Hammond LEO interaction today

[aikidoka]

So, I took advantage of the nice weather to rake my front lawn finally. The two years I've been at this address I've OC in the summer when doing yard work but today, according to the responding officers, Kruse was the last name of one, a neighbor called about it.

The short of it is that Kruse asked if I was LEO (no), why did I have all that? (I'm licensed to carry), Do you have it one you? (I'm thinking I must not be OC correctly if you cant see it when you're standing in front of me but I just say yes). He asked for my license which I of course handed over. He then asked for my driver's license. This is where the problems occur. So who was correct?

Kruse and the other officer who pulled up and who disarmed me, took my Boker MPT plus as well, eventually said one is required by law to carry a photo ID if they are licensed and carrying a firearm. The first time Kruse asked for my ID I said I understood that I didn't have to hand over my ID if I wasn't breaking a law and that he could call in the license and verify it.

Long story short, we went back and forth on that. They said even if we are wrong we can err on the side of safety and all is good I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm looking at ordinances in black and white they are going to do what they have to. The other officer put my gun and knife in a safe place (mailbox on the house). Kruse then asked me what would I do the next time. I said (yes I could have been more nuanced), If I verify the law requires me to do so I'll hand over my license. So Kruse gets a bit irritated and takes my gun and say he could impound it and then I would have to provide photo ID when I got get it. I asked how he was going to explain to a judge he thought I was a threat. He said because I didn't give him my photo ID when he asked he has reasonable suspicion I am not who I say I am. I could be anybody. I could be my brother etc. Yeah sure, my LTCH has the address on it that I happen to be raking the front lawn of. But, hey maybe I was wrong about the whole photo ID anyway, but even if I was correct, seems to me it doesn't matter and maybe never did. Officer safety and erring on the side of safety are excuses for whatever it seems.

So was I correct that I did not have to give them photo ID or were they correct and the law requires it and requires carrying a photo ID when legally armed. Again, not that it matters even if they were wrong, err on the side of safety and all.

Guess I need to use the digital voice recorder even when I am on my own property now.

They said they both supported gun rights, just want to make sure we are doing it correctly. When asking for ID just hand it over. Before they left I shook their hands and I said all and all I didnt think this went so badly. I may have been trying to soothe an inflamed ego for one of them or just trying to be really nice, I'm not sure yet, maybe a bit of both.

 

[aikidoka]

I guess I should have just walked into my house as soon as the other officer put my firearm and knife in the box and had my LTCH in hand, rather than respond to that question. Live and learn.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You didn't even need a license on your own damn property, I would have told them to pound sand, they can arrest me or get lost.

You do not even have to have your LTCH on you when you are out in public anymore, the officers were ****ing idiots.

I would file a complaint.

 

[MCgrease08]

It is not a legal requirement to hand over ID, and they certainly had no right or reason to disarm you. If you are on public property verifying LTCH should be the end of transaction.

Since you were carrying on your own property there is no need for LTCH at all. Although that does raise the question of, how do they verify you are the property owner without identification.

 

[88GT]

I guess I should have just walked into my house as soon as the other officer put my firearm and knife in the box and had my LTCH in hand, rather than respond to that question. Live and learn.

Did I miss a post somewhere, or is this just additional thoughts on your part. It sounds very much like a response to someone else, but there's no other post there. I'm just confused.

You don't have to have an LTCH on your own property. I would love to have seen the responses if you were waiting on your Larry and didn't have one yet. I can't help with the ID thing. I *think* you're only required to provide ID or information if you are suspected of a crime. But let's face it, lots of crimes not on the books, so it never ends well for the peon citizen if you've been deemed guilty.

The offending neighbor needs to be invited to a barbecue. And the officers need to be ripped a new one by their superior officer, which might be precipitated by a letter of complaint on your part.

I don't see anything in the offcers' actions as acceptable insofar as their very approach was without merit. We are not guilty until proven otherwise and unless they have evidence to the contrary, your word should be the standard.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It is not a legal requirement to hand over ID, and they certainly had no right or reason to disarm you. If you are on public property verifying LTCH should be the end of transaction.

Since you were carrying on your own property there is no need for LTCH at all. Although that does raise the question of, how do they verify you are the property owner without identification.

He was raking the damn leaves, doesn't even matter if he lived there, it would clearly look like at the least he would have permission to be there. The burden is on them to prove you have committed an infraction or were breaking a law.

 

[ryknoll3]

^ This.

You are not required to have an LTCH to carry on your own property.

You are not required to have a photo ID to carry a firearm ANYWHERE.

You are not required to have your LTCH in your possession when you carry a firearm, though not doing so creates more hassle than it's worth, but you'd be breaking no laws.

 

[88GT]

It is not a legal requirement to hand over ID, and they certainly had no right or reason to disarm you. If you are on public property verifying LTCH should be the end of transaction.

Since you were carrying on your own property there is no need for LTCH at all. Although that does raise the question of, how do they verify you are the property owner without identification.

See the last sentence in my post. From a freedom standpoint, if they can't provide evidence that I am not who I say I am or I am not the owner of the property/have permission to be there, they can go pound sand. THe onus is on them to prove guilty, not on the citizen to prove innocence.

 

[aikidoka]

Did I miss a post somewhere, or is this just additional thoughts on your part. It sounds very much like a response to someone else, but there's no other post there. I'm just confused.

You don't have to have an LTCH on your own property. I would love to have seen the responses if you were waiting on your Larry and didn't have one yet. I can't help with the ID thing. I *think* you're only required to provide ID or information if you are suspected of a crime. But let's face it, lots of crimes not on the books, so it never ends well for the peon citizen if you've been deemed guilty.

The offending neighbor needs to be invited to a barbecue. And the officers need to be ripped a new one by their superior officer, which might be precipitated by a letter of complaint on your part.

I don't see anything in the offcers' actions as acceptable insofar as their very approach was without merit. We are not guilty until proven otherwise and unless they have evidence to the contrary, your word should be the standard.

Just an additional thought

 

[MCgrease08]

Telling them to pound sand is my feeling also, I was just questioning the actual process LEO must use to verify property ownership.

 

[88GT]

Just an additional thought

Okay. Sometimes mods are quick to delete completely inappropriate posts, so I didn't know if I had missed it or it was just more musing on your part.

Before someone comes in here and gives you grief for compliance, you did okay. You didn't get slammed to the concrete and you got to keep your gun. Horrible as it that we have to evaluate our interactions by the absence of certain outcomes, but at least you'll know you're in the right if it happens again.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Telling them to pound sand is my feeling also, I was just questioning the actual process LEO must use to verify property ownership.

They can start the process with the pounding of sand

 

[aikidoka]

So I was correct. Still, my firearm would have been impounded amd I would have to take it from there next time. I tried to explain to them my "resistance" to the request, in that a Hammond LEO told me I couldnt OC. They both said that was incorrect that I could. I said, ok, he was misinformed, if you are as well, that isnt fair to you guys, it does not make your job easier. I even asked if they had a copy of the ordinances in the car so they could show me I was wrong and I would fine with that. They said we dont have that.

 

[aikidoka]

Okay. Sometimes mods are quick to delete completely inappropriate posts, so I didn't know if I had missed it or it was just more musing on your part.

Before someone comes in here and gives you grief for compliance, you did okay. You didn't get slammed to the concrete and you got to keep your gun. Horrible as it that we have to evaluate our interactions by the absence of certain outcomes, but at least you'll know you're in the right if it happens again.

So how do I go about filing a complaint? Do I complain they lied or go about it that they are not trained well and it is a disservice to LEOs and the community.

 

[MCgrease08]

They had no reason to impound your firearm. They were either on a power trip out they don't know state law. Either option is unacceptable and you definitely need to follow up with a formal report to their superiors.

 

[aikidoka]

So, further musings, the entire time I held my wallet, both hands at my sternum. Seemed passive and non-agressive to me. Thing is, if officer friendly gets pissed enough to grab me, I'm worried my aikijutsu training may kick in slightly before I can "comply", leading to two officers getting much friendlier. It's been years but I still remember things. Geeze, this erring on the side of safety is so convenient for one particular side.

Another idea. I should have just walked back into my house and locked the door and not answered as soon as he pulled up.

 

[aikidoka]

They had no reason to impound your firearm. They were either on a power trip out they don't know state law. Either option is unacceptable and you definitely need to follow up with a formal report to their superiors.

How do I start the process

 

[aikidoka]

They had no reason to impound your firearm. They were either on a power trip out they don't know state law. Either option is unacceptable and you definitely need to follow up with a formal report to their superiors.

Kruse didnt. The second officer did as I said it's safe where it is at.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So I was correct. Still, my firearm would have been impounded amd I would have to take it from there next time. I tried to explain to them my "resistance" to the request, in that a Hammond LEO told me I couldnt OC. They both said that was incorrect that I could. I said, ok, he was misinformed, if you are as well, that isnt fair to you guys, it does not make your job easier. I even asked if they had a copy of the ordinances in the car so they could show me I was wrong and I would fine with that. They said we dont have that.

Should have hoped for the impounding of your firearm, you could have then not told us the story and told it to Guy Relford

 

[aikidoka]

Should have hoped for the impounding of your firearm, you could have then not told us the story and told it to Guy Relford

I considered standing my ground and letting it be impounded but didnt think I could raise the funds for a lawyer to make the hassle worth it.