FWPD Takes Weapon and ISP Pulls LTCH

[Dave Doehrman]

Here's another example of the anti-2nd amendment thinking displayed by the FWPD and chief Rusty York.
Right to bear arms barely there for landlord - News-Sentinel.com

The article says the landlord purchased a handgun and made sure the tennant knew he had a weapon. It also says the weapon never left the holster. The case went to Federal Court and the FWPD paid the landlord $3500 to drop the case, but he still lost his weapon and the ISP pulled his LTCH.

I can't say what happened in the confrontation between the landlord and tennant, but if there was any violations of the law, I'm sure the FWPD wouldn't be paying to drop the case.

 

[Double T]

He shouldn't have told the guy.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

It looks like the man is due more money, this time from the state police. I hope he sues them also. Remove cash and supply negative publicity, that's the only way to fight city hall.

 

[Denny347]

Here's another example of the anti-2nd amendment thinking displayed by the FWPD and chief Rusty York.
Right to bear arms barely there for landlord - News-Sentinel.com

The article says the landlord purchased a handgun and made sure the tennant knew he had a weapon. It also says the weapon never left the holster. The case went to Federal Court and the FWPD paid the landlord $3500 to drop the case, but he still lost his weapon and the ISP pulled his LTCH.

I can't say what happened in the confrontation between the landlord and tennant, but if there was any violations of the law, I'm sure the FWPD wouldn't be paying to drop the case.

Right or wrong, FWPD calculated that it was cheaper to pay $3500 than it was to pay legal fees defending themselves. Indy does it every day. Someone sues me but names the dept and the city in the suit (the deep pockets). I did NOTHING wrong but the city will settle rather than spend the money to defend me. Been there, done that. Has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with the bottom line.

 

[TheReaper]

There's WAY more to the story than that article described. I'd like to hear the REAL story.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There's WAY more to the story than that article described. I'd like to hear the REAL story.

^^^ THIS ^^^

There are way to many names in the story with way too many conflicting motivations and interests. Who did what where when and for how many peanuts? I want the whole story.

That said, if the ISP yanks an LTCH and then errs in refusing to restore it, what are the legal remedies available?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Right or wrong, FWPD calculated that it was cheaper to pay $3500 than it was to pay legal fees defending themselves. Indy does it every day. Someone sues me but names the dept and the city in the suit (the deep pockets). I did NOTHING wrong but the city will settle rather than spend the money to defend me. Been there, done that. Has nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with the bottom line.

I am sure you are telling us the true facts. It seems to me that they are irrelevant. In THIS circumstance it is pretty obvious that the subject city has engaged in illegal and improper acts. They are lucky that they got such a cheap resolution. More money could have been lost. It's not clear if the bad acts are the cops own decisions or were dictated policies from above.

An officer can say that he was doing as ordered and bump liability upstairs. If his department denies his claim then he can be held personally liable. Police are extremely lucky that the city's default position is to protect them and to bury any mistakes (his or theirs) in a pile of taxpayer's cash. If a policeman had to carry his own liability then it would be mighty tough to find someone to take the job. The opportunities to mess-up are boundless and there are situations when there are no GOOD choices available for the cop to make.

The state police in this case have revoked a state constitutional right without due process. They have no paper trail and no professional determination that the citizen is not a "Proper Person". I believe that they have broken their OWN law and are more dangerous than the armed citizen. They should also have to pay a cheaper amount than it would take to defend themselves.

 

[TheReaper]

I am sure you are telling us the true facts. It seems to me that they are irrelevant. In THIS circumstance it is pretty obvious that the subject city has engaged in illegal and improper acts. They are lucky that they got such a cheap resolution. More money could have been lost. It's not clear if the bad acts are the cops own decisions or were dictated policies from above.

An officer can say that he was doing as ordered and bump liability upstairs. If his department denies his claim then he can be held personally liable. Police are extremely lucky that the city's default position is to protect them and to bury any mistakes (his or theirs) in a pile of taxpayer's cash. If a policeman had to carry his own liability then it would be mighty tough to find someone to take the job. The opportunities to mess-up are boundless and there are situations when there are no GOOD choices available for the cop to make.

The state police in this case have revoked a state constitutional right without due process. They have no paper trail and no professional determination that the citizen is not a "Proper Person". I believe that they have broken their OWN law and are more dangerous than the armed citizen. They should also have to pay a cheaper amount than it would take to defend themselves.

You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here. All you know is what is in the article, which is terribly written and vague. I don't see the ISP just revoking someone's permit with only what was said in this story. And, it's obvious that you have no idea how the ISP handles the revocation of it's Hoosier's LTCH's.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here. All you know is what is in the article, which is terribly written and vague. I don't see the ISP just revoking someone's permit with only what was said in this story. And, it's obvious that you have no idea how the ISP handles the revocation of it's Hoosier's LTCH's.

Ahh, but I am responding with my opinion formed with only the information presented by the "poorly written " article. Where would I find more and better information in the op? I have what is presented.

Would it be a combative post if I pointed out that You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here being false? We have no proof of anything, this is the internet. I can't even prove that you are TheReaper...... I am commenting on you being TheReaper because you typed it.

Your bristling about my comment on the state police makes me wonder why you are so sensitive. "Methinks thou doth protest too much". It looks like you have more information available on this than I do, so spill it! are you involved with this incident and what do you know that was not presented in the "poorly written article"?

 

[jimbob488]

dirty

I saw a thread just a few days ago about the fwpd and a guy who was just openly carrying his weapon. I guess fwpd is dirty. Maybe they should worry about the crack houses.

 

[Destro]

"Methinks thou doth protest too much". It looks like you have more information available on this than I do, so spill it! QUOTE]

If he does have more information, I doubt he would or should share it

 

[TheReaper]

Ahh, but I am responding with my opinion formed with only the information presented by the "poorly written " article. Where would I find more and better information in the op? I have what is presented.

Would it be a combative post if I pointed out that You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here being false? We have no proof of anything, this is the internet. I can't even prove that you are TheReaper...... I am commenting on you being TheReaper because you typed it.

Your bristling about my comment on the state police makes me wonder why you are so sensitive. "Methinks thou doth protest too much". It looks like you have more information available on this than I do, so spill it! are you involved with this incident and what do you know that was not presented in the "poorly written article"?

I'm not bristling about anything, there just isn't near enough good infomation in the article to have an opinion about much of anything. The author didn't even put in the article how the individual informed the tenant that he was armed or the incident surrounding that, which makes me highly suspect of the entire situation (and the article). What I can tell you, is that the ISP doesn't revoke LTCH's very easily and there is an appeals process to having one revoked or suspended. If they revoked it instead of suspending it, I suspect there was very good reason for it and that he possibly lost his appeal if he even went to the hearing.

 

[TheReaper]

And I have zero first hand experience with this situation, had never heard about it until I read the article.

 

[Dave Doehrman]

The article states: "Six week later, Snider said, he was informed the gun would not be returned because of his “propensity for violence.”
But Snider never did get his gun back and, to add injury to insult, the State Police had refused to renew his carry license just four months earlier."


I wonder if he applied for renewal of his LTCH through the FWPD or Allen County. Either way, I wonder what recommendation either department made when he sent the renewal in. Is the state required to release information on why the permit was denied.


I agree, there is way too much left unsaid here, but I want to know what happened and why his LTCH was denied.

 

[Spike_351]

I'm not bristling about anything, there just isn't near enough good infomation in the article to have an opinion about much of anything. The author didn't even put in the article how the individual informed the tenant that he was armed or the incident surrounding that, which makes me highly suspect of the entire situation (and the article). What I can tell you, is that the ISP doesn't revoke LTCH's very easily and there is an appeals process to having one revoked or suspended. If they revoked it instead of suspending it, I suspect there was very good reason for it and that he possibly lost his appeal if he even went to the hearing.

I agree, there has to be more to this story, ISP is generally highly professional and I don't see the logic in revoking a LTCH just because he was carrying during a confrontation, there has to be more to the story.

 

[2A_Tom]

I heard niose in my back yard the other day so I opened the door to look out and there was this twenty something kid out there. I yelled hey what's going on out there. He told me he was a man and I should not talk to him like that. I told him he needed to leave. He started cussing me out as I walked up to him. Sorry folks I donkt turn my back on someone who is yelling at me. I didnkt raise my voice although he was continuing to shout and cuss me out. This lasted ten or 15 minutes until he finaly decided to go.

At one point he noticed I was OCing , pointed at it and said "is that a little 9?" I said no it's a big 45. I hadn't "let him see it" but it was visable.

I went in the house and was just waiting for the police to roll up on a charge of intimidation or some other complaint fron this punk.

I learned one lesson. I should have turned on my recorder. In the future I WILL DO THAT if I have a confrontation with anyone, not just for a Police stop.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

He should not have taken the pay off - simple as that.

How much is your second amendment protected right worth? $3,500 would not be enough for me to let anyone that violate my civil rights walk away without admitting guilt.

Lesson learned: if you know you are in the right, see it out to the end.

 

[Markedup]

OK. I took my paper out of the box and read Mr.Leininger's
column many times over. I think his reporting of the timeline
of this story is too fuzzy to understand.

But, I am glad he wrote about Mr. Snider's situation.

After reading much discussion about Indiana law in
this Website and boards, this sentence in the column
really got my hackles up:

" On the other hand, imagine what might have happened had the police not intervened and Snider had used that gun to do more than intimidate.".
Is this a lefthanded accusation?

As some have said, there is not enough information in the
article to even know the ISP's reasoning.

Kevin Leininger, after Cliff Milnor, is my lifetime favorite Fort Wayne
newspapers writer.

I wonder, who is Snider's lawyer?

Thanks, O.P. Mr. D. for starting this thread.

Mark

 

[Markedup]

You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here. QUOTE]

How do you know that?

Thanks

Mark

 

[j706]

There are a few problems with this deal. 1st and foremost ISP does not just revoke ones permit at random. The permittee is afforded a hearing on the matter. It is at that hearing (Or after) that the permit is revoked or not. I actually have to testify at one at the end of the month. The permittee in the hearing I have to testify against was convicted of a felony involving the use of a firearm and he still gets a hearing.

2nd if the chief is correct he stated that in the OP's case he agreed to relinquish the firearm in the settlement. So I fail to see what the problem is other than possibly the original call/complaint that got LE involved.

Am I missing something with the post?