IBJNews

  • Home

Indiana gun permit denials nearly double in 4 years

Associated Press
February 4, 2013
Keywords
Government, Government & Economic Development, Public Safety, Real Estate & Retail, Retail, Retailers, Specialty stores, State Government
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

As the number of gun permit applications in Indiana has risen during the past few years, so too has the number of background checks and rejections.

The number of Indiana residents whose gun permit requests were denied by State Police has nearly doubled in the past four years amid an increase in permit applications. State officials say the rise in denials also might be attributed to new technology that allows police to be more thorough in screening applicants.

State police last year denied 2,028 gun permit applications statewide, or nearly double the 1,054 applications denied by the agency in 2009.

State police are checking applications even more carefully now that more of them are coming in, Commander of Firearms Lt. Mike Rogers told the Daily Journal. He said the increase in applications has prompted state police to take longer to approve the applications and to make sure all the information is correct.

"We're doing more in-depth investigations to make sure that the people who are supposed to have permits get permits, and the people who are not supposed to have permits don't get them," Rogers said.

Gun permit denials have increased in recent years as new technology allows state police to better find information residents left off their applications, Rogers said. Officials say the most common reason for an application denial is failure to disclose a prior conviction.

Under state law, police will not grant a gun permit to a person with a felony conviction. Gun permit holders also must not have been convicted for a domestic violence crime, must not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser and must not have a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable behavior.

Residents who are denied a gun permit will receive a letter in the mail explaining why they were not approved. They can choose to appeal the decision.

"If someone is denied, it isn't the end all," Rogers told the Daily Journal. "When we deny a license, the denial gives that person the opportunity to present information. The process isn't quite that final."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Wondering
    KevinFebruary 4, 2013 12:50 PM
    How many people slipped by the system before Indiana started deciding to double check people?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT