2 LTCH holders arrested

[gregkl]

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

The law has changed.

 

[darkkevin]

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

Assisted opening such as you describe is fine, fully automatic (I.e. push button open) is illegal, stupid law, but still the law as of now

 

[gregkl]

Wow, I'm glad I took Guy Relford's class on Comprehensive Indiana Gun Laws!

 

[Bunnykid68]

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

assisted opener is fine

 

[Rookie]

My google-fu seems weak today.

But from the article

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

Anyone? I can't find anything either

 

[donballz]

Assisted opening such as you describe is fine, fully automatic (I.e. push button open) is illegal, stupid law, but still the law as of now

assisted opener is fine

Thanks!

 

[KG1]

My google-fu seems weak today.

But from the article

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

Anyone? I can't find anything either

Yeah that part of the article you guy's are referring to made me pause aswell.

Both men were arrested for misdemeanor refusal to aid police. Indiana law gives police the right to inspect gun permits upon request.

 

[Ted]

My google-fu seems weak today.

But from the article

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

Anyone? I can't find anything either

IC 35-44-3-7
Refusal to aid an officer

A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.65.

Charging these men with this, doesn't negate the charge if they eventually produce their LTCH.

 

[Ted]

I know that I've seen switchblades for sale at gunshows in Lake County. While the statute is clear of the possession, its a different culture up there.

 

[CX1]

IC 35-44-3-7

Thanks for the IC on the Refusal to Assist.

Firstly how does this work in the context of the 5th amendment I wonder? I would think the 5th would be reasonable cause to refuse.

Secondly, I'm supposed to aid the officer in the performance of their duties yet I am not trained/paid/insured to do so. So who covers my liability exposure should a bad result happen as a result of my actions as ordered by the police?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thanks for the IC on the Refusal to Assist.

Firstly how does this work in the context of the 5th amendment I wonder? I would think the 5th would be reasonable cause to refuse.

Secondly, I'm supposed to aid the officer in the performance of their duties yet I am not trained/paid/insured to do so. So who covers my liability exposure should a bad result happen as a result of my actions as ordered by the police?

Very good point. I would think the 5th Amendment would apply as far as getting all charges dropped once you prove you have the LTCH

 

[Bill B]

Nice catch 22. You don't have to id yourself if suspected of a crime, but by iding yourself you can clear youself of a crime. I wonder why they weren't charged for weapons violations?

 

[CX1]

Nice catch 22. You don't have to id yourself if suspected of a crime, but by iding yourself you can clear youself of a crime. I wonder why they weren't charged for weapons violations?

Alamo also is charged with misdemeanor possession of a switchblade knife, police said.

They didn't appear to commit any firearm violations to be charged with.

 

[JR50]

I'll bet that the code is applied mostly to people that don't respond to questions, that is, refuse to aid an officer in his duty of questioning you.

Wanna be the test case for the constitutionality of the code as applied? Nawwwww.

 

[mtgasten]

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?

i too am in school to become an LEO and since i've been on INGO for a while now yea a LTCH would be sufficient now, but before i joined INGO i would've been asking for DL as well, i've learned many many things since joining INGO, glad i did!

 

[KG1]

Charging these men with this, doesn't negate the charge if they eventually produce their LTCH.

It seems strange that they were charged with this but not brought in under the pretense of carrying a firearm without a license.

I don't know either if there was cause for them to have to identify themselves unless there was an ordinance violation in question but then there was nothing stated about an ordinance violation being the reason for the interaction in the first place nor were they cited for any such violation after the fact.

There's a need for further information here.

Leaving the whole ID thing aside, another thing to take note of it states in the beginning of the article that they were arrested when they refused to show their gun permits. I find the charge they were arrested for peculiar because it does'nt involve being suspected of carrying without a license especially given the fact that they refused to present an LTCH.

PORTAGE -Two young men picking up trash along the side of the road were arrested when they refused to show their gun permits.

If the charge of "refusal to aid police" is related in any way to them not providing an LTCH upon request as it seems to imply in the article then that opens a whole new angle that I don't think anyone has discussed here before. I've certainly never heard of it happening. I just don't get how they can charge them with that and not carrying without a license given that they had no proof the two guys were exempted.

This whole thing definitely needs some clarification as to what the charge totally encompassed because if this charge stands as is it could set precedence of which I don't think is spelled out in any IC related to firearm carry as a pretense for being charged with a misdemeanor "refusal to aid police" for simply not providing an LTCH upon request.

Taken from the article:

They refused to identify themselves or show their gun permits, police said.

Both men were arrested for misdemeanor refusal to aid police. Indiana law gives police the right to inspect gun permits upon request.

 

[Ted]

Firstly how does this work in the context of the 5th amendment I wonder? I would think the 5th would be reasonable cause to refuse.

Secondly, I'm supposed to aid the officer in the performance of their duties yet I am not trained/paid/insured to do so. So who covers my liability exposure should a bad result happen as a result of my actions as ordered by the police?

5A would apply, but I can't think of any crime associated with identifying oneself. One doesn't have a right to remain silent of their name....as one's name isn't a crime....unless its Rookie.

Assisting LE in the performance of their duties would cover your liability, but not necessarily being paid. Much the same as an employee not being able to sue their employer, save narrow circumstances. Its likely that someone would be asked to do real police work, per se, but would cover your liability in any case.....but the occasional case has arisen when a guy off the street has assisted in restraining a suspect/criminal....or directed traffic......etc.

Nice catch 22. You don't have to id yourself if suspected of a crime, but by iding yourself you can clear youself of a crime. I wonder why they weren't charged for weapons violations?

Actually, that is incorrect. Pedigree questions are the exception to 5A, unless its for some truly exceptional for a reason I can't fathom at the moment.

It seems strange that they were charged with this but not brought in under the pretense of carrying a firearm without a license.....

It goes under the same as getting the horn while messing with the bull. The cops likely knew that they had their LTCH, and made sure to charge them with something that would stick.....as opposed to charging them with carrying a handgun without a license, and having the charges dropped and all mention of their arrest expunged.

 

[KG1]

5A would apply, but I can't think of any crime associated with identifying oneself. One doesn't have a right to remain silent of their name....as one's name isn't a crime....unless its Rookie.

Assisting LE in the performance of their duties would cover your liability, but not necessarily being paid. Much the same as an employee not being able to sue their employer, save narrow circumstances. Its likely that someone would be asked to do real police work, per se, but would cover your liability in any case.....but the occasional case has arisen when a guy off the street has assisted in restraining a suspect/criminal....or directed traffic......etc.



Actually, that is incorrect. Pedigree questions are the exception to 5A, unless its for some truly exceptional for a reason I can't fathom at the moment.



It goes under the same as getting the horn while messing with the bull. The cops likely knew that they had their LTCH, and made sure to charge them with something that would stick.....as opposed to charging them with carrying a handgun without a license, and having the charges dropped and all mention of their arrest expunged.

It does'nt matter if they think they knew or not without actual proof.

I think what they were arrested with was the wrong application. There are penalties if they failed to provide proof spelled out already for carrying without a license that they should've been charged with and remedies upon proof of exemption.

 

[Ted]

It does'nt matter if they think they knew or not without actual proof.

I think what they were arrested with was the wrong application. There are penalties spelled out already for carrying without a license that they should've been charged with and remedies upon proof of exemption.

I'll agree that it may be the wrong application, but the refusal in itself meets the statutory elements of the charge.

Its up the prosecutor anyway, to pursue this in the manner he wishes.

 

[KG1]

I'll agree that it may be the wrong application, but the refusal in itself meets the statutory elements of the charge.
.

I would say not for the simple fact that by them refusing to provide LTCH the Leo had no proof that they even had one to provide in the first place hence the reason they should've been brought in under the pretense of carrying without a license.

I would add though that they might have verbally indicated that they did have an LTCH and still refused to provide it but then again how does the Leo know for sure that they are telling the truth.

Anyway, regardless of all that I still hold the belief that if you are legally carrying a firearm and are requested to show it then why go through all the hassle, just clear it up right then and there.

This whole thing was hotly debated in another thread recently and i'm sure T_F would be interested in this thread in particular because it may prove that there are other legal consequences for failure to provide LTCH supporting his argument of providing it in the first place upon request.

I'm just curious as to if they were actually arrested with the charge of "refusal to assist police" for not providing an LTCH because if they were and it sticks there is proof that you can be charged with something that you can't get out of by providing proof of exemption at a later date.