those 2 years matter.
In view of the fact that Indiana ranks 18th in deaths from gun violence, and the Washington Post’s report that people carrying guns killed 27 and injured 63 on Christmas Day, maybe it’s time for someone to get rational in this. Waving the 2nd Amendment like it’s a sacred justification for carnage doesn’t make sense.
Now, some may object that these laws seriously limit one’s right to own and carry, and that they “won’t work”, which means, I guess, that we wait for some magic bullet that will stop the violence without addressing gun ownership. Lots of luck on that one. So far the only condition that works in that regard is when you are dead. In any case, they wouldn’t have stopped the woman who blew away her “cheatin'” husband or the other murders, but training may prevent accidents (its lack is a big cause in gun death) and drunks walking around with guns when drunk. Maybe Indiana can go from 18th to 19th in gun violence.
“Washington Post’s report that people carrying guns killed 27 and injured 63 on Christmas Day”
And so? How many of the Murderers and Attempted Murderers possessed valid licenses to carry?
“maybe it’s time for someone to get rational in this.”
Maybe make Murder and Attempted Murder illegal? One cannot interfere with a civil right to make a crime more illegal.
“Waving the 2nd Amendment like it’s a sacred justification for carnage doesn’t make sense.”
Article I, §32, not the Second Amendment is at issue.
“I guess, that we wait for some magic bullet that will stop the violence without addressing gun ownership.”
I guess we won’t interfere with civil rights to fight crime. Liberties trumps the convenience of the State.
“but training may prevent accidents (its lack is a big cause in gun death) and drunks walking around with guns when drunk.”
So training prevents accidents? Great then we owe it to the chillllldren to make firearms training mandatory in public school and mandate a firearms skills test before a driver’s license and graduation from high school. Maybe written section, field strip an M16 and range proficiency test.
As well, we need to make training an above the line tax deduction to encourage the citizenry to undergo firearms training. Let’s make gun school tuition, travel, guns and ammunition a tax write off!
On the chance that this may help in the discussion, I counted and examined (insofar as possible) the circumstances behind the gun violence in Indiana during the last 72 hours. During that time, in the U.S. there were 238 incidents where a gun was shot, usually involving injury or death. Of the 238, 7 were in Indiana, three of which were in Indianapolis and the others in the northern tier of the state. All were males. One of the guns was a shotgun. One person was killed and six wounded. Of those was a 12 year old boy, wounded in a gun accident in LaPorte. While I couldn’t rule out gang activity with a couple of these, the DOJ says that about 13% of U.S. gun violence is gang-related.
One of the seven injuries/death was accidental. I suspect that comprehensive training may have prevented it. Nationally, at present one gun death out of 100 is defensive/protection, and 2% are accidental. The majority of gun deaths (2/3) involves a suicide. With all the hooha about “protecting my family”, yet only 1% being associated with it, one would think that a 2% prevalence of accidental gun injuries/deaths would promote some legislation. Right now, in Indiana you don’t have to know which end the bullet comes out of to get a gun license.
My source for this: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org.
“7 were in Indiana”
How many of the 7 had a valid license to carry a handgun.
The shotgun is out as one does not need a license to carry a shotgun about.
The range accident is out as a license is not needed there. So, of the remaining 5, how many had a valid license to carry a handgun?
“One of the seven injuries/death was accidental. I suspect that comprehensive training may have prevented it.”
Really? How do we make that mental leap.
The range accident involved reloaded ammunition. The proposal has absolutely no language about reloading safety. Zero language. How would “comprehensive training” under this bill help here?
It was an accident. Primer seated too high or a double charge of powder in the case. Boy hurt his hands and was taken to the hospital to ensure there was no infection when they picked the brass out of his hands.
“2% prevalence of accidental gun injuries/deaths would promote some legislation”
Great, let’s do mandatory gun training in public school and tax deductions. That will work far better than interference with a civil right by creating a racist barrier to entry.
“Right now, in Indiana you don’t have to know which end the bullet comes out of to get a gun license”
When you applied for your church license in Indiana, did you have to know anything about the 5 Pillars of Islam or which foods are kosher and which are not?
Kirk, I’m glad you had the details about the range incident. The purpose of my report was to provide some data for the discussion, not to be adversarial. I provided the information that I had, and at this point can’t tell you how many had licensed weapons, etc.
I guess I was unclear about the comprehensive training. That would include all kinds of information about best way to store guns, never leaving them in areas where others can pick them up, and practical information about keeping guns safe–not just learning how to fire them–and learn about their problems as well as strengths. The idea that because you own a gun doesn’t make you the Lone Ranger. I think you are aware of the gun advocacy groups which emphasize the importance of understanding the strengths and weakness of guns and the strengths and weakness of people using them. There has, in fact, been a great deal of research regarding the use of guns in stressful situations among law enforcement personnel. The conclusion is that training has to be continuing.
About the idea that owning guns is a civil right: The ones who post on this site are usually very knowledgeable about such things, but gun ownership rights and most freedoms in our Constitution are not unrestricted. It’s been said that a society is best when freedom is regulated. The most recent ruling was, interestingly enough, when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case where Highland Park, Illinois, banned the use of rapid fire weapons.
Finally, maybe I’m dense, but I don’t understand the connection between attending a church and knowing about how to use a deadly weapon.
“That would include all kinds of information about best way to store guns, never leaving them in areas where others can pick them up, and practical information about keeping guns safe–not just learning how to fire them–and learn about their problems as well as strengths.”
Certainly illegal if forced upon us, It is a barrier to entry of a civil right.
That’s why I prefer making guns, ammunition, safes, training all above the line tax deductions.
“The conclusion is that training has to be continuing.”
All the more reason to make training a tax deduction, that way there’ll be an incentive for continual training in that such training reduces the gun owners tax liability.
“About the idea that owning guns is a civil right:”
It’s not an idea; it’s the law. The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that guns are a civil right.
“but gun ownership rights and most freedoms in our Constitution are not unrestricted.”
As long as we treat all civil rights the same and subject all regulations to strict scrutiny.
The most recent ruling was, interestingly enough, when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case where Highland Park, Illinois, banned the use of rapid fire weapons.”
When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case that is not a ruling. Highland Park had to do with cosmetics (how guns look), nothing to do with “rapid fire weapons”.
“Finally, maybe I’m dense, but I don’t understand the connection between attending a church and knowing about how to use a deadly weapon.”
Both are constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has held that such barriers to entry in the First Amendment are illegal. Barriers to entry as to the right to arms are also illegal.
“Barriers to entry as to the right to arms are also illegal.”
So the requirement to have a license in Indiana to carry a handgun (IC 35-47-2-1) should be illegal?
The license itself is a tax and thus illegal under Minneapolis Star Tribune, but one would have to the Supreme Court believe that all animals are equal. That will be a slow grind. I think we shall see a political solution in that 35-47-2-1 will soon be repealed by the General Assembly.
The same General Assembly that finds it is not a barrier to voting to enact a photo ID law?
Also, about the racist barrier to entry… care to explain?
Correct, the Indiana General Assembly.
The license to carry a handgun/gun control is merely the codification of racism and converting a civil right into a privilege. Indiana acknowledged this in Schubert. The Supreme Court admits this in Dred Scott, the Southern and Midwestern courts admit that gun control is racism in many opinions.
Kirk, this is the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on this blog. The gun cases recognize the right of the state to impose reasonable regulations on firearms and their ownership. Read a case, get a clue, and crawl back to this site with your tail tucked between your lame legs
I always appreciate the comments of knowledgeable persons.
I had no idea truth upset you so. I am sorry but gun control is nothing more than racism codified. Courts admit it, you can do the same.
So I did a small amount of reading about Schubert.
In that case, best I can tell, the law was that the State Police Superintendent could decide if someone truly had a need to own a gun to defend themselves.
So if being a granted a firearms license was dependent on passing an 8 hour licensing class and demonstrating competence in use of a firearm – would that be an inappropriate barrier to entry for owning a weapon?
We’ve already decided it’s OK to force people to have ID to vote, which to me is quite interesting given the 24th Amendment and that voter fraud isn’t an issue now that Charlie White is off the streets.
I mean, I’ve never seen an Onion headline about voter fraud stating “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”.
That is not what Schubert holds at all. Schubert holds that that the license to carry a handgun cannot be discretionary on part of the State Police.
“That is not what Schubert holds at all. Schubert holds that that the license to carry a handgun cannot be discretionary on part of the State Police.”
Which is what “State Police Superintendent could decide if someone truly had a need to own a gun to defend themselves” means.
The other questions remain.
As far as ways to minimize gun violence, “make it a tax write-off!” is pretty laughable when it comes to solutions.
Making gun training a tax write off reduces gun violence by reducing the number of gun accidents, which I thought we all agreed that training reduces the number of accidents. Reducing accidents is hardly something to laugh about.
You could say the same about mandatory training. Which, best I can tell, you find is an illegal barrier to entry to carrying guns along with gun licenses.
“The NRA, as an organization, has been providing firearms training, competition, and safety programs since its inception in 1871.”
Time to step up.
Yes, time for the General Assembly (and then Congress) to step up and change the tax code. Let’s save children and make training an above the line tax deduction. Let’s hope it is this session.
I wonder if there is any research or survey data that would suggest how many people would take advantage of voluntary training as a deductible expense. For that matter, it should be ongoing because the research on stress, weapon use and fear is constantly changing. Furthermore, lots of things are deductible but there is limited participation. Professional CEUs are deductible, but professionals only participate because they would lose their license if they didn’t.get it. As Joe says, the NRA has theoretically encouraged it since 1871, and you can see what impact that has had.
The NRA isn’t exactly known for encouraging gun research.
I recall their solution to the Newtown school shooting was arming school staff and monitoring students and staff.
For a bunch of freedom lovers, it sure does seem that they’re calling for an armed police state. I visited El Salvador a decade ago, with people with guns everywhere. It didn’t exactly seem like what America should aspire to.
“As Joe says, the NRA has theoretically encouraged it since 1871, and you can see what impact that has had.”
A very substantial impact to be certain. The NRA spends millions on training, has 100K instructors and has educated over 25M children on gun safety with Eddie Eagle. It is the NRA that is training the police and military, not Mikey Bloomberg.
“I wonder if there is any research or survey data that would suggest how many people would take advantage of voluntary training as a deductible expense.”
Civilian gun schools now educate tens of thousands of students per year. This number will only increase when guns, ammunition, tuition, travel, inter alia all become an above the line tax deduction.
Kirk, there is no truth to the absurd statement that gun control is codified racism. I know that it echoes among a handful of gun fetishists that are logic resistant, but it does not provide support. But you have reached the point in the argument where I will no longer dignify incredulous statements. Like the Arab folk saying goes, “when dogs bark, don’t bark back.”
“there is no truth to the absurd statement that gun control is codified racism”
Courts all over the land recognize the fact that gun control is racism. They are just honest about it, unlike you,
“The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population in practice has never been so applied.” Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941).
“The Southern States have largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the Negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions.” State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409 (1920).
If Supreme Court across the land can discover that racism is the reason that “gun control” is implemented, you can read and discover this fact too.
Incredulous? I can give you court opinions and a myriad of law review articles. You can give me your opinion,. Like the Arab folk saying goes, “you accuse others of the symptoms of your own disease.”
“This number will only increase when guns, ammunition, tuition, travel, inter alia all become an above the line tax deduction”
That’s hype I meant some objective data. Doesn’t have to be with guns. Could be anything. Before tax deductible vs. after tax deductible.
And are you sure you want to argue with Carlito and Joe? To borrow a metaphor, I don’t know if you have enough bullets in that gun.
“Doesn’t have to be with guns. Could be anything. Before tax deductible vs. after tax deductible.”
You mean like the numerous studies on the mortgage deduction for example?
“And are you sure you want to argue with Carlito and Joe?”
No arguing, merely correcting. They did not know and now they do.
Correcting? That’s cute but dangerously off-target.
Perhaps the answer is Swiss model of mandatory military service if gun ownership is something we are to keep in America.
You ever post here before under the moniker of “Freedom”?
Kirk isn’t “Freedom.”
Also, and for what it’s worth, I understand disagreeing with his positions on gun control, but I happen to know Kirk in person and do know that he has a great deal of expertise with firearms and firearm law.
Doug,
I know ex-Marines of whom I have no issue with carrying weapons. Why? Because I know they are trained and have a great deal of expertise with proper use of guns and situation management.
If I knew Kirk’s background, I’d probably feel the same way about him carrying a gun.
I have talked to race car drivers who say that they’re more scared of dealing with people on public streets doing 45 than they ever are on a racetrack at 200mph. Why? They know everyone on the track knows what they’re doing and they have business being out there. They’re not going to be a danger to other drivers or the paying spectators, and if they ever demonstrate they are a danger, their ability to drive is taken away quickly.
If you feel the need to carry a weapon, I think you should properly know how to use it and when not to use it. I find it hard to buy that we should get away from firearms licensing completely, and that training cannot be mandatory.
Following your comment on what an environment looks like when everyone carries a gun, and the comments from race car drivers. When you add a gun into the picture, it’s not just someone exercising his rights. It changes the perceptions and attitudes of the shooter and the ones around him. Even among trained police officers, the research clearly shows that stress influences accuracy, reaction time, and judgment and memory of the events.. What happens when someone has never even shot a gun but thinks he’s the Lone Ranger and pulls it in a crowd? The claim that I’m just exercising my right hardly even touches the depth and width of the problems that can lead to instant death of innocent people by well-meaning but ignorant people. To that, add the angry, fearful and conspiratorial legions who buy and own the answer to their fantasy of power over others. We have only begun to understand what all this means. It’s far from being just a legal issue.
“Because I know they are trained and have a great deal of expertise with proper use of guns and situation management.”
Again with the barriers to entry in order to exercise a civil right.
Indiana’s LTCH was implemented in 1935 without a training requirement. For 80 years we have been without a training requirement and the General Assembly has taken no action to require one. A lack of a training requirement in order to exercise a civil right is not a problem.
If you think training is a worth goal, why use force against citizens? Why not give people an incentive to undergo training voluntarily?
Sure, let’s pay for the lost revenue with insurance for gun owners. Or bullet taxes. I’m guessing that’s not your idea of revenue neutrality.
In all seriousness, if you want to own a gun, but can’t be bothered to figure out how to properly use the gun, it’s my opinion you should probably second-guess gun ownership. You’re not going to be able to effectively defend yourself, and carrying and using the weapon improperly makes you a danger to others.
There’s no one forcing you to own a gun. Even those of us in the Indiana militia cannot be forced to bear arms. Indiana Constitution, Article 12, Section 4: “No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia”.
Demonstrating competence with a device with the capability to kill others is not restricting your right to own a gun.
“Perhaps the answer is Swiss model of mandatory military service if gun ownership is something we are to keep in America.”
You want to re-establish the draft? Ok, have Congress debate your conscription project but I fail to see what that has to do with preventing firearm accidents.
Perhaps mandatory gun ownership is the better course. A bill to require firearms ownership or people would pay an increasing fine.
Joe, I really like that. If you insist on carrying a gun, you need to learn how to use it in the military, and actually become part of a real militia, not the Al-Shabubba group currently taking over the closed visitor center with a gift shop.
Everyone, male and female, over 17 years old in Indiana is already in the militia.
I fail to see what belonging to a militia has to do with Article I, §32 or preventing firearms accidents, but your idea is moot as we are already in a militia.