Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2007, 14:31   #1
rides a horse
Member
 
rides a horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: north Indiana
Posts: 78
Are we in trouble?

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.




Link; http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...e/17161064.htm
rides a horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 15:45   #2
KSFreeman
Broken Member
 
KSFreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 3,405
Prior restraint is O.K. then?
__________________
I am NOT English!
KSFreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 16:29   #3
RF7126
Mall Ninja
 
RF7126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Western Indiana
Posts: 2,187
Send a message via AIM to RF7126 Send a message via Yahoo to RF7126


Slightly off-topic: You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us), in exchange for us being allowed to carry in more places (schools, casino, etc.). I know most people here would say it should be that way anyway -and I agree- but I think it would be a nice compromise with the left.

-donning flame suit-

Last edited by RF7126; 05-01-2007 at 16:32..
RF7126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 17:23   #4
cougar_guy04
Senior Member
 
cougar_guy04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by RF7126
Slightly off-topic: You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us), in exchange for us being allowed to carry in more places (schools, casino, etc.). I know most people here would say it should be that way anyway -and I agree- but I think it would be a nice compromise with the left.

-donning flame suit-
I wouldn't argue with that. Our rangemaster/gun club father figure/fixer of things we break and I were talking about that Friday night. Heck, even one of my uber-liberal friends said the only thing she had against the permits in Indiana was the lack of training required.
cougar_guy04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 17:51   #5
RF7126
Mall Ninja
 
RF7126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Western Indiana
Posts: 2,187
Send a message via AIM to RF7126 Send a message via Yahoo to RF7126


I agree, I think the "no training" requirement unfortunately reinforces the stereotype of some guy buying a random gun and shoving into his belt.
RF7126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 18:58   #6
epsylum
Boolit Hoze
 
epsylum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Racing Capital, USA
Posts: 14,373


Then how about we go ahead and privatize the training so that way we know there will be accountability and competition.
__________________
Quote:
What are you having trouble with? I'll teach it some respect.
Epsylum (EE-SAI-LUM)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
epsylum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 19:35   #7
dwh79
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 66
I am all for it if and only if this would mean that are permits our reconized by all other states that issue carry permits. I travel for work and I hate that my license isn't valid in places like Ohio. I also reluctantly agree with keeping just someone who has never been around guns from buying one and starting to carry it and be a danger to themselves and others around them.
dwh79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 19:48   #8
sjstill
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Do away with the effing license ala Vermont & Alaska. Screw compromises, we've compromised enough already.

Cops are not shining examples of training making for great shooters. What are their hit ratios? How many of them piss and moan when in-service range time time rolls around.

That article was an anti-gun piece of propaganda, full of mis-information and feel-good BS.

Those last 2 paragraphs are priceless;

Helmke said most Americans believe that it is too easy to obtain guns, and they don’t understand why convicted felons or those with mental illness can get their hands on weapons. Legitimate gun owners will have to accept that they will be made to go through more red tape to make the streets safer, Helmke said

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.

I'm sick and tired of these polished turds stomping on our rights.

NO, NO, 1000 times NO!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 20:31   #9
epsylum
Boolit Hoze
 
epsylum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Racing Capital, USA
Posts: 14,373


Quote:
Originally posted by sjstill
Do away with the effing license ala Vermont & Alaska. Screw compromises, we've compromised enough already.

Cops are not shining examples of training making for great shooters. What are their hit ratios? How many of them piss and moan when in-service range time time rolls around.

That article was an anti-gun piece of propaganda, full of mis-information and feel-good BS.

Those last 2 paragraphs are priceless;

Helmke said most Americans believe that it is too easy to obtain guns, and they don’t understand why convicted felons or those with mental illness can get their hands on weapons. Legitimate gun owners will have to accept that they will be made to go through more red tape to make the streets safer, Helmke said

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.

I'm sick and tired of these polished turds stomping on our rights.

NO, NO, 1000 times NO!
You have to quit thinking to understand what he is saying. I mean nevermind the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are caused by those who DON'T have a permit. Why that would mean you would have to use logical thought and there is no room in the gun control debate for that.
__________________
Quote:
What are you having trouble with? I'll teach it some respect.
Epsylum (EE-SAI-LUM)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
epsylum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 06:18   #10
mpholic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally posted by RF7126
You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us
I don't mean to be insulting but...Training provided by the government?? Reasonably priced??? Convenient???

What government have you been living under lately?

What would motivate the government to provide ANY thing reasonably priced or convenient?

The government would control the content of the training? The government would control the standards on who passes and who doesn't?

This has got to be the most naive, short sighted thing I have heard in a LONG time. I can't believe there is anyone on this board even receptive to the suggestion. Keep compromising and see what happens.
mpholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 08:45   #11
minuteman32
NRA & GOA Life
 
minuteman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana's 1st UT CFP Instructor.
Posts: 1,168


You could move to UT. There, w/ an LTC, you can carry almost anywhere you'd want to go (school, college, church, bar, etc.). Now they do require training for their LTC, but they also recognize all other permits, so you could carry on your IN LTC. The only problematic area would be schools b/c of the federal law, not state law. You would probably only have a problem in a school if you were caught there by a fed. who was having a bad day.

I would like to see IN go to pre '94 law. That is when we lost schools, and since then we've lost courthouses, casinos (which we didn't have), and soon to be, state house & offices.

Like so many times in the past, we gain some (lifetime LTC, state parks) and loose others (above).

The only place one should be restricted from carry is a correctional, or similar locked down, secure, facility.
minuteman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 09:01   #12
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,632
I'd be all for increased training, but definitely not at the hands of some gov't sponsored program. My thought is simply to make citizen defensive shooters more sure of themselves and what they can do, and thereby make them more formidable during a fight. That's it...case closed.

For the rest of our lives, we're gonna be fighting increasingly violent, militarized criminals and the mindless murderers of radical Islam. We desperately need a citizenry that has ready access to defensive weapons and the skills needed to survive tangling with hyper-violent people. We have almost everything in place to be a very formidable group of people, but our citizen defensive shooters need to know the dynamics of winning a fight so they will be able to respond without a blink of hesitation. There's no reason for us to needlessly sacrifice our best and bravest when they choose to fight back.

The Israeli model works because virtually every adult over there has been in the military. They live and breathe a hard-edged commitment to see their communities and country prevail over those who live to destroy them. They've lived their Holocaust and, if pushed to it, are willing to pull down the pillars that support the temple of humanity before they submit to the murderer's control again.

I'd like to see some sort of 40 hours, give or take, school that combined the things that are taught by some of our top civilian trainers...like John Farnam, or Tom Givens, or Mas Ayoob, for example...as a requisite to holding a handgun license. Assuming we're gonna continue "licensing" handgun-carriers. I'm assuming we will, since we have a long-standing and rarely challenged legal tradition of licensing drivers, vehicles, outdoorsmen, nurses and private investigators, etc. The training has to be affordable somehow...but it needs to be done.

Maintaining ready access to a defensive firearm, to me, is not only a citizen's "right", it's a citizen's duty...just the same as voting and serving on juries, etc. The republic needs knowledgeable, informed armed defenders just the same as it needs knowledgeable and informed voters and jurors. Regardless of how the liberal bliss-ninnies see things, that's the price of having a free and open society. Citizen defensive handgunners should be armed with a solid, basic knowledge of how to stay alive in situations where is isn't easy to do so...especially when taking the risks to defend other innocents, or simply to defend themselves.

Christ...even a day of classroom work followed by a day of tactical training on a range would put our citizenry at a much better level of preparedness than we are now. The rub, of course, is implementing it without having the gov't mandating obligatory "sexual harrassment" and "cultural diversity" touchy-feely training...and that, in the end, is what will kill it. The hyper-violent criminals and Muslim terrorists will grow stronger and more deeply entrenched...and we'll continue to fight for our "right" to scare little kids and soccer-moms in the check-out line with open carry.

Last edited by Snowman92D; 05-02-2007 at 09:04..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 09:14   #13
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
Agreed on all points!

Re: running afoul of the Federal laws w/ respect to schools ... it doesn't apply to anyone with a state-issued license or permit to carry.


Quote:
Originally posted by minuteman32
You could move to UT. There, w/ an LTC, you can carry almost anywhere you'd want to go (school, college, church, bar, etc.). Now they do require training for their LTC, but they also recognize all other permits, so you could carry on your IN LTC. The only problematic area would be schools b/c of the federal law, not state law. You would probably only have a problem in a school if you were caught there by a fed. who was having a bad day.

I would like to see IN go to pre '94 law. That is when we lost schools, and since then we've lost courthouses, casinos (which we didn't have), and soon to be, state house & offices.

Like so many times in the past, we gain some (lifetime LTC, state parks) and loose others (above).

The only place one should be restricted from carry is a correctional, or similar locked down, secure, facility.
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 09:24   #14
mpholic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowman92D
I'd be all for increased training, but definitely not at the hands of some gov't sponsored program. My thought is simply to make citizen defensive shooters more sure of themselves and what they can do, and thereby make them more formidable during a fight. That's it...case closed.

For the rest of our lives, we're gonna be fighting increasingly violent, militarized criminals and the mindless murderers of radical Islam. We desperately need a citizenry that has ready access to defensive weapons and the skills needed to survive tangling with hyper-violent people. We have almost everything in place to be a very formidable group of people, but our citizen defensive shooters need to know the dynamics of winning a fight so they will be able to respond without a blink of hesitation. There's no reason for us to needlessly sacrifice our best and bravest when they choose to fight back.

The Israeli model works because virtually every adult over there has been in the military. They live and breathe a hard-edged commitment to see their communities and country prevail over those who live to destroy them. They've lived their Holocaust and, if pushed to it, are willing to pull down the pillars that support the temple of humanity before they submit to the murderer's control again.

I'd like to see some sort of 40 hours, give or take, school that combined the things that are taught by some of our top civilian trainers...like John Farnam, or Tom Givens, or Mas Ayoob, for example...as a requisite to holding a handgun license. Assuming we're gonna continue "licensing" handgun-carriers. I'm assuming we will, since we have a long-standing and rarely challenged legal tradition of licensing drivers, vehicles, outdoorsmen, nurses and private investigators, etc. The training has to be affordable somehow...but it needs to be done.

Maintaining ready access to a defensive firearm, to me, is not only a citizen's "right", it's a citizen's duty...just the same as voting and serving on juries, etc. The republic needs knowledgeable, informed armed defenders just the same as it needs knowledgeable and informed voters and jurors. Regardless of how the liberal bliss-ninnies see things, that's the price of having a free and open society. Citizen defensive handgunners should be armed with a solid, basic knowledge of how to stay alive in situations where is isn't easy to do so...especially when taking the risks to defend other innocents, or simply to defend themselves.

Christ...even a day of classroom work followed by a day of tactical training on a range would put our citizenry at a much better level of preparedness than we are now. The rub, of course, is implementing it without having the gov't mandating obligatory "sexual harrassment" and "cultural diversity" touchy-feely training...and that, in the end, is what will kill it. The hyper-violent criminals and Muslim terrorists will grow stronger and more deeply entrenched...and we'll continue to fight for our "right" to scare little kids and soccer-moms in the check-out line with open carry.
I will agree with Snowman on a couple of points (sort of).

The Islamic threat is a REAL threat and it is NOT going to go away. If you think world peace is an attainable goal forget it.

I will agree the citizenry needs to arm itself and learn how to properly protect themselves, their families and their country. Training is a must, quality training is a must. Practicing that training on a regular basis is a must. I don't believe this training should be mandated by the government though. I believe every citizen should undergo this training from the same sense of duty that they do to vote. Freedom comes with a price.

I will also agree with Snowman on the fact that we should be focusing our priorities on being prepared for this eventuality (violent criminals and terrorists) instead of the "right" to scare soccer moms. IMHO I see no need to carry openly and unless circustances change drastically I will not being doing so. The problem though with concealment requirements is what is the definition of concealment? This is a real problem for some states where accidently exposing your gun or even simple "printing" can be considered a criminal act (brandishing).
mpholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 09:40   #15
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Who is going to set the “standard” for training?

1. The legislature? If the general assembly sets the standards then they can easily change them. How would you like to have David Orentlicher to author the training requirements?

2. A licensing committee or board? Let us not forget that a “board” adopted rules to keep us from protecting ourselves at the State Fair and State Parks (Indiana administrative code).

3. The Indiana State Police? While I have the utmost respect for out troopers, I do not trust possible future superintendents. After all they are appointed by the governor and we may not always have a 2A friendly one.

Mandated training is just another way to control a right!
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 10:23   #16
minuteman32
NRA & GOA Life
 
minuteman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana's 1st UT CFP Instructor.
Posts: 1,168


Quote:
Originally posted by rhino465
Agreed on all points!

Re: running afoul of the Federal laws w/ respect to schools ... it doesn't apply to anyone with a state-issued license or permit to carry.

I know. I was trying to say that if someone w/ an IN LTC (& no UT LTC)were to go to UT, that they could carry there as if they did have a UT LTC. The only place that (under federal law) they could run afoul of the legal system, would be a school (as they would not have that states issued LTC). I personally think that, w/ regard to this obscure & stupid federal law (like that narrows it down much!), one should be legal in all locations that that particular state allows for their own permitees (which SHOULD be all locations!).
minuteman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 10:30   #17
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 10:34   #18
minuteman32
NRA & GOA Life
 
minuteman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana's 1st UT CFP Instructor.
Posts: 1,168


Quote:
Originally posted by rhino465
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.

HERE, HERE!!!!

RHINO465 FOR PRESIDENT (or @ least Director of the DHS)!

This is pretty much what I was thinking, too.
I have so many good ideas, that I have to keep them stored in the minds of millions of other people! Thanks for releasing this one.
minuteman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 11:12   #19
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally posted by rhino465
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.
So... by taking training I can have more rights under 2A then without?
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 11:27   #20
KSFreeman
Broken Member
 
KSFreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 3,405
Mandatory training is constitutionally viable under two circumstances:

1. Required for gradation for high school.

2. As a requirement for voting.

1 8 hour day of classroom exam (general knowledge, legal, historical, ballastics, inter alia), 1 8 hour exam on range (field stripping, cleaning, load/unload, easy shooting test for service small arms, M16, M9, M240G, etc.).

Classes would begin in grade school and continue throughout high school.

Training required to exercise the RKBA is an illegal prior restraint.
__________________
I am NOT English!
KSFreeman is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:11.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 892
190 Members
702 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31