Source.

EVANSVILLE, Ind. (WFIE) – In the state of Indiana, gun owners no longer need any sort of permit to carry a handgun while in public spaces. For less than a year, this has been the case after the state removed the requirement for handgun permits, and some in law enforcement aren’t happy about the change.

Before the Indiana state legislature officially removed the requirement for handgun permits, many in law enforcement weren’t convinced.

“I, along with most of my other law enforcement colleagues, were very apprehensive about this,” said Vanderburgh County Sheriff Noah Robinson.

Before the change, a gun owner looking to have a gun in public had to go to their local sheriff’s office or police department for the application and eventually, the Indiana State Police would say either yes or no.

Sheriff Robinson says this gave law enforcement valuable information. Without it, it raises more questions as they try to determine if a suspicious person with a gun is allowed to have it.

“Before, that determination was made in a quiet office over a period of weeks where someone would investigate your background and make that determination,” said Robinson. “We now have to do that on the side of the road. It’s not practical.”

The law doesn’t allow violent felons to have handguns in public, but that doesn’t always apply to those with patterns of violent behavior or mental instability who wouldn’t have been approved for a handgun permit.

“I think it decreases public safety, I think it decreases officer safety, and time will tell whether that’s borne out or not,” said Robinson.

Sheriff Robinson says permits were also valuable when they found people doing things they shouldn’t and they found a gun on them. When other charges didn’t apply, having the gun meant they could arrest the person and take and gun away.

It was also an additional source of information for them when approaching people.

“To have had the information and had that taken away from us is frustrating, because it took a system that wasn’t broken and broke it,” said Robinson.

Or perhaps this made an unconstitutional system finally constitutional.  Everything depends on perspective, yes?

This is a remarkable set of admissions from a CLEO.  They want decisions about your God-given rights to be made in a quiet room with no one watching over their shoulder and no recourse for faulty decisions that infringe on your rights.  He said so.

Also, note the use he sees in the permitting scheme.  For conditions where “other charges didn’t apply,” he could always get his man with a weapons charge.  But what does this mean – other charges didn’t apply?  It means, I take it, that the alleged perpetrator wasn’t really guilty of the crime for which he had been accused.  The LEOs are thus the judiciary in this circumstance.  He’s really guilty of doing something we don’t want, but we can’t prove it beyond as reasonable doubt.  But we can surely prove he was carrying a weapon, so there, perp.  Take that.

As for whether someone is carrying a weapon, his officers should always assume that is the case.  It’s the case with permitted carriers, and it’s the case with criminals who never obeyed the law anyway.  So what’s changed?

Nothing.  And he can’t point to blood running in the streets because of permitless carry because it hasn’t happened.

The sky is falling.  But not really.