Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff

[Templar223]

All this chest puffery -- for nothing!

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it is clear that according to Indiana state law, what this Sheriff is doing is perfectly legal.

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/i.../ar47/ch2.html

All of The High and Mighty Roaders have been wailing and gnashing computer keys for three pages only to have someone inject a law citation into the discussion.

Frogger, you just put a wet blanket on all of that righteous indignation, didn't you?

Here's a tip for you THMRs. Instead of sitting at your keyboard looking for a fight over some non-issue, why don't you actually step back from the keyboard and do something concrete to either 1) promote the cause constructively or 2) improve your safety and skill using guns.

John

 

[Polishrifleman]

I couldn't get the link to work sp here it is again plus the chapter: I think Templar is refering to Section D although I can't see a definition of superintendent.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html

IC 35-47-2-3
Application for license to carry handgun; procedure
Sec. 3. (a) A person desiring a license to carry a handgun shall apply:
(1) to the chief of police or corresponding law enforcement officer of the municipality in which the applicant resides;
(2) if that municipality has no such officer, or if the applicant does not reside in a municipality, to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides after the applicant has obtained an application form prescribed by the superintendent; or
(3) if the applicant is a resident of another state and has a regular place of business or employment in Indiana, to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant has a regular place of business or employment.
The superintendent and local law enforcement agencies shall allow an applicant desiring to obtain or renew a license to carry a handgun to submit an application electronically under this chapter if funds are available to establish and maintain an electronic application system.
(b) The law enforcement agency which accepts an application for a handgun license shall collect the following application fees:
(1) From a person applying for a four (4) year handgun license, a ten dollar ($10) application fee, five dollars ($5) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
(2) From a person applying for a lifetime handgun license who does not currently possess a valid Indiana handgun license, a fifty dollar ($50) application fee, thirty dollars ($30) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
(3) From a person applying for a lifetime handgun license who currently possesses a valid Indiana handgun license, a forty dollar ($40) application fee, thirty dollars ($30) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
Except as provided in subsection (h), the fee shall be deposited into the law enforcement agency's firearms training fund or other appropriate training activities fund and used by the agency to train law enforcement officers in the proper use of firearms or in other law enforcement duties, or to purchase firearms or firearm related equipment, or both for the law enforcement officers employed by the law enforcement agency. The state board of accounts shall establish rules for the proper accounting and expenditure of funds collected under this subsection.
(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been
suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;
the superintendent shall issue to the applicant a qualified or an unlimited license to carry any handgun lawfully possessed by the applicant. The original license shall be delivered to the licensee. A copy shall be delivered to the officer to whom the application for license was made. A copy shall be retained by the superintendent for at least four (4) years in the case of a four (4) year license. The superintendent may adopt guidelines to establish a records retention policy for a lifetime license. A four (4) year license shall be valid for a period of four (4) years from the date of issue. A lifetime license is valid for the life of the individual receiving the license. The license of police officers, sheriffs or their deputies, and law enforcement officers of the United States government who have been honorably retired by a lawfully created pension board or its equivalent after twenty (20) or more years of service, shall be valid for the life of these individuals. However, a lifetime license is automatically revoked if the license holder does not remain a proper person.
(f) At the time a license is issued and delivered to a licensee under subsection (e), the superintendent shall include with the license information concerning handgun safety rules that:
(1) neither opposes nor supports an individual's right to bear arms; and
(2) is:
(A) recommended by a nonprofit educational organization that is dedicated to providing education on safe handling and use of firearms;
(B) prepared by the state police department; and


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) approved by the superintendent.
The superintendent may not deny a license under this section because the information required under this subsection is unavailable at the time the superintendent would otherwise issue a license. The state police department may accept private donations or grants to defray the cost of printing and mailing the information required under this subsection.
(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed. The superintendent shall prescribe all forms to be used in connection with the administration of this chapter.
(h) If the law enforcement agency that charges a fee under subsection (b) is a city or town law enforcement agency, the fee shall be deposited in the law enforcement continuing education fund established under IC 5-2-8-2.
(i) If a person who holds a valid license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter:
(1) changes the person's name;
(2) changes the person's address; or
(3) experiences a change, including an arrest or a conviction, that may affect the person's status as a proper person (as defined in IC 35-47-1-7) or otherwise disqualify the person from holding a license;
the person shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the date of a change described under subdivision (3), and not later than sixty (60) days after the date of the change described under subdivision (1) or (2), notify the superintendent, in writing, of the event described under subdivision (3) or, in the case of a change under subdivision (1) or (2), the person's new name or new address.
(j) The state police shall indicate on the form for a license to carry a handgun the notification requirements of subsection (i).
(k) The state police department shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to implement an electronic application system under subsection (a). Rules adopted under this section must require the superintendent to keep on file one (1) set of classifiable and legible fingerprints from

 

[El Tejon]

Frogger, again, no. The Sheriff is attempting to add requirements to the application process. "[R]ecords" in the portion you highlight means records; it does not mean interview, campaign contribution, psychic reading, or tarot cards. The Sheriff verifies the records thereby and passes the application along to the State Police.

The Superintendent is the head of the State Police. He is not the Sheriff.

A subjective interview would transform the mandatory issuance of LTCH into a discretionary application subject to a myriad of concerns (e.g., race, sexuality, religion, political party affiliation, donation to a political campaign, inter alia). Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (discretion cannot be allowed as it transforms RKBA from right into administrative privilege). As well, this interview requirement opens the door to all kinds of liability for the unit of government (county, or city). The Indiana Supreme Court is very clear about local agencies attempting to add on requirements or flat out refusing to comply with the license to carry statute--i.e. it's a big no-no and subjects a locality to big fat lawsuits. Kellog v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990) (Court holds that liberty and property interest in right to carry).

Templar, what the Sheriff is doing cannot be allowed to stand as government will always steal if we do not protest. The citation Frogger provides does not permit the Sheriff to conduct interviews (he can check records and verify thereby). What's wrong with indignation, especially if righteous?

BTW, THMRers have had a direct hand in changing many laws for the better, holding the feet of politicians, policicrats, bureaucrats, and media to the fire, and ensuring that the RKBA is respected.

 

[Griff]

Back when I was a youngster in Indiana we called what this sherrif is doing "common sense", and now folks whine and complain that its missing in our country. You just can't please some people. Still, I find it more than a little ironic that the more vocal Liberaterian-types among you are all bound up in justifying more red tape, regardless of the source. :banghead:

 

[jaholder1971]

Here in KS we have shall-issue as well.

When I turned in the application the receptionist called the Sheriff who came out and we discussed the application.

The subject was less the reasons for the CCW but to make certain everything needed for the permit was all in order. In my case, this "interview" was a good thing as the application I downloaded from the State AG's office didn't contain the cover letter, without which the AG's office would reject the application.

Sheesh, some of y'all must see Jackboots behind every tree stump the way you carry on here...

 

[El Tejon]

Or . . . we were just paying attention in Civics class in high school.

 

[elkhuntingfool]

The High Road...

Sometimes I wonder if it's more like the "The High and Mighty Road".

Here's a sheriff who meets with an applicant personally, gives them a pep talk on the importance of things, and issues a permit.

And people here are ready to castigate him - looking for a problem. It's just like several THR members castigated me for "helping" the anti's by selling them $2300 worth of mostly rusty, all effectively junk guns at a gun "buy back" in Chicago a couple of months ago. I'm surprised they didn't label those kids who shot the ammunition we bought with that money at an NRA Youth Shooting Camp as supporting anti-gun endeavors as well.

Me, I'd be pleased to have had a sit-down with the Sheriff to talk if my state had shall issue. He might be a good guy to know in general and certainly if I ever had to use my safety rescue tool.

Seems a lot of folks on this site like to go about looking to make mountains out of molehills while ignoring the real hills and mountains all around them on the horizon.

John

I could not have typed that any better. Especially the last paragraph!

Good job!

 

[mek42]

Maybe there are fewer "Shall Issue" states out there than folks seem to think they are. I recently obtained a PA non-resident carry license and needed to go to a second county's Sheriff Office because the first only issues non-res carry licenses to the two NY counties adjacent to the county in question. This, surely, is not shall issue. After reading some of the PA carry license laws (in vain hopes of finding the PA where am I not legal to carry list) there are more references to "may issue" than "shall issue".

I am starting to think that many of the states thought of as "Shall Issue" are really "May Issue" but with very liberal rates of issue (using liberal in the dictionary sense).

In regards to the OP, many posters seem to have not carefully read the following part of the OP's OP:

Here, the sheriff wants to meet personally with every applicant.

This statement in no way, shape or form implies that such a meeting will be cause for denial.

 

[koja48]

IMHO, his interest, demeanor, and personal direction are commendable, but he should do it after the fact & at your convenience, not his. Sorry, but rule of law is "rule of law." That being said, congrats to your bride & heed the Sheriff's advice.

 

[koja48]

"The High and Mighty Road".

So be it . . . I for one, am fiercely protective of the 2nd Amendment and/or CCW rights. If some choose to ignore or look kindly upon "seemingly minor" attempts to infringe upon these rights, that is their option, but to do so threatens the rights of all . . . "You passed the written & practical driver's license exam . . . you can apply for your license AFTER the Sheriff/Police Chief/Ranking Local State Patrol Officer interviews you . . . " I respect all of those entities (and I was a deputy), but unless the law specifies such an interview, it is outside of the requirements.

 

[El Tejon]

koja, it's not the rule of law!

 

[Autolycus]

Explain that to an anti-gunner like Templar223 who feel that we should be subject to an interview and only if the government deems us worthy should we be given permission to bear arms.

Guess some people just dont understand what "...shall not be infringed," means anymore.

 

[El Tejon]

We keep fighting for a rule of law, not a rule of men.

 

[goon]

I don't really see what the issue is. I didn't actually have to meet with the Sheriff to get my permit but the paperwork did have to be submitted to him. Then I had to go in to his office to get my photo taken for it (the secretaries took care of that). The whole process from dropping the paperwork off to getting the little card in the mail saying I could come and get my picture taken for it took about 2 weeks with about a half hour in the office to finish the whole thing up. The renewal was even faster than that.
No, this is not some conspiracy to limit my right to defend myself. The sheriff's office in my hometown is directly across the street from a large sporting goods store and people carry guns from there to their cars or just carry there every day. I literally left that store on my 21st birthday with a handgun and then crossed the street to get the application for the permit (stopping at my car first to drop the gun off). Realistically, you'd have to look long and hard to find a more gun friendly area than this.
Technically, any permit at all is an infringement on the 2nd. But here in the real world we're stuck with what we're stuck with.
Until all gunowners are ready to stage a nationwide sit in on all the courthouses all at once and overrun their capacity to print out permits, this is how its going to stay.
Unless we let it get worse.
Personally, I'm thankful that PA (and many other states) have been able to see past the lunacy that governs some states and continue to MOSTLY respect the rights of her citizens.
An idealist would argue that my attitude is part of the problem (I would have done this once myself). But living in the real world has just about beaten all the idealism out of me.

 

[El Tejon]

goon, does PA law allow for a photo then?

The fuss is that the Sheriff here is acting without statutory authority, adding his own requirements. Going beyond the law is the rule of man, not the rule of law. We (well, some of us) object.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

If there is neither authority nor requirement for these interviews by statute, then quite simply, this Sheriff needs to be removed from office. Period, end of discussion.

It astonishes me how many members of this board see no problem with restrictions, infringements and state intimidation on our right to be armed. It disgusts me to realize those members are supposedly my "allies" in this fight.

 

[koja48]

Rule of Man

Thanks, El . . . I stand corrected. Now to play devil's advocate . . .

So, midway thru a 3-week wait for an unauthorized interview and during which time a person could have been legally exercising the right to carry concealed since they had satisfied all mandated requirements. . . said person is set upon & harmed by a bad guy with a knife when having a means to defend his/her self likely would have effectively neutralized the situation. I have a problem with this ramification of infringement, also.

 

[goon]

Sorry you're disgusted with me. If you prefer to think of me as not being your ally that's your business.
I do have question for you though: Do you carry? If so, do you have a valid permit? IIRC, only two states actually follow the constitution and respect the right to carry without a permit.
So my point is that if you have a permit then you are also going along with an infringement on the 2nd. Actually, the fees you pay are probably going to provide monetary support to keep these laws in place.

BTW - I think the photo is required for the permit in PA. It looks like a driver's liscense.

It is unconstitutional and I paid $25 for five years worth of exercising my right to carry. I don't like it, but I would like it a whole lot less if I needed that gun and used it and then spent the rest of my life making large rocks into smaller ones and getting tattoos from my new cellmate. Its an infringement but a guy has to live.

 

[Soybomb]

Unless we let it get worse.

I'm thoroughly confused. You say we shouldn't let things get worse but you also say you don't see the big deal in a sheriff arbitrarily complicating and delaying the issuance of permits beyond the law. It seems like the real message you have is to just take whatever we can get and shut up. Why not insist that the sheriff follow the law since thats what we've worked hard to get already?

 

[goon]

What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started is a way of making things worse?

He didn't say that it took any longer to get the permit because of this interview (mine took 2 weeks but I have heard of longer waits than that) and we don't know if his wife would have been denied even if she had been having a bad hair day or something. The interview was a positive interaction and his wife potentially just established a solid working relationship with a pro-gun sheriff. From what the original poster said, we don't even know if a law has actually even been broken. Actually, according to this, it seems to me like the Sheriff may have been doing exactly what the law requires of him (at least maybe as he understood it).
(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community... scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.


As someone pointed out above, the Sheriff probably isn't a superintendent. But he is an officer and an officer needs to gather this information as part of the application process. Right?
Yes, it sounds kind of excessive when you could just fill out a form but from what I understand after reading this, it seems like he is doing what he gets paid to do (and we do love it when our elected officials actually do that, don't we?).

Also,
Sec. 6. (a) Every initial application for any license under this chapter shall be granted or rejected within sixty (60) days after the application is filed. (IC 35-47-2-6).
I'm not a lawyer but to me it looks like the three week wait is pretty much legal.


While we are on the subject, I feel that just the act of having to obtain a permit from the state to exercise your right to protect yourself is unconstitutional as are NFA 34 and GCA 68.
But it really doesn't matter because if you were to break one of those unconstitutional laws you would still be branded as a deranged militia nut and spend the rest of your days swapping jailhouse tattoos with your cellmate. Sure, there would be gunowners who would disagree with what happened to you and you might even get your name printed in American Rifleman, but it really wouldn't matter. You would be forgotten in a few days and still be locked in a cage for the rest of your life.

Some of you refer to "rule of law" but what is so great about that? After reading over that little peice of the indiana code, I personally think that law is pretty lousy.
First, any permit IS an infringement. You can't PERMIT someone to do something that the US Constitution recognizes (not grants, but RECOGNIZES) as a right because that implies that you also have the authority to deny it. No such authority can possibly exist under any law anywhere in the US (except maybe a reservation, maybe?) because the Constitution is the final word. If it ain't constitutional, it ain't supposed to stand. Period. End of discussion.
In theory...
But in the real world that isn't exactly how its done. (Yes, it bothers me just as much as it bothers you.)
Second, the money from the permits goes to buy guns and training for the police. Sure, the police need guns and training. But why are gunowers funding it? Its been a couple semesters since I read the constitution but I don't remember it being in there anywhere that anyone who wants to bear arms has to first finance the police so that said police can also bear arms. But hey, that's the "rule of law" for you.
Quite frankly, about the only good thing about this law is that it does get people in indiana some way to carry a handgun for defense without risking a 5 year stay in the grey bar hotel. (Not great but it sure beats doing prison time for keeping someone from carjacking you, doesn't it?)

If you guys want to support rule of law I'm on board. But lets start with the real law (AKA The Constitution). Until you are ready to do that (meaning committed to nothing short of a total victory and repeal of every anti-gun law everywhere in the US, able to finance that victory, willing to risk AND LOSE everything you have to see that goal accomplished, and you have the backing of enough citizens who give a damn to make that happen), all you are really doing is making yourself feel like you are doing something.

Again, I ask how many of you guys who disagree with me have CCW permits?
By paying for a permit to carry, you have in effect changed your right to bear arms into a privledge that the state can revoke any time it wants to. You have paid money and supported a law that helps strip just a little bit more authority away from the constitution.
Not that I'm criticizing you. I also did the exact same thing and I know it. I knew it when I paid the money. But here in the real world, if you want to be able to carry a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones, you had better be ready to jump through the hoops.
I did it and it took me two weeks and change to be able to carry. Others have had shorter or longer waits (three weeks in this case). And yes, during that three week period you are defenseless and pretty much at the mercy of anyone who wants to murder or rape you.
And that is thanks to "the rule of law".

Our solution? Write and call your reps and join some pro-gun organizations, etc, etc (we all know what the "solution" is). But I guess I'm kind of pessimistic about it. If anything, the situation with guns is probably more likely to get worse than it is to get better.

So to answer your question, I guess saying "if we let it get worse" was probably not a good way to put it. It will probably just get worse IN SPITE of our best efforts to prevent it.

Anyhow, I've spent too long typing all of this already and I don't want to argue with people that I really am on the same side of the fence with. If you disagree with me, more power to you. At least they haven't found a way to make you buy a permit to exercise that right. Yet.


Good night.

 

[koja48]

I really am on the same side of the fence with

Then get on the same side of the fence . . . "extra" " is "extra" whether it is within, before, or after the legal requirements . . . the speed limit is 35 in ideal conditions, not the speed a traffic officer personally "feels" it should be. If the law/procedure is inadequate, go through proper channels to address & change it; don't interject your own requirements. I don't make the rules, I don't even like all of the rules; I do, however comply with them. Those in a position of authority should do no less. Plain and simple, no matter how "well-intentioned" the Chief was, no matter how much he wanted to "connect with the community," his approach is an INFRINGEMENT on law-abiding gun-owners' rights, period! Now, if I moved my fence every year, "infringing" upon your property several inches at a time, at what point would you object? When I controlled the majority of your yard? Think about it . . .

 

[Soybomb]

What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started is a way of making things worse?

How do you feel that making the sheriff follow the law would make it worse?

While we are on the subject, I feel that just the act of having to obtain a permit from the state to exercise your right to protect yourself is unconstitutional as are NFA 34 and GCA 68.

Great that makes two of us, lets get started by being sure that people don't make carrying firearms even harder than what is allow by law.

He didn't say that it took any longer to get the permit because of this interview (mine took 2 weeks but I have heard of longer waits than that) and we don't know if his wife would have been denied even if she had been having a bad hair day or something. The interview was a positive interaction and his wife potentially just established a solid working relationship with a pro-gun sheriff.

It might not have, but really how is that relevant? The sheriff is passing this meeting off as a step required to get a permit when it is not. I don't want people who would otherwise get permits skipping it because they think its going to be a hassle. It has a chilling effect and needs to be stopped.

From what the original poster said, we don't even know if a law has actually even been broken. Actually, according to this, it seems to me like the Sheriff may have been doing exactly what the law requires of him (at least maybe as he understood it).

Read El Tejon's posts.

Our solution? Write and call your reps and join some pro-gun organizations, etc, etc (we all know what the "solution" is). But I guess I'm kind of pessimistic about it. If anything, the situation with guns is probably more likely to get worse than it is to get better.

Through actions like that we're able to work closer toward restoring the rights everyone should have under the 2nd amendment. If you don't care about the little steps that are made along the way and aren't willing to make people respect the exisiting positive laws you dont even have a chance of seeing your larger goals reached. Many people have worked very hard to help establish good carry laws, you should demand their work and your rights be respected even if it isn't the total end goal yet.

If you disagree with me, more power to you.

I can't help but be a little passionate about this. We don't have a chance if gun owners aren't willing to speak up for their rights and even on this forum we have a ton of gun owners who don't seem to really care and even support gun control themselves. When we start taking whatever is given to us after we've already established more than that, its over.

 

[koja48]

Soybomb

Amen. Thank you.

Oh, and Goon . . . "What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started" . . . IF a BG initiates an offensive action, the intended "victim" didn't start the fight . . . and making the leap of faith that the "intended victim" is rational, law-abiding, and able to defend his/her self in a manner that neutralizes the threat . . . let's say, by being in possession of and proficient with a legally-carried handgun . . . said individual may likely be "intended," but not a "victim." The case you described suggests a "nutcase" who shouldn't possess anything more lethal than an eraser, which, by the way, are the types of folks whose history & criminal records the CCW background checks are intended to identify. I sincerely doubt that the Chief/Sheriff, no matter how well-meaning, would id this as effectively in casual conversation as would a formal background check. It appears as if "(d) The superintendent" has deemed "further investigation" . . . "necessary" for EVERYONE who applies for a concealed-carry permit in his jurisdiction. I will continue with my "chest puffery," Templar, while you continue to let the "rest of us" defend YOUR rights.

 

[goon]

Koja48 - Did you read my post at all?
Did you miss the part where I said that I am all for having guns around? (hence my willingness to jump through all the hoops that the "rule of law" requires of me if I want to exercise my right to bear arms). You want to talk about INFRINGEMENT? We deal with them every time we pay the fee for the background check or fill out paperwork for a PERMIT that ALLOWS us to exercise the little bit that is left of our right.
What part of filling out a form and paying money to be able to defend yourself doesn't seem like an infringement to you?
We are on the same side of the fence - You just don't seem to realize it.

And The case I describe doesn't really involve any nutcases at all. It is how I feel about guns. The 2nd recognizes a right that God pretty much created us with. Animals have claws and teeth, humans have brains that they use to make tools (like spears, swords, and guns). Basic law of nature IMO.
Anyhow, the founders were a fairly sharp bunch of guys so they made sure they got that on paper.
But in 2001 when I applied for my first permit, that right was already pretty much a memory. GCA 68 and NFA 34 got started on chewing away at it long before I was even born and it bothers me. I would love to make those laws go away. Not because I really want a machine gun or anything, just because it is my right to have one if I want to. And that right is being infringed every single minute that you, me, or anyone else is required to jump through hoops or pay a tax to own one. Its the same story with a permit - its an infringement just to require us to fill out the paperwork. But that is the rule of law, isn't it?
So say you decide to exercise the right as it was intended to be. That would get you locked up in a cage, wouldn't it?
But would it make you a nut just to want the rights you are supposed to have?

Soybomb - I have read El Tejon's posts. I will concede that he may have a better idea about what is going on in Indiana because he apparently does live there. But from reading the actual laws it appears to me that the sheriff isn't even breaking a law. If El Tejon is a constitutional lawyer and he says that there is a case here, then I guess his opinion counts for more than mine. But after doing my own research online it seems that the case he is speaking about in Gary, Indiana was far different from this (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kellogg_v_gary.txt). They were actually keeping people from even applying for permits in that case (from what I can find anyhow) whereas this guy is gathering information. This may even be a way of expediting the process (beauracracies are not known for their efficiency). I don't see how looking into it could cause any harm but does it really make sense to jump to a conclusion and accuse a gun friendly LEO of breaking a law?

BTW - We have already been pretty much taking what is given to us for about 70 years, starting with NFA 34. We do it every day by complying with laws that we despise and know are unconstitutional. I'm not advocating that we break them though. We are all too busy with college, jobs, mortgages, kids, car payments, and all the other things that go along with life to really deal with it. But I do feel the need to point out that we do compromise all the time, and that in the real world, there really isn't a very effective alternative to that.

Anyhow ladies and gents, I kind of wish I hadn't gotten in on this because all I managed to do was fan a fire and get myself right in the middle of it.
Have fun with this one: I think I'll stick to the less heated discussions from now on.
Keep your powder dry.

 

[koja48]

You want to talk about INFRINGEMENT?

Difficult to do much about past infringement, but am adverse to present/future infringements such as that described in the original post. I wish you well, Goon.