Misunderstandings exist about Indiana constitutional carry

gmsjs90 / Pixabay

The state of Indiana is the latest to actually sign constitutional carry. While I’m still waiting on Georgia to actually take the next step in passing it here, I’m thrilled for my friends in Indiana who will only benefit from this new law.

However, it seems there are some rather bizarre misunderstandings–and I’m giving a generous benefit of the doubt here–about just what constitutional carry actually does.

For example:

Uh…constitutional carry doesn’t change anything about how guns are purchased. A carry permit wasn’t required to buy a gun before the law was passed, for example, and the new law doesn’t trump the federal background check requirements that apply to all 50 states.

Now, in theory, this is just one person saying this, right?

Well, if it was, I doubt a local news station would have felt obligated to do a report on it.

Starting July 1, Hoosiers will no longer need a permit to carry a handgun in Indiana. But that doesn’t mean you can just walk into a gun store and buy a handgun without being screened.

Beech Grove Firearms enjoyed brisk business Tuesday afternoon, a day after Governor Eric Holcomb signed constitutional carry legislation. But store owner Greg Burge, a retired 20-year Indianapolis police officer, does not expect a rush on handgun sales when the law takes effect, or an increase in gun violence.

“Criminals are going to do what criminals were doing last Monday,” said Burge. “They’re going to be doing it next Sunday. They don’t care. All the permit did was affect the law-abiding taxpayer who wanted to be, quote, legal.”

The new law says anyone in Indiana age 18 and older does not need a permit to carry a handgun. The exceptions include convicted felons and people with restraining orders or dangerous mental illness.

Anyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer still has to go through a federal background check. Gun buyers fill out an ATF form and are screened against a national database at the time of purchase.

OK, it’s possible that they went into the law as a way to fill out their segment a bit, but I still find it odd that a lawmaker who had this bill on their desk would think that it somehow changes how gun sales will transpire in the state.

Of course, it’s also entirely likely he’s lying, that he knows what the law actually does but is trying to gin up outrage at its passage. If so, it’s downright evil to do so.

However, I tend to prefer to assume stupidity over evil. There’s a lot more stupid in the world than actual evil, after all, so it’s usually safer to assume it’s the former rather than the latter.

But Schmul had access to the bill. It was his job to understand the bill and what he was voting for or against so he could articulate why he was voting for or against it. If he legitimately believes that the bill will somehow change how guns are sold, I’m amazed he can muster enough brainpower to breathe.