|[Ben]:||Just because I'm excited about these laws ... ||Discuss This [3 comments so far] View Comments|
|An article that addresses the new lifetime permits and castle doctrine laws.|
The Indianapolis Star has an article about the laws too.
Full text inside.
Okay, I was going to just leave this here, but I haven't seen many good posts about this in the blogs I've visited, so I'm going to do a little write up here.
Firstly, I've heard a lot of bad information about the new lifetime permits law. A lot of folks are complaining about the section that some refer to as being a "backdoor registry". There's not much of a change, folks. The amendment in question simply replaces the form that already goes to ISP (with name, address, SSN and so forth) after any pistol is purchased from the dealer with the NICS form 4473. This now allows them to know what pistol you bought as well as the fact that you bought a pistol, but it's not enough of a poison pill for me to get upset. The Feds can grab that info any time they like as it is. I like the idea of lifetime licenses and am going to pony up my money to get one as soon as possible.
I don't like that the lost license fee (and presumably the address change fee) has gone up to $20, but I'll live with it. Plus, this bill will save money for the State by decreasing paperwork. I like that.
I'm not sure why anyone would oppose it. It doesn't make it easier to get a gun permit or harder to revoke them. If someone with a gun permit commits a felony their permit is revoked - whether it was to be valid for four years or life.
Next up, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" bill. This one didn't change things too much either, but it clarified things to make post-shooting legal entanglements a little easier to deal with if it was a good shoot to begin with. Basically, this law says that in a situation where you are forced to shoot, you don't have a duty to retreat. Indiana has never had a law that required you to retreat, but this law protects someone who doesn't from an activist judge or an overzealous prosecutor or perhaps worst of all, a greedy family out to make some money over their poor little baby being shot after being so close to getting back on the right track.
Opponents of this bill call it a "shoot first" bill.
It doesn't change the situations in which deadly force is allowed, it simply makes it explicit that if someone is attacking you or a third party or breaks into your home, fenced yard or occupied vehicle, you cannot be charged for failing to run away before shooting. To oppose this is to support prosecuting the good guys.
Some people are so focused on their hatred of weapons that they lose sight of reality.
Just because I'm excited about these laws ...