Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Indiana Takes First Step To Become Constitutional Carry State

Constitutional Carry is the precedent currently set in 5 states which dictates that a law abiding citizen needs no permission or permit from the government to exercise their God given right to keep and bear arms.

Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, Arizona and Arkansas may have a new state joining their ranks if State Rep. Jim Lucas of Indiana has anything to say about it.

Lucas has introduced House Bill 1144 which would strike down the permitting scheme currently in place and would repeal whole chunks of the nearly 30 pages of laws dealing with carrying firearms.

Most important among them is the “poll tax” that requires law abiding citizens to pay for the ability to exercise their rights.  Colloquially known as purchasing a carry permit.

If this bill passes it will take effect on July 1, 2015.

Lucas puts it rather succinctly as to whom this bill is directed at:

“This is geared toward the innocent person. I want to remove one more obstacle in their path where they can defend themselves.”

For some reason, due process or the notion of being innocent until proven guilty is tossed out when dealing with citizens looking to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  Indiana is looking to take a step to rectify that injustice.

Though I’ve no doubt it will be a tough road to toe.  The reason “why” extends beyond simply having gun control zealots lose their minds over this.  It also comes down to dollars and cents.  You see, Indiana has the 2nd highest ratio of Firearm Carry Permit Holders in the nation behind only South Dakota.  Nearly 600,000 of the 6.5 million hoosiers have a permit.  That equates to about $4.4 MILLION a year in losses to the state coffers.  We know how much politicians hate losing the opportunity to spend OUR money so this bill may get attacked on two fronts.

But if the bill gets through the overwhelming Republican controlled state house and senate, I have a good feeling that Republican governor Mike Pence will sign it into law.  He has a track record of signing pro gun-right bills into law such as signing the law that decriminalizes firearms in school parking lots.  A law that ensures law abiding parents don’t get railroaded when picking up their kids at school while armed with the ability to protect them when leaving.

With Indiana on board that will make Constitutional Carry a reality in 6 states.

That number is significant because that is the same amount of states that require registration of firearms.  But like two ships passing in the night Constitutional Carry states will increase in number with other states having pending legislation and registration states will either stay at 6 or begin to decrease as court cases continue to ebb in the favor of the 2nd Amendment.

 

  • durabo

    When Arizona went “constitutional,” the streets were awash with blood, especially during the NRA annual meeting a few years ago – NOT! Hoosiers should know that an armed society is a polite society.

    • Bullets First

      That’s why these things are so dangerous to gun controllers. When the truth comes out that Constitutional carry states don’t fall into the doom and gloom armegeddon that gun controllers have been crying about for years the emperor will finally be shown to have no clothes.

      • The crime rate in Az. dropped after they enacted concealed carry without a permit.

        • That’s a universal truth for all states in America. The increase to access for law abiding citizens to have firearms is directly related to the decrease in crime.

        • Terry Ward

          Imagine that!lol,people don’t like when people can shoot back or before.

  • Ray Burby

    Here in Wisconsin, we have open carry without a permit, and concealed carry with a permit. Although I have my permit, I would still like to see Wisconsin go this route as well.

  • Josh

    It’s about time. If this thing doesn’t pass, I feel confident there are several state representatives that will be searching for new jobs around the next election.

  • Ben Smith

    I’m mixed on this. I think constitutional carry should be restricted to open carry and we should need a permit to concealed carry. Kind of like Wisconsin or Michigan. My reasoning is, although the bill is directed at the innocent, what about the guilty. With Chicago (a major black market hub) only right across the western line, what are they going to do to distinguish between the “innocent” vs the “guilty ” without some sort of check? Now you may ask what this has to do with open vs concealed carry… A criminal is going to hide his gun if he plans to use it, not display it openly. On the other side of the fence, law abiding citizens will conceal to give the impression to an attacker that they are unarmed to maintain the element of surprise.

    • Bullets First

      Ben, I hear where you are coming from and I once argued for non licensed open carry by stating “carrying a firearm is a right and hiding it is a privilege”. I’m not sure I still completely believe that but There are a great number of states that have the Constitutional Open Carry hybrid you speak of, Pennsylvania for one. Its just that now after giving it a few years to think about it I hesitate ceding any power to the government on which to curtail my rights. If they want to give out free concealed permits w/ a background check for people who ask that might smooth some of my objections though guilty until proven innocent has its own problems.

    • zeus234

      OK the reason you are mixed sounds valid …on the surface. Look at it this way,say you got your criminal and he’s carrying concealed, at some point his weapon is coming out and will be used for no good. Now you have your law aiding citizen, his weapon isn’t coming out except in self defense or defense of others. In other words if the person that shouldn’t have a gun in the first place wants to conceal carry, he is.

    • mcian

      A right is a right regardless the method… it’s still a right.

  • Don

    The only bad thing is if Indiana ends its permit system, will other states “honor” our constitutional carry rights without a piece of paper? I live in Indiana and have my permit and always check other states laws when I travel.

    • Bullets First

      Good point don. The way I see it is that they most likely will do what the other states do (minus Vermont) and issue a permit for those who wish to travel to other states. But even barring that a Utah or Florida permit pretty much covers you for most of the country though I personally do not like the cost or intrusiveness of either of those permits.

    • No they won,t. We have that problem going from Az. to the Ca. border.

    • Gregg Macklin

      Under Article IV Sections 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, ALL States are REQUIRED to honor the CCW issued by other states. When Indiana passes this law the other states have not choice

      • Guest

        Not really. Oregon doesn’t honor any, except Oregon.

        • zeus234

          Not really. Oregon doesn’t honor any except Oregon.

          • PT Schram

            In that case, no other state should recognize Oregon’s wedding licenses, drivers licenses, medical licenses, etc.

            Full faith and credit indeed!

          • zeus234

            And I agree. But yet there are other states that honor Oregon’s.

          • jim

            NYS does NOT recognise other State’s permits and therefore most other states will NOT recognise NY’s. Actually, NYC doers not recognise a NYS permit either! What we need are 2 states: One including NYC and the 5 surrounding counties and the second, the rest of the state!

        • Gregg Macklin

          Constitutionally Oregon is required to. The problem is Oregon and other states have the money to fight it in court and they know it. But that does not change the Constitutional requirement.

      • Dave Hinckley

        Remember, that includes ALL laws passed by ALL other states, including the laws we may not like, like gay marriage.

        • Gregg Macklin

          So you are okay with picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution to enforce? That is no better than Obama

          • Dave Hinckley

            No, If you say that only a CCW is to be honored YOU are picking and choosing. I’m pointing out that if Indiana decides that Article IV Sections 1 and 2 of the US Constitution applies, then it applies to all laws, not just a CCW.

          • Gregg Macklin

            Dave, then why bring up the issue of gam marriage? BTW that is the issue that force ALL states to cave on the CCW issue, and the reason the states have not used that article, section and clauses to enforce nation wide recognition. THEY ARE picking and choosing what they what to enforce.

          • Dave Hinckley

            Because gay marriage is a hot-button issue that makes people see red. It’s ok to force Indiana’s CCW laws nationwide, but not the other way around? Good thing this wasn’t applied to poll taxes and literacy tests as a deterrent to black people voting in Alabama in 1965.

          • Gregg Macklin

            You’re not making any sense. The Constitution says ALL states are REUIRED to honor all public acts. Marriages, drivers licenses, CCW divorces etc. I am not in favor of gay marriages for a host of reasons, but unless and until the Congress changes the Constitution to ban gay marriage all states are required to honor them. When it comes to enumerated Right (the Second Amendment) it requires repeal of the amendment. NEVER happen

          • the confederate

            Which states aren’t honoring homosexual marriages? Which states aren’t giving them the same benefits as a God ordained or, legal marriage?

          • Gregg Macklin

            The question is what states are not honoring CCW issued in other states. CA, OR NY IL OH NC… The list is long and all of them are in violation of the Constitution

          • russellbennett

            A gay union is not a Marriage. My Dictionary defines Marriage as a Ceremony by which a Man and Women become Husband and Wife. How did this Definition get changed. Is there a legal process for changing the meaning of a word. Did some people decide to change it? What happens if a bunch of us decide to change it back

          • Sean Swisher

            Indiana has license to carry handgun permit, not ccw, we can carry concealed or open.

          • Jeff Allen

            Dang gregg just throw your gay butt out for all to see

          • Gregg Macklin

            What are you talking about? The Constitution is specific, if Indiana issues a CCW, Article IV Section 1 and 2 says ALL state MUST honor that CCW. Are you for the Constitution or NOT? Seems NOT. So that means you are no better than Obama.

          • edwin

            There is no constitutional right to own a gun and there never was

          • Gregg Macklin

            Either you are rabid bat crap crazy stupid or attempting to be funny. The man who penned the 2nd Amendment, debated for it, and helped ratify it, along with the all the other were specific and clearly stated that the right to keep and bare arms was a right that the government had no say in curbing.

          • edwin

            the VA Declaration of Rights, which became part of the 1776 VA Const; Article 13
            of the Virginia Declaration of Rights provides:
            “That a well-regulated
            Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper,
            natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of
            peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the
            military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
            power.”
            There is no mention of an
            individual right to “keep and bear arms,” as Adams and Madison meant it, or,
            indeed any “individual” right at all, certainly not one independent of a
            well-regulated Militia. The focus of the article is on the role of the militia
            versus a standing army.
            As for the later US
            Constitution ratification debates, there is no mention in the Virginia debates
            of individuals carrying weapons, or of the need to assure individuals that the
            federal government would not confiscate their arms. The debate was solely in the
            context of whether the government would affirmatively provide arms for the
            militia.
            “Then there’s the original
            Virginia Bill of Rights, the first adopted, that expressed both the colonists’
            allegiance to the idea of a citizen militia and their fear of standing
            armies:
            That a well regulated militia,
            composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and
            safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be
            avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be
            under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Reprinted
            in Sources of Our Liberties 312 (Perry & Cooper ed. 1959)
            There is little doubt that
            this provision of the Virginia Bill of Rights was concerned exclusively with the
            distribution of military power and the proper role of the military in a free
            society. The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear arms.
            [In fact, the word “right”
            or “rights” isn’t mentioned AT ALL! So THEY considered it A RIGHT, of ITSELF,
            that a well regulated militia for State defense merely EXISTED!]
            The first state to adopt
            such language was Pennsylvania, which did so as part of its constitutional
            provision addressing military matters:
            [Let me repeat THAT: “which did so as part of its
            constitutional provision addressing military matters”]
            That the people have a
            right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing
            armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept
            up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and
            governed by, the civil power.
            Other state constitutions
            proceeded to adopt variations of either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The
            states which included “right to bear arms” language did so in the context of
            provisions dealing with military matters.
            [Let me repeat THAT: “did
            so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters”]
            …Thus, there is no
            indication from the history of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders were seeking
            a broad guarantee of the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. On
            the contrary, the expressed intention of the framers was to guarantee that state
            militias remained armed and viable, and the “right to keep and bear arms” must
            be understood as implementing that purpose. The implication of this intention is
            that the constitutionality of a statute regulating firearms should turn on
            whether the statute affects firearms in such a way as to adversely affect a
            state’s ability to raise and maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.”

            —–

    • The answer is no. I can’t even visit family In New York and carry because New York does not recognize my states concealed carry permit.

      • Ehrich Kal-El Hurst

        And new Jersey is worse if you even bring you guns to NJ you get to go to jail

        • johnfromjersey

          Yes, except if you’re rich and donate to the democrat party in NJ, then you can get anything you want here… remember NJ, “the pay to play state”.

      • jim

        Unfortunately, as a 75 year resident of NYS and a retired police officer with 28 years of honorable service, I too can NOT carry in NYC! And I had to apply for, go through the background check and receive a NYS Permit!

  • Pingback: Got my new rig today. - Page 2()

  • mcian

    Way I see it… any law that requires you to ask permission to exercise a right… is a law to be ignored. Shall not be infringed, it’s pretty clear. Why states don’t get it is beyond me. I mean aren’t politicians supposed to be educated?

    • dan

      what about “well regulated ” that’s pretty clear too

      • Well if we use our grammar skills, we can see that those are two separate clauses. 1. The right to a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
        2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms
        These two clauses shall not be infringed.

        • dan

          grammar skills, those appear to be commas to me as to imply a complete sentence but that aside what about our common sense skills. don’t get me wrong, I believe that any law abiding and mentally competent citizen that wants a gun for self defense or sport should have one. I also believe that there should be a way for law enforcement to check to see if a person meets those requirements, if not by a permit then by other means.

          • Derrick Haman

            What are you trying to get at? If you dont believe its a citizens right then licensing shouldnt even be an issue. If you do, its an denial of a right, to have to ask permission. Licensing is really a modern form of control anyways. States, even those that ruled the second amendment didnt protect an individual right to arms, never required a license, they merely prevented concealed carry of certain weapons. They apparently felt it was out of their power to ban the citizens from carrying weapons to defend themselves with, but could control certain aspects of said activity.

          • dan

            I am curious Derrick, do you include the citizens that have demonstrated a willingness and ability to rape, murder, rob, and otherwise injure others as those that have a “right” to carry a gun and if not how would you suggest that we monitor that. I personally don’t believe that “every” citizen has a right to carry or own a weapon because many have shown that their only intentions with a weapon is to cause harm to others. So I ask you once again, does the 2nd include those citizens too?

          • Derrick Haman

            When did you ask me before? The point of the criminal justice system is to contain criminals whose rights are taken away while incarcerated yes? Upon releasing them back into the world they are supposed to be considered rehabbed/paid their debt to society. If they have then they certainly recieve their rights back. If you think theyre to dangerous to be in society then keep them locked up. The right to use weapons is only to be for defensive purposes anyways. If some abuse a right then they are to be punished for said offense. The whole right doesnt get dismantled. The problem with your view is that it takes the right out of the citizens hands and leaves them at the mercy of government. If government may proscribe licensing, then they certainly may set any cost or requirement to said “right”, or may even squash the supposed right out of existence if it apparently sees fit. Besides laws that control the ownersbip and wearing of arms certainly dont affect criminals as theyll choose to ignore whatever said laws are. And the only result of that is that those who dont abuse their “right” are left wholly dependent on government to protect them, and considering a person is as likely to get abused by the police nowadays, ill keep my own weapons for my defense thanks.

          • Scott Lane

            I agree about the criminal getting their rights back once they have done their time.. I believe every one should be allowed to protect their family and their self.. Like me, I am an “Ex” felon, emphasis on the word EX, and I can never own any kind of fire arm under the current restrictions. . I was 18 and did a few stupid things, nothing violent..im 41 now and have been a law abiding citizen ever since.. I got a wife and 4 kids now.. and yet I cant protect them..I think if they are going to restrict individuals then it should only be violent offenders..

          • Joey Owens

            Amen brother!

          • Gregg Macklin

            Well Dan, the author of the Amendment was clear that the Right is an INDIVIDUAL citizen’s right. He said so in private and public letter and in the Federalist Papers. So you can argue comma use all you want the person who authored the Amendment trumps your commas. The rest of your post, What right does law enforcement have in checking on my Constitutional Right? NONE

          • Dave Hinckley

            So if someone who isn’t a fine upstanding law-abiding citizen like yourself, like a criminal about to rob the local Denny’s, is carrying a handgun, no law enforcement person can check to see if he’s ok?

          • Super Gonz

            If he’s “about to rob”, he has not committed a crime. The thought police are no more welcome than the infringement police.

          • Gregg Macklin

            You are using a concept that is anti Constitutional, Prior Restraint. You assume the police have powers of the Occult and can divine in advance who will break the law. The Minority Report in action. But lets say you are right. The cops need to check your wife and daughter to make sure they don’t become hookers, and they need to check rvehicles to make sure you are not a drug runner… The list of possible crimes with everyday items is endless. So what powers will you NOT give the government to ensure we are safe? Shall NOT be INFRINGED was placed in the Amendment because Madison and the rest knew there would be people like you that would try and limit rights for “the greater good.”

          • Dave Hinckley

            No, I’m saying that someone who really shouldn’t have a gun shouldn’t have one. “Well Regulated” was also put in the Constitution, so if you say gun ownership can’t be regulated, then you’re anti-Constitution.

          • Gregg Macklin

            Well regulated does not mean what you imply here. Please read That Everyman Be Armed, the Federalist Papers, and other writings of Madison as well as the other Founding Fathers. It was assumed that a citizen kept himself regulated, a concept that is not understood today when the government awards laziness today

          • zeus234

            Dan you could almost[add emphasis] say yeah good idea but not today. Does the bad guy/girl worry about any law enforcement? No. The bad the criminal or terrorist or what ever you choose to call them today are still going to carry a weapon and be inclined to use it. Where as the law abiding are going to use a weapon only in self defense or defense of others, those aren’t the ones to worry about.

          • Timely Manner

            The problem with the “mentally competent” is that today many are being declared such without going to court and removing an individual right to have a firearm. Gun abolitionists want things like if a person is merely prescribed anti-depressant meds, whether filled & take prescription or not, or diagnosed with PTSD to be automatically not allowed to have access to firearms. In the old days one had to be taken to court to have rights taken away and deemed mentally incompetent. Today, no go. In fact, if a hospital elder advocate, assigned by the hospital, decides you do not have adequate care at home when released, they can keep you from being discharged or force you into a nursing/rehab facility.

          • Kaye Cherry

            …no gun registration pretty much makes it impossible for the police agencies to have any chance to trace murder weapons…and does this also mean that crazy individuals, ex-cons, and kids can carry? that’s nuts.

          • jim

            As a police officer in NYS I recall a situation where a Mentally deranged person shot and killed his Father with a 30-30 rifle and was arrested while chasing and shooting at, his mother running down the street. He had numerous arrests but all were dismissed because “Charlie” wasn’t all there and he was a “Nice Guy”. The owner of the Western Auto Store that he bought the weapon from knew him and his condition but couldn’t refuse to sell it to him!

      • Rob

        Well-regulated means properly functioning, not overwhelmed with laws, according to the vernacular of the time it was written. Examples: “well-regulated thinking” or “well-regulated appetites.” Or do you imagine the Founders would be goofy enough to call for the right to be regulated, then prohibit it in the same sentence?

        Not so clear, is it?

      • ArBeeStL

        What’s clear is your reading comprehension is lacking.
        “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
        It’s the militia, or army, that’s to be well-regulated. What about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand regarding gun ownership?

      • mcian

        Well regulated means trained and proficient. I did look it up. Also looked up what is meant by militia…

        Wrong. As usual you liberals fail to read history and the documents recording it. From the Federalist Papers #46:

        The same Madison who, on June 8th, 1789 stood before Congress and
        declared “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be
        infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
        trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
        country.”

        To which:

        George Mason posed the question “And who is the militia?”

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

        History, facts… they derail you and your liberal ilk EVERY time. Yet
        you keep trying. You know what the definition of insanity is? It’s doing
        the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result.

    • Ehrich Kal-El Hurst

      Just don’t try and ignore those stupid laws in places like NJ. They will put you in jail. I have to make sure.my car is free of Ammo when I cross the bridge into NJ

    • Terry Ward

      polititicians,educated,2 words that never coincide,lol

  • nunnya

    While I do agree that you should have the right to carry a firearm, not an m60 but a real side arm, where in the bible does it say that you’re allowed to carry a firearm? If you want to make a cogent argument for carrying a firearm leave God out of it. Otherwise you sound like a nut ball, gun toting, redneck, crazy person. There is no God given right that allows you to carry a firearm. That is a man made right. Again I support being able to carry a firearm, but bringing religion into it as a backup for your argument is ridiculous. State your valid points and stop bringing religion into it.

    • Tony W Lee

      It does say in the bible to arm yourself to be able to protect yourself so I believe that any person should be able to say it is a God given right….. Luke 22:35-38 we read, “And He said to them, “When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” And they said, “No,nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one. “For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

    • Bullets First

      While it referred to swords and not firearms the bible directly covers the right to keep and bear arms in Luke 22

      “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise hisscrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

      Furthermore our own Declaration of Independence states as much when it says

      “We are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

      So not only is going out armed in the bible, it is also highlighted as an unalienable right given to us by God (or whomever you believe is your creator). How do I know that the right to keep and bear arms is one of those unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration? Because the Declaration goes on to talk about overthrowing tyranny and you don’t do that by talking about it.

      “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      Like I said…you are not going to “throw off such Government” by having a drum circle.

      I hope those are valid enough reasons to for you nunnya to understand why the right to keep and bear arms are a God given right.

    • zeus234

      OK, how about my god given right to own this computer I’m using?
      My god given right to marry what woman I want?
      My god given right to eat what I want and when?
      So if I want to carry a firearm and I’ve done nothing to say I am a danger what is wrong with that? You may call it a god given right but I DO know it’s not bestowed upon me by some government decree.

    • Isaiah

      Not trying to be butt or anything, free will is part of the Bible and with free will it is my god given right to carry firearms.

  • Karissa

    What does this mean for those who use their Indiana concealed carry permit in other states? I’m currently stationed in VA and use my Indiana permit to carry here. Would this law void my permit?

  • Dameyon

    All law abiding citizens of this great nation should be allowed to protect ourselves when traveling from New York to California without a permit .Bet the national cri
    me rate would drop.

  • Rob

    Bonus: that’s rubbing it right in Shannon Watts’ communist face, she lives there. Here’s to you, you gangrenous sack of putrescent excrement.

  • Mark Bigger

    I like this, but be careful if it passes and you travel to Illinois.

  • Nick Leach

    What would this do for non violent offenders?

  • Tony Tomatosauce

    Ok so that means that if its exactly like the 2nd amendment then all states must honor the right of non-violent Felons to also carry firearms as the amendment doesnt prevent nor mention Those who have paid their debt to society and have clean records afterwards to be excluded

  • John Kuczero

    Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued a non-binding opinion
    on July 8, 2013 stating that Act 746 applies only to persons who are
    carrying firearms while “on a journey across or through Arkansas,” that
    open carry technically remains illegal and that a valid permit is still
    required for concealed carry for those who are not traveling across
    Arkansas.

  • Pingback: Indiana Takes First Step To Become Constitutional Carry State()

  • DaleG

    The law may be changing in florida there is a court decision in progress about Concieled fees open carry which will set presidency but this state FLORIDA has a license for everything and they are not cheep they are an offset from no state income tax and a lower sales tax I know Tennessee has no income tax but there sales tax is almost 10%. And Texas has no income tax but I don’t know what there sales tax is I believe Texas has open carry. My permit in Florida is good in Tennessee but I don’t know if there are restrictions and defferencies.

  • Larry H. Gentry

    Someone need to check their information concerning Arkansas law. Concealed Handgun Licenses are still required (unless on a “journey”) of citizens. I’m a retired State Trooper and I have to have my CHL renewed every year…the average citizen has four years. DUH!

  • Larry H. Gentry
  • Andrew

    So if i get this right, the right to carry doesn’t involve any registration or ID. But to exercise my right to vote, I need to register and have an ID. Why then do conservatives support the right to carry with no ID or registration but not the right to vote?

    And “because people commit voter fraud” isn’t a legit response unless you accept the fact that some people will use their weapon to kill or assault someone.

    • Michele Davis

      In order to vote, one must be a citizen; therefore proving one’s eligibility to vote is reasonable.

      • dan

        And in order to carry a firearm one must prove that they too are a citizen and have not forfeited their right through acts of violence; therefore proving one’s eligibility to carry is reasonable

        • Andrew

          It only only applies to the Right when convenient….

    • Mary Curry

      Indiana requires ID to vote. In fact, their voter ID law is the standard by which other States are judged. We have required ID for decades. And it works. If you have a state ID or drivers’ license you can even use the internet to register. Just show up with the letter you are sent and your ID and you can vote.

    • Brian Powers

      You are referring to two different types of rights with totally different contexts.
      The right to bear arms is a right to preserve life by means of self defense and is a God given right. It is not given to us by the Constitution or any law, but rather, the Constitution simply affirms and protects that God given right. The right of self preservation.
      The right to vote is a right granted to us by the type of government our country was founded under. Voting guides the way in which our country is governed.
      God requires no ID for our right to survive, but the government does for our right to direct our country.
      So yes, you got it right, but no, you don’t seem to get it.

  • Michael

    Honestly I don’t understand why everyone thinks you need a CCP. I do believe that there needs to be a way to check if you are mentally stable enough to have a gun and be responsible with it and a way to check your criminal history to see the same thing.

    OH WAIT!! Medical records and criminal records exist already!! I say merge the two data bases, make it so law enforcement can only see those ones and flag certain crimes / mental illnesses / psychotic behavior’s and when a cop runs a search on your social security number if you have any flags then you are not legally allowed to have that weapon and it can / will be confiscated.

    Because if you have done / are diagnosed with any of these red flags then you yourself have given up your constitutional right to have a gun at all times.

    • Donna

      The problem with your logic is that any period of depression that had been documented is more consisted a “mental illness” and thus would disqualify many law abiding responsible citizens. Depression need to be re-classified as either a disorder or medical condition.

  • Justin Williams

    I was under the impression a Utah non-resident permit was contingent on having a resident permit in your home state. If this passes wouldn’t the lack of an IN permit void the Utah permit?

  • Jeff Griebel

    I don’t have a problem with this law. Only morons who think it is a God given right.

  • Kelsey Thompson Cowan

    Row to hoe. Think difficult farmland.

  • Stan Robertson

    I’m all for our constitutional right to carry. That being said, what about training? I’m not comfortable with everyone just carrying around a handgun. I teach carry classes, and some of my students are down right scary, on the lack of knowledge of the gun they want to carry.

  • dan

    I don’t care what anyone says, I know too many people that simply just don’t even have enough common sense to carry a firearm safely. If you want to own a firearm for the defense of family and home fine, But when you walk out your door into society your lack of knowledge, and experience with a weapon puts you as well as the rest of us at risk. Like it or not, rights do come with restrictions. I don’t believe that you should have a permit to carry, I believe that you need a permit to show that you have demonstrated an ability to carry safely and that you have passed the background check.

    • Donna

      You should have to pass a common sense test. ..

  • david k. angell

    Indiana should have a two tier system. 1) Constitutional carry..so you carry your gun in the state of Indiana.. And in Indiana only. 2) License to CCW..Continue the permit, and should you think your going to leave the state and want to take your gun with you, then you buy a permit. This would cover the problem with having a license and being honored by other states.

  • Pingback: Indiana Takes First Step To Become Constitutional Carry State | Free Kentucky()

  • Scott Lane

    I agree about the criminal getting their rights back once they have done their time.. I believe every one should be allowed to protect their family and their self.. Like me, I am an “Ex” felon, emphasis on the word EX, and I can never own any kind of fire arm under the current restrictions. . I was 18 and did a few stupid things, nothing violent..im 41 now and have been a law abiding citizen ever since.. I got a wife and 4 kids now.. and yet I cant protect them..I think if they are going to restrict individuals then it should only be violent offenders..

    • Donna

      Agreed!

  • russellbennett

    Even the people that don’t want to carry are safer because the Criminals don’t know who is carrying and who is not.

    • Bullets First

      Very true russell. But trying to get a gun control zealot to understand that would be like trying to get a sloth to do the jitterbug.

  • carlhoffman

    I hope all will contact their elected in Indiana and encourage them to vote for the right to carry with out a permit. Indianapolis is seeing a lot of killings lately and police cannot be everyplace. State should not be allowed to make money off citizens who wish to exercise their constitutional rights. As a former police officer never was worry about honest law abiding citizens having a firearm.

  • Pingback: URL()

  • Pingback: see page()

  • Pingback: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g7b5u3clUg()

  • Pingback: diyarbakir haber()

  • Pingback: Encasing Matratze()

  • Pingback: slip and fall georgia()

  • Rick Williams

    Art IV. Sec 1,2 is all well and good but look at Vermont, which has no permit process and it is recognized in only 3 states, OK, AZ, AK. The other states, even if Constitutional carry, can or do issue paper CCW’s with fees attached.

  • Terry Ward

    Gays can never be married,Like Russell Bennett said,except its biblical,if you don’t like the bible then it don’t matter to you.Its a vow between a man,woman,and GOD,plain and simple!Has absolutely nothing to do with guns!Marriage is a GOD thing!nothing less.

  • Tom Heitz

    Its called comity clause look it up its too much to type on my phone

  • Tom Heitz

    I live in laporte Indiana and these wanna be’s and junkies do not need guns. Its like putting alcoholics behind the wheel people are going to die.

    • Donna

      True, but if more law avoiding citizens had them the playing field would be alerted so to speak, especially if it is publicly known that the average Joe and Jane were most likely packing too. Would there not be potentially more law abiding citizens with guns?

  • Guest

    So what if the bill passes. Btw I am a cow lifetime permit carrier. Will this allow all states honor

  • Jonathan Holaway

    So what happens if this bill does pass. Not completely understanding, people are going into gay marriage over a gun right? I am just wandering what will this mean for ccw

  • CJ

    It is Kansas, not Arkansas. I wish Arkansas was a Constitutional Carry state.

  • Truth Hertz

    Not all but most of these were perpetrated by a criminal with a gun

    In Marion County (Indianapolis) 2012
    114 homicides
    1 indian (dot)
    3 yellow
    6 brown
    30 white
    74 black

    In Marion County (Indianapolis) 2013
    146 homicides
    1 yellow
    7 brown
    24 white
    114 black

    In Marion County (Indianapolis) 2014
    143 homicides
    1 yellow 1 black suspect
    6 brown 3 black suspects
    29 white 11 black suspects 1 police action
    107 black 104 black suspects 1 brown suspect 2 police action

    In indianapolis (Marion County) this year 2015
    38 homicides
    1 asian 1 white suspect
    4 white 1 white suspect 2 police action
    33 black 31 black suspects 1 quadruple homicide 1 white suspect 1 police action

    • Donna

      Notice a trend?

  • Don Eskins

    Go, go go!!!!!!!!

  • Wraith7216

    Good for Indiana! With libtard politicians and a thug loving media making police afraid to do their jobs, the people need to have the means to defend themselves from the free roaming thugs on the street.

  • Reid Webster

    Quick question… if this passes is it open carry concealed carry either what?

  • Aaron Smith

    I kinda feel like there should still be a permit, but it’s just a background check or a test, like getting a driver’s license. If only to have a general idea of how many people are buying guns. It definitely shouldn’t take a long time or cost a ton of money to get guns.

  • Brian Hubbard

    Is there a more updated status on this

  • Jeff Birge

    The one idiot needs to shut his hole.. it is our right to carry and not to pay taxes on carrying or anyrhing else. He needs to be fired for his stupid thoughts, if he wants to screw us this way why should we alliw him to be seating in a seat that us to help us not ruin us. Also when he goes his pay should stop with oyt passing go and mot collecting $200. His benefits should be pulled to..

  • Greg Coyle

    So does this mean I will get a refund for my lifetime carry permit?

  • Pingback: Indiana Takes First Step To Become Constitutional Carry State | Whiskey Tango Foxtrot()

  • Tom_EE

    There is a simple solution to recovering that revenue.

    Tax all liberals who don’t carry, for the protection provided by all those that do carry!

  • Scott Winkle Sr.

    what happened Indiana you didn’t pass it that’s not right in light of all of the crime we need be able to protect or self’s

  • Pingback: First Step Nursing Nyc | Pro Nurse Courses Online()

  • Pingback: How To Become Indiana State Trooper | How Dayily Tips()

  • edwin

    the VA Declaration of Rights, which became part of the 1776 VA Const; Article 13
    of the Virginia Declaration of Rights provides:
    “That a well-regulated
    Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper,
    natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of
    peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the
    military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
    power.”
    There is no mention of an
    individual right to “keep and bear arms,” as Adams and Madison meant it, or,
    indeed any “individual” right at all, certainly not one independent of a
    well-regulated Militia. The focus of the article is on the role of the militia
    versus a standing army.
    As for the later US
    Constitution ratification debates, there is no mention in the Virginia debates
    of individuals carrying weapons, or of the need to assure individuals that the
    federal government would not confiscate their arms. The debate was solely in the
    context of whether the government would affirmatively provide arms for the
    militia.
    “Then there’s the original
    Virginia Bill of Rights, the first adopted, that expressed both the colonists’
    allegiance to the idea of a citizen militia and their fear of standing
    armies:
    That a well regulated militia,
    composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and
    safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be
    avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be
    under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Reprinted
    in Sources of Our Liberties 312 (Perry & Cooper ed. 1959)
    There is little doubt that
    this provision of the Virginia Bill of Rights was concerned exclusively with the
    distribution of military power and the proper role of the military in a free
    society. The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear arms.
    [In fact, the word “right”
    or “rights” isn’t mentioned AT ALL! So THEY considered it A RIGHT, of ITSELF,
    that a well regulated militia for State defense merely EXISTED!]
    The first state to adopt
    such language was Pennsylvania, which did so as part of its constitutional
    provision addressing military matters:
    [Let me repeat THAT: “which did so as part of its
    constitutional provision addressing military matters”]
    That the people have a
    right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing
    armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept
    up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and
    governed by, the civil power.
    Other state constitutions
    proceeded to adopt variations of either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The
    states which included “right to bear arms” language did so in the context of
    provisions dealing with military matters.
    [Let me repeat THAT: “did
    so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters”]
    …Thus, there is no
    indication from the history of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders were seeking
    a broad guarantee of the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. On
    the contrary, the expressed intention of the framers was to guarantee that state
    militias remained armed and viable, and the “right to keep and bear arms” must
    be understood as implementing that purpose. The implication of this intention is
    that the constitutionality of a statute regulating firearms should turn on
    whether the statute affects firearms in such a way as to adversely affect a
    state’s ability to raise and maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.”

  • george walker

    The right to bear arms has nothing to do with all carrying a hand gun. It is not a right it is a privilege. You have the right to a drivers license too but you don’t just hand them out with out the proper requirements met. Are you willing to keep guns in the hands of inept people who have no business carrying one. They’ll end up hurting or killing some innocent bystander, or leaving it out for a child to shot themselves.

Send this to friend