Indiana House Passes Constitutional Carry

US
Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis. (pabradyphoto/Getty Images)

News from Indiana:

Indiana’s state House on Monday passed legislation that would eliminate handgun licensing in the state, over objections from the State Police.

The measure, which passed 65-31, will now head to the state Senate. It would eliminate handgun licenses, which raise more than $5 million annually for law enforcement training, according to The Indianapolis Star.

Naturally, the bill’s opponents said the same thing that they have been saying about looser concealed-carry laws since 1987:

State Rep. Mitch Gore (D), who represents the Indianapolis area and is also a captain in the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, warned the measure would “cause less peace.”

Thing is, though: Permitless carry is the law in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and yet there is precisely no evidence whatsoever that it does anything at all to the crime statistics in either direction. I could forgive nervous onlookers for having worried about the effects back in the 1990s, when “shall issue” became mainstream. But now? When every such prediction has not only been wrong, but spectacularly so? That is peculiar indeed.

The other argument against the move was that it would elevate the constitutional rights of Americans above the convenience of the police:

Separately, State Police Superintendent Douglas Carter testified in opposition to the bill before it passed out of committee. Carter argued the measure increased the investigatory burden on officers rather than handgun owners, according to the newspaper.

Throughout the debate, this point has been echoed in many of the state’s newspapers, as well as by almost every Democrat who opposes the reform. Which, given the summer we just lived through, is . . . well, it’s rich, to say the least. Surely, the position of American progressivism cannot be that the police cannot be trusted, except when it comes to the Second Amendment?

Good for Indiana. Next up? Tennessee.

Articles You May Like

Marjorie Taylor Greene Files Motion to Vacate Speaker Mike Johnson
PBS Blows ‘Bloodbath’: ‘Latest Example of Donald Trump Using Violent Rhetoric’
Minn. State Rep. Pushes For Tax-Funded ‘Refuge’ To Castrate Trans Kids
Biological male killed 12-year-old girl who he had alleged sexual relationship with, transitioned to transgender after arrest
Chuck Todd Leads NBC ‘Meet the Press’ MELTDOWN Over NBC Hiring of Ex-RNC Boss

12 Comments

  1. The argument against isnoot “public safety”,
    or burden on police,
    it is about the money police and state coffers will lose.

  2. Absolutely the right move. It’s the confirmation that citizens have the right to defend themselves and their property and more important their freedom. Enough said!

  3. to bad their neighbor to the west will NEVER see any freedom from oppressive anti-gun laws. Need to eliminate shitcago and then we would be able to have some freedom. multiple and illegal voting very likely started there

  4. Is there an exception for convicted felons? Sounds like this makes it legal for known criminals to be armed as well. I know, criminals will be armed anyway, but if it is illegal for them to carry, at least when they are caught armed, they can be arrested and charged. I am strongly pro-2nd Amendment, and a life member of the NRA, but I am in favor of background checks, because they deny felons the ‘right’ to carry.

    1. You are confused. This Bill has do to with “Not having to get a permit” from the Government to carry your firearm, which IS your constitutional right. It has nothing to do with background checks (Federal Law) for buying a firearm,
      nor does it repeal any other law that restricts convicted felons. Might I suggest you work on your next level of NRA membership? They and the rest us “pro-2nd Amendment” folks will enjoy the support.

    2. While I haven’t read the Indiana law in completion, if it like the one in my state there is a caveat that the person carrying must still be legally able under the original licensing laws. So if you couldn’t qualify for a CCW due to felony convictions it would still be a crime to carry under constitutional carry laws.

  5. The only permit you need to bear arms is one you do not have buy or carry on your person.

    It is called the US Constitution.

  6. A strong supporter of the 2nd, and a 30 year veteran of the military.
    But anyone buying and carting a weapon around needs training.

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *