by Gov. Eric Holcomb (R-IN) signed House Bill 1296 into law this afternoon. Hoosiers will now be allowed to carry concealed without a permit effective July 1, 2022. The state already allowed free lifetime carry permits. Indiana becomes the third state in 2022 to adopt unrestricted or permitless carry joining Ohio and Alabama. It is now the 24th state in the United States that has constitutional carry.
As the updated graphic below shows, approximately 33% of all Americans now live in a state that allows unrestricted carry. By contrast, only 25.34% of Americans lives in may-issue or virtually no-issue states.
Gov. Holcomb had this to say as to why he signed the bill.
“The Second Amendment has been debated for years, yet time and again our U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed this important constitutional right that I fully support. Twenty-three other states have laws comparable to HEA 1296. Vermont has had a constitutional carry law in place since it became a state, and several other states have had a similar law for more than a decade. HEA 1296, which I’ve signed today, entrusts Hoosiers who can lawfully carry a handgun to responsibly do so within our State. It’s important to note that if a person is prohibited, under federal or state laws, from possessing a firearm before this law goes into effect, that person will still be prohibited. And if a prohibited person has a firearm, he or she can be prosecuted. Firearm permits will remain available, without fee, to anyone who wants or needs one, such as Hoosiers desiring to carry a firearm to, through or in another state that has reciprocity with Indiana.”
Many in Indiana law enforcement had campaigned against the bill including the head of the Indiana State Police. Nonetheless, ISP Superintendent Doug Carter indicated he will work to make the bill’s passage a success. He did still encourage Hoosiers to apply for their free lifetime carry permits.
Also opposing the bill were the usual suspects within the gun control industry. In the Everytown.org press release, they now refer to themselves as “public safety advocates”. I guess that will now supersede the term “gun safety” in their lexicon.
I anticipate the state of Georgia will be the next state to pass and implement constitutional carry. Florida is off the books for this year. I would say that my home state of North Carolina will not have constitutional carry until either Roy Cooper is gone or the Republicans regain a super-majority in both houses of the General Assembly.
I don’t get it, signs con carry, but vetoes no chix with dix in school sports. Doesn’t seem like the best route to win a senator election after getting termed out of the IN gov mansion.
Why do you have DC categorized as may issue?
Good point. Rob and I will have to adjust this as it is officially “shall-issue” thanks to a win in court. I think it was a remnant that never got updated.
John and I are not in agreement (yet) on this point. DC’s rules are unacceptable. Read them and tell me if this is just another version of may issue, labeled as shall issue. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/dc-gun-laws/
Register all guns? unacceptable on its face. Only have ammo for registered guns? unacceptable. Pay exorbitant fees? unacceptable. I could go on. See also Hawaii. Technically you can get a license. None are actually issued, so NO ISSUE. Kind of reminds me of the civil rights era.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
I won’t debate your classification of Hawaii as no issue since that’s what it is de facto.
I also won’t debate your criticism of DC’s unconstitutional gun laws, which are horrendous violations of human rights.
You may know that Illinois prohibits firearms on public transportation, which is a large barrier to the ability to carry of large segments of its inner-city population. How come Illinois is listed as shall issue? Should they be may issue or no issue?
That wouldn’t make any real sense of course since the graph is about different permitting regimes (except when it’s not, in the case of DC).
Why (according to your archives) did you call North Dakota constitutional carry, when their law applies only to state residents? I.e. their form of “constitutional carry” applies to 0.2% of the entire US population; the other 99.8% must get a permit. That restriction is unconstitutional: the Second Amendment says “keep and bear arms,” not “keep and bear arms in one’s state of residence.”