Media gets reactions on Indiana constitutional carry bill

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Indiana is one of several states ready to potentially pass constitutional carry. While it remains to be seen who will do what, Indiana has already passed it. They’re just waiting on the governor to either veto it or let it pass.

Unsurprisingly, the media is out to get people’s reactions to the bill.

Most interestingly was how one gun store owner put things.

A bill that will allow Indiana gun owners to carry without a permit is headed to the governor’s desk, but not without its share of controversy.

Greg Burge is a retired Indianapolis police officer and owner of Beech Grove Firearms.

He’s for the “constitutional carry” bill that would allow persons 18 or older to carry a handgun in public without a permit.

“I believe in the Constitution,” Burge said. “I have a real problem having to pay for what is my constitutional right, so that’s probably my single biggest reason of why I’m in support of it.”

He said a permit doesn’t sign off on whether someone should carry a gun.

“All the state cared was that your check cleared,” Burge said.

He ain’t wrong.

Burge is completely correct, especially how the permitting process doesn’t actually require making sure someone is good to go to carry a firearm in the first place. Even in many may-issue states, all they’re really doing is checking boxes. The issuing authority doesn’t know the applicant, nor do they care to.

So, they just make sure the check clears and that the reason being given for wanting a permit meets the politically approved list.

Constitutional carry negates all that stupidity.

Of course, Burge wasn’t the only person the media spoke with. They also talked to a Moms Demand Action volunteer, who had this to offer:

Haan is a volunteer leader with Moms Demand Action.

“We believe in the Second Amendment, but we believe with rights come responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is that we vetted people who are carrying handguns in public,” Haan said.

The mother of two argues there would no longer be a vetting process.

Honey, you may think you believe in the Second Amendment, but you don’t understand the Second Amendment in the least. If you did, you might understand that it specifically precludes any vetting process.

Even if it didn’t, though, that’s not what most gun permits do.

What happens is that you apply and if you’re not a criminal, you’re in the clear. They don’t know anything about you except that you’ve never been caught doing anything illegal.

The thing is, those who are likely to do illegal things? They’re already carrying guns.

What demented psychology makes people think that if you don’t have a permit, criminals will suddenly start carrying guns rather than whatever they think the bad guys do now. “Sorry, can’t do a drive-by until constitutional carry passes” or something like that?

These people are either insane, deluded, or some combination thereof.

And we’re supposed to listen to them on this issue? Not about to happen.