2 LTCH holders arrested

[Bunnykid68]

No I just thought the law was if a LEO asked for you LTCH you were required to produce it. Drivers license was only required if driving a vehicle at the time. Are you not required to produce your LTCH?

No, but you do have to identify yourself so that they may look up the LTCH

 

[jon5212]

Unless something has changed I believe you have to show LTCH if they ask.

 

[jbrooks19]

Why cant people just cooperate with LEO's.. you know, i doubt the LEO's enjoy getting called out to these kinds of things, it makes those of us who OC look bad when people like these two men do stuff like this that stereotype us all as pain in the a$$ loonies...

Just show your papers and be on your way, not to difficult to do.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why cant people just cooperate with LEO's.. you know, i doubt the LEO's enjoy getting called out to these kinds of things, it makes those of us who OC look bad when people like these two men do stuff like this that stereotype us all as pain in the a$$ loonies...

Just show your papers and be on your way, not to difficult to do.

I hate that statement

 

[Burnsy]

What does the code say?

Link: Indiana Code 35-47-2

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

I read that as failure to produce it will lead to me being charged and then I will be forced to produce it to prosecution. At which point the charge will be dropped. So one way or another I will need to prove that I have it no?

(I am not a lawyer and my inturpretation of the IC could be entirely wrong)

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

No I just thought the law was if a LEO asked for you LTCH you were required to produce it. Drivers license was only required if driving a vehicle at the time. Are you not required to produce your LTCH?

You don't have to produce it, but they can take you to jail. Once you go before the prosecuting attorney and verify your LTCH to him, all charges will be dropped immediately.


A big hassle for no reason at all.

In the case of the young men in the article, If LEO ask for your LTCH while you OC, just show the pink piece of paper. There are no moral victories being won by not showing it.

 

[Kedric]

Might have good intentions, but they failed hard. If they had just shown their LTCHs, it would have been a done deal and even been the positive exposure that they (hopefully) intended. *sigh*

 

[indyjoe]

Got a cite for that?

Unless you have an LTCH, you are [STRIKE]a felon[/STRIKE] committing a crime. The officer can ask for your LTCH to make sure you are not violating Indiana Code and performing the [STRIKE]felonious[/STRIKE] illegal act of carrying a pistol without a license.

Edit: It is only a felony in special cases.

 

[jbrooks19]

I'm not a fan either, but seriously is it worth the hassle to resist? IMO no..

To each their own.

I mean im in school for criminal justice and intend to be a LEO and if i would get called out to the known so well "A man carrying a gun" call it would be so much easier for both parties if when asked to see your LTCH the person just said "OK officer" and then we both can be on our ways.
Although, i have NEVER been asked by any officer to see my LTCH they simply ask if i had one, then out of respect i pull it and my ID out just to be respectful, i mean the LEO's are NOT here just to make our life's difficult, believe it or not.

I hate that statement

 

[Bunnykid68]

Carrying without a license is only a misdemeanor isnt it?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm not a fan either, but seriously is it worth the hassle to resist? IMO no..

To each their own.

I mean im in school for criminal justice and intend to be a LEO and if i would get called out to the known so well "A man carrying a gun" call it would be so much easier for both parties if when asked to see your LTCH the person just said "OK officer" and then we both can be on our ways.
Although, i have NEVER been asked by any officer to see my LTCH they simply ask if i had one, then out of respect i pull it and my ID out just to be respectful, i mean the LEO's are NOT here just to make our life's difficult, believe it or not.

I hear you and I hope you keep that same attitude that you seem to have now

 

[jbrooks19]

I will. It just seems to be kind of asking for trouble to tell an officer "No, you cant see my LTCH" (Yes i know it is our/your right to deny) it just seems easier to just cooperate, don't you agree?

I hear you and I hope you keep that same attitude that you seem to have now

 

[Burnsy]

You don't have to produce it, but they can take you to jail. Once you go before the prosecuting attorney and verify your LTCH to him, all charges will be dropped immediately.


A big hassle for no reason at all.

In the case of the young men in the article, If LEO ask for your LTCH while you OC, just show the pink piece of paper. There are no moral victories being won by not showing it.

Ok that's what I thought, one way or another I am going to need to show it to somebody, might as well avoid the whole mess. I am all for exercising rights but in this case I will leave it to someone who can afford time off work everytime they get asked.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I will. It just seems to be kind of asking for trouble to tell an officer "No, you cant see my LTCH" (Yes i know it is our/your right to deny) it just seems easier to just cooperate, don't you agree?

I agree, but I also do not think an officer needs to be bothering someone just for OC a firearm either.

Would you as an officer settle for just seeing the LTCH or would you want some other form of ID?

 

[CX1]

My google-fu seems weak today.

But from the article

Both men were arrested for misdemeanor refusal to aid police

What law is this? Some local ordinance or something?
All I can find is material relating to New York.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Carrying without a license is only a misdemeanor isnt it?

Class A misdemeanor or Class C felony,


depending on the circumstances.

 

[donballz]

And one of them had a swichblade

Definately uninformed.

Sorry, off topic but does an assisted opener count as a switch blade? Mine is a flipper but has a spring.

 

[jbrooks19]

Not to sound like i would discriminate, but it the person looked suspicious i may ask for ID just to compare the info on the LTCH and the ID to make sure they matched, but i definitley would not push the issue without cause..

I agree, but I also do not think an officer needs to be bothering someone just for OC a firearm either.

Would you as an officer settle for just seeing the LTCH or would you want some other form of ID?

 

[KG1]

Yes you do. Carrying a firearm while not also carrying your LTCH can result in a misdemeanor or felony charge. Always have it with you....always. You also are required by law to produce it when asked by a LEO. That is all you have to produce unless you are also driving a vehicle at the time.

Also you don't have a permit, you have a license to carry a hand gun

It's not exactly true that you have to have the LTCH in your possession now. That language was stricken and amended when the new law came into effect on July 1, 2011. A simple name/address/d.o.b should suffice for the LEO to check and see if you have a valid LTCH if you find yourself sans the actual document.

That being said you still have to provide proof in some fashion you are legally carrying a firearm. Whether it be at the scene of the inquiry or later in front of a prosecutor. I would advise doing it when first requested.

This has all been debated ad nauseam here before.

Enrolled Act, Senate Bill 0506

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-1; (11)SE0506.1.1. -->
SECTION 1. IC 35-47-2-1, AS AMENDED BY P.L.118-2007, SECTION 35, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in [STRIKE]subsection [/STRIKE]subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body [STRIKE]except in the persons dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business[/STRIKE], without a [STRIKE]license issued[/STRIKE] being licensed under this chapter[STRIKE] being in the person's possession[/STRIKE] to carry a handgun.

 

[indyjoe]

Carrying without a license is only a misdemeanor isnt it?

Looks like that is true.

(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.