-1 for Delaware County's Finest

[GaDawg]

I think it is one in the same. For the second time the pound sand phase came from my neighbor who is a sheriff for the sane department. His words not mine

 

[wwdkd]

Okay, I'll break it down to each individual scenario.

You are carrying a handgun, openly, through WalMart. Someone calls in a MWAG, or an officer just happens to walk by you, doesn't matter in this instance. The officer then can initiate a stop, due to RAS that you are carrying a handgun, which in Indiana, is illegal unless certain criteria are met. The officer approaches you and asks for your LTCH/permit/however he words it. You then have one of two options, provide him with documentation that you are legally allowed to carry a handgun in the state of Indiana, or refuse. With the presentation of the documentation, the courts have ruled that all discussion regarding the handgun is over, IE no more RAS.

Thank you that clears things up for me.

Yes, asking willfully stupid questions when the answers have already been provided multiple times by mulitple people qualifies as willfully stupid.

Really, multiple times huh? I was citing specific case law and asking if it would have any relevance to or effect on Indiana's laws. Please show me where this was answered before and I will gladly apologize.

 

[funeralweb]

I have decided that this will be my interaction:

"yes, officer I do have a LTCH it is in my left rear pocket. Here it is and here is my DL. Nope, not offended at all since I am a responsible legally carrying person. I do appreciate you checking. Too many illegal carrying felons out there. Thanks again. Be safe!"

Conversation is over in 5 mins...no offended ....I go on my merry way.

I don't have anything to hide nor to prove. Not only that, a respectable conversation on friendly terms does more to convince others who are in ear shot, how legally responsible we are. Had I been at the convenient store getting coffee and my above conversation had happened, the store owner and othe patrons would hve seen the friendly result by the police giving some confidence and credibility to me for future visits to the store.

This has happened on several occasions (sans the LEO) but with store personnel who view me as friendly and respectble.

Again, nothing to hide nor to prove.

 

[KG1]

I think it is one in the same. For the second time the pound sand phase came from my neighbor who is a sheriff for the sane department. His words not mine

Those may have been his words but it has been apparent throughout this thread that it seems to be your sentiment. You seems to feel that an Indiana LEO is acting beyond his authority when an LTCH request is made. That simply is not the case. I will agree though that the instruction to "cover it up" has no legal basis and I would have no problem in taking issue with it.

Now with that being said I certainly do not agree with the way the officer conducted himself in the circumstances described in the OP and would much rather see the whole issue handled in the same manner brought up by some of the esteemed LE officers on this forum.

 

[88GT]

Carrying a handgun without a license.

I would have thought this would have been the obvious answer.

so what your saying is if they arrest your for illegal carry and you have one they have unlawfully detained you. just because there is no grounds in court to make it unlawful to stop you doesnt mean it makes it ok to do so. this is the problem with govt in general they take liberties into their hands that do not belong to them. until we stand up for our right they will slowly fade away.

No. It is lawful for LE to stop and ascertain the existence of an LTCH if a person is carrying a handgun because carrying a handgun is illegal. The LTCH is merely the citizen's defense against arrest/conviction. Which one you avoid depends on when you confirm your LTCH.

I'm not the one being dense. If the courts haven't ruled then they shouldn't is my point. Govt overstepping their boundaries and everyone is so ignorant of it and numb to it we don't even know it's happening anymore. This process of is loading rights started long ago.

There is nothing to rule on. That's kind of the point. It is perfectly within the scope of LE's authority and power to ascertain if the individual carrying a handgun is doing so legally because carrying a handgun is illegal. The license is simply the defense. There is no overstepping boundaries here, no matter how much you dislike it.

 

[Jack Burton]

Really, multiple times huh? I was citing specific case law and asking if it would have any relevance to or effect on Indiana's laws. Please show me where this was answered before and I will gladly apologize.

WW quote: "t I thought that officers could not detain you due to the fact that they lack reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime? "

Jack replies: Read the thread and see just how many times that question was answered... and then you asked it again. The cite you mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of Indiana carry and Indiana laws. Nothing.

I know that. You know that. And everyone who reads it knows it also.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I would have thought this would have been the obvious answer.


No. It is lawful for LE to stop and ascertain the existence of an LTCH if a person is carrying a firearm because carrying a firearm is illegal. The LTCH is merely the citizen's defense against arrest/conviction. Which one you avoid depends on when you confirm your LTCH.


There is nothing to rule on. That's kind of the point. It is perfectly within the scope of LE's authority and power to ascertain if the individual carrying a firearm is doing so legally because carrying a firearm is illegal. The license is simply the defense. There is no overstepping boundaries here, no matter how much you dislike it.

You mean handgun, not firearm

I know you know that, but others could be confused.

 

[KG1]

You mean handgun, not firearm

I know you know that, but others could be confused.

Howbout firegun? Handarm?

 

[Kurr]

I've seen it said multiple times now in this thread.

Carying a firearm is NOT illegal.

Long gun, centerfire (or other cartridge) - legal, no license needed
Long gun muzzle loader - legal, no license needed
hand gun, muzzle loader - legal, no license needed
hand gun, cap n ball revolver- legal, no license needed
handgun, cartridge, pre 1899 - legal, no license needed
hand gun, cartridge made after 1899 - illegal, license needed

I carry semi open in this weather and without the license, Have not been stopped yet. When I am I do not plan on telling an officer to pound sand, but instead expect to show them I am legal under the exception provided in sec. 19 after he inspects the revolver.

But please let's stop saying "firearm" when we mean "modern cartidge handgun".

 

[KG1]

Since most do not carry the exempted kind of handguns I think the generic term of "handgun" for discussion purposes, unless otherwise relevant to the discussion at hand will suffice. I agree that the blanket term of "firearm" is too all inclusive.

 

[stephen87]

+1

Handgun, here, refers to the non-exempted handguns because I think most of us here couldn't name 5 people with a handgun that is not exempted.

 

[88GT]

You mean handgun, not firearm

I know you know that, but others could be confused.

Oh, yes. Thank you. A very important distinction.

I fixed it, but let me know if I missed any. So used to using the catch-all "firearm" that I just didn't think about it.

 

[88GT]

I've seen it said multiple times now in this thread.

Carying a firearm is NOT illegal.

Long gun, centerfire (or other cartridge) - legal, no license needed
Long gun muzzle loader - legal, no license needed
hand gun, muzzle loader - legal, no license needed
hand gun, cap n ball revolver- legal, no license needed
handgun, cartridge, pre 1899 - legal, no license needed
hand gun, cartridge made after 1899 - illegal, license needed

I carry semi open in this weather and without the license, Have not been stopped yet. When I am I do not plan on telling an officer to pound sand, but instead expect to show them I am legal under the exception provided in sec. 19 after he inspects the revolver.

But please let's stop saying "firearm" when we mean "modern cartidge handgun".

Well, carrying a firearm is illegal if that firearm is a handgun. It was a simple oversight, it's fixed. You can climb down now.

 

[KG1]

Well, carrying a firearm is illegal if that firearm is a handgun. It was a simple oversight, it's fixed. You can climb down now.

Correction. "Modern Cartridge" handgun.

 

[KellyinAvon]

OCing a Colt-Walker? No LTCH required, but very heavy. Reloading would be an issue, but that cloud of smoke would provide concealment.

 

[Kurr]

ok, ok... maybe that last post made me sound a bit jack-a**-ey, appologies if so.

I still don't think it is EVER a good idea to tell an officer to "go pound sand" especially in the situation decribed by the O.P.

 

[TTravis]

Where did "Go pound sand" first come from?

 

[jbombelli]

Where did "Go pound sand" first come from?

During the early 1800s, when commercial salt mining was just taking off here in the US, "pounding salt" meant pounding large salt crystals into smaller salt crystals, which was the job of the moron who couldn't do *anything* else. If someone told you to "go pound salt" it meant that you're only fit for the job of an idiot. Eventually, in places where there were no salt mines, it turned into "go pound sand down a rathole" which meant that you should go waste your time in some totally idiotic way. That was shortened eventually to "go pound sand", and it's the basically synonymous with "go away, idiot."

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think it is one in the same. For the second time the pound sand phase came from my neighbor who is a sheriff for the sane department. His words not mine

Tell him he is wrong

 

[AndersonIN]

I heard it was started by the "Sand Man"................. Don't know..........maybe???