No I didn't think about not showing him but I didn't want to argue about whether he had the right to detain me for no reason. Like I said my family was in the car. Had I been alone I would have jazzed him some more just cause it irritates me when anyone doesn't know their job. I expect them to know the law as I am expected to know my job
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
-1 for Delaware County's Finest
- Thread starter GaDawg
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That's the thread I remember. Just a policy of one department, unfortunately.
Really, you're going to go with that?
Since a violent felon is prohibited from carrying a firearm, you then have probable cause, or reasonable articulable suspicion. Or am I wrong?
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
How do you know they are a felon just by looking at them?
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
I am frequently accused of looking mean by family, coworkers, and people I interact with while in uniform. Does that make me a felon?
Lectric102002
Master
You obviously did well in Looking Mean and Intimidating class when you were a JBT-in-training.
How do you know anyone is a violent offender, gun or not?
Police (in general, not singling you out Frank) can't walk up to anyone they want, for no reason, and ask to prove they have a driver's license, proof of ownership of everything in their possession, etc.
Generally, they (police) need a reason.
I just read the ruling. I am so impressed with the judges on the 4th. Would that all black-robed individuals saw such similar actions by LE to justify and illegal search/seizure as "absurd." The author of the opinion really pounded the LEO and Government with some of the comments.
That said, I think I agree with BBI's original position in the first thread that it's a bit of a leap to say that stopping to confirm LTCH status here in Indiana runs afoul of the 4th because of the precedent set in an open carry state. But I also agree with Denny's position that there really isn't any positive outcome to hassling somebody just for carrying. So I get to use the phrase I hate most on INGO: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
That said, I think I agree with BBI's original position in the first thread that it's a bit of a leap to say that stopping to confirm LTCH status here in Indiana runs afoul of the 4th because of the precedent set in an open carry state. But I also agree with Denny's position that there really isn't any positive outcome to hassling somebody just for carrying. So I get to use the phrase I hate most on INGO: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Lectric102002
Master
But is there a law that says that they can ? Absence of a law preventing doesn't automatically mean it's permitted.
Again: The fact that carrying a firearm is illegal and a license is merely a defense.
And, yes, in most cases, in the absence of a law that prohibits X, it is generally understood that X is permissible. That's how laws tend to work. But we're talking case law here, which is different in form and function from statutory law.
I'll try to explain this the best I can, if anyone has anything to add or change, just call me out. I don't mind.
A law is written to make something illegal. As I posted upthread, carrying a handgun is illegal. One exception is if the person carrying the handgun has a LTCH. There is no law that says an officer may not stop someone with a handgun to check for a LTCH, therefore it is assumed that it is a legal possibility. However, it also says that if someone is stopped and asked, burden of proof of the LTCH is on the licensed, therefore it is assumed that they may legally stop you.
Case law is when a law is written and there is a "grey area," such as we have here. When we have a "grey area" it can be that nothing says it is illegal or someone feels that they have been violated in some fashion. A case will then go before a judge, usually for criminal case, and the judge will then rule one way. Whoever loses, has the ability and option to appeal it. It goes to a higher court, where a panel of judges will rule on it. These can keep going all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US, as long as courts will keep hearing it. Eventually it becomes case law, which is a judge has already ruled on it and says "this is the way it will be."
There is case law, I can't remember the name, that is the biggest example of case law I can think of. Basically, someone was stopped to check for a driver's license, and did not have one. I'm not sure if they were arrested or not, but they challenged the legality of the stop all the way up. SCOTUS ruled that even though it is illegal for someone to drive without a license, it is (I think) unconstitutional for an officer to stop someone just to check for a driver's license.
This is essentially the same thing we are hoping for in Indiana. It has been ruled in other states that officers cannot stop someone to verify the legality of them carrying a handgun, but there is typically an extenuating circumstance that leads to that, in NC for example it's legal to OC a handgun without a license/permit. These ones have gone to District Courts, which they are not in our district, so they do not apply to our state. We're hoping for one that does affect Indiana.
A law is written to make something illegal. As I posted upthread, carrying a handgun is illegal. One exception is if the person carrying the handgun has a LTCH. There is no law that says an officer may not stop someone with a handgun to check for a LTCH, therefore it is assumed that it is a legal possibility. However, it also says that if someone is stopped and asked, burden of proof of the LTCH is on the licensed, therefore it is assumed that they may legally stop you.
Case law is when a law is written and there is a "grey area," such as we have here. When we have a "grey area" it can be that nothing says it is illegal or someone feels that they have been violated in some fashion. A case will then go before a judge, usually for criminal case, and the judge will then rule one way. Whoever loses, has the ability and option to appeal it. It goes to a higher court, where a panel of judges will rule on it. These can keep going all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US, as long as courts will keep hearing it. Eventually it becomes case law, which is a judge has already ruled on it and says "this is the way it will be."
There is case law, I can't remember the name, that is the biggest example of case law I can think of. Basically, someone was stopped to check for a driver's license, and did not have one. I'm not sure if they were arrested or not, but they challenged the legality of the stop all the way up. SCOTUS ruled that even though it is illegal for someone to drive without a license, it is (I think) unconstitutional for an officer to stop someone just to check for a driver's license.
This is essentially the same thing we are hoping for in Indiana. It has been ruled in other states that officers cannot stop someone to verify the legality of them carrying a handgun, but there is typically an extenuating circumstance that leads to that, in NC for example it's legal to OC a handgun without a license/permit. These ones have gone to District Courts, which they are not in our district, so they do not apply to our state. We're hoping for one that does affect Indiana.
Do you really think there is a separate law for each crime giving cops authority to arrest people for committing that crime?
Site Supporter
Members online
- Benjamin
- SEIndSAM
- RapidRounds
- indyblue
- morve80
- jocro
- squeals99
- snorko
- snapping turtle
- racr28
- radar8756
- Devilpig
- HoosierHunter07
- jsn_mooney
- swamptick
- ComeJesuscome
- Creedmoor
- tmschuller
- 2tonic
- thunderchicken
- miguel
- JimH
- bowhunter_1978
- BackFromDC
- gcfireman
- BR8818
- cbhausen
- ZachJ03
- Midwestjimbo
- Lumpy76
- FredMcIntire
- jtmiller951
- mike8170
- torque_and_recoil