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.
pretty much nails it. However, even if Indiana was in the same district as the court that ruled that cops couldn't stop open carriers it would not affect the state. Because the beginning circumstances were different (no license needed therefor no RAS vs. licenses needed so RAS available) then the application of the ruling would be different also. It's not a court ruling we need... it is Constitutional carry.