Legislators begin discussions on constitutional carry in Indiana

Legislators heard testimony for five hours Tuesday on whether Indiana should do away with the requirement for people to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Law enforcement officers from across the state spoke out against the proposed revocation of the requirement, while proponents of the legislation repeated their claim that constitutional carry would not lead to an increase in gun violence.

During the hearing in the Indiana House Chambers, members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and Public Policy questioned several witnesses who came to speak both for and against constitutional carry legislation, which Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, has introduced in the General Assembly for the last two years. Testimony led to sharply divided conversations among lawmakers – and even between lawmakers and the witnesses themselves – as people from both sides of the issue raised concerns related to the safety and constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

Lucas, who sat in the front row during the hearing, repeatedly turned to the language of the state and federal constitutions to make his point as to the proposed bill’s constitutionality. He specifically pointed to language of the Second Amendment that says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed,” and to Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution, which says Hoosiers “shall” have a right to bear arms. The use of the phrases “shall” and “shall not” legally indicate an absolute right to bear arms, Lucas said, but that right is infringed upon if citizens are required to go through the process of obtaining a permit.

Second Amendment attorney Guy Relford of Carmel stood behind Lucas on that claim and dismissed the notion that the licensing requirement is a disincentive against gun-related homicides. If a criminal is willing to risk a 65-year jail sentence, or even a life sentence, to shoot somebody, then the one-year punishment for carrying a handgun without a license will not scare that person away from forgoing the licensing requirement, Relford said.

But while law enforcement officials conceded that a license requirement is not effective enough to stop every criminal, they also told committee members that the requirement serves as an effective vetting tool.

For example, Hamilton County Sheriff Mark Bowen, speaking on behalf of the Indiana Sheriff’s Association, said not all citizens are of sound enough mind to carry a handgun, so the licensing application enables law enforcement to weed out those whose mental illnesses would preclude them from carrying a handgun. Further, Kim Cross, supervisor of the Indiana State Police Firearms Licensing Unit, said her office receives regular reports about new criminal charges, convictions and other factors that would disqualify a person’s ability to carry a handgun. Those reports lead to roughly 3,000 hearings each year on the question of whether those citizens should be allowed to keep their licenses.

Similarly, Indiana State Police Maj. Mike White told the committee that hundreds of citizens who apply for a carrying license each year should not have such a license due to criminal histories or mental illnesses. White invited committee members to attend the hearings for those citizens to understand why the requirement is a critical step in the vetting process.

Several questions were left unresolved at the end of the five-hour hearing, particularly regarding the fiscal impact of doing away with the licensing requirement and, thus, its fee. Bowen said Hamilton County brings in $20,000 to $30,000 in licensing fees annually, while Cross said in 2016, her office received roughly $9 million in licensing-related revenue. The legislators asked law enforcement officials to provide more specific information about the fiscal impact licensing fees have on their budgets.

Discussions about constitutional carry will continue at the committee’s next two meetings, which will be held at the Statehouse on Sept. 7 and Oct. 12.