A question for the experts on this board.

[sloughfoot]

back to the original question, if I was a police officer and witnessed this, I would have arrested the adult with the gunand charged him with Criminal Recklessness with a firearm.

 

[Burnsy]

I didn't realize we had any "dealings", if we did I doubt I would have cared. I don't have any issues with insecurity at all. It's quite obvious you do. An insecure person is one who is constantly trying to correct others - like you.

I have no "fears" and even at my age 71 would laugh in your face for that remark. I really think you wasted a lot of your time criticizing the OP when everyone else here understood exactly what he meant. Language is an ever evolving object - and always has been. The ONLY purpose for any language is to convey ideas and information to others. When that has been done it works.

There are many definitions and names of objects that have been changed in my lifetime. Many you use daily and feel like you are superior because you used the proper name - BullshiX. You probably call your vehicle a car - Automobile is the correct name. A Television is now called a TV. Many military personnel call a Magazine a Clip - My BIL did - and I guarantee he was twice the man you will ever be. By the way I don't make assumptions - they just make an ass out of you and me. I guess the first part of that can be considered true.

I love my freedom, I am grateful and eternally in debt the men and women in our military that fought/fight for it. That said they are human. Humans are fallible. Calling a car a banana doesn't suddenly make it a banana because the word was said by someone in a uniform.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I didn't realize we had any "dealings", if we did I doubt I would have cared. I don't have any issues with insecurity at all. It's quite obvious you do. An insecure person is one who is constantly trying to correct others - like you.

On your "I don't get it" thread, you talked about being nervous when you see people carrying. You said it would bother you if people didn't get alarmed if someone is carrying. Clearly, you still don't get it.

I have no "fears" and even at my age 71 would laugh in your face for that remark. I really think you wasted a lot of your time criticizing the OP when everyone else here understood exactly what he meant. Language is an ever evolving object - and always has been. The ONLY purpose for any language is to convey ideas and information to others. When that has been done it works.

Language only works when the people conversing are speaking the same language. German is identical to English, except they use different words for everything, and different grammar. If you're using words and grammar that English speakers do not recognize, you may as well be speaking a foreign language. When you disregard the rules of a language, you can no longer communicate.

There are many definitions and names of objects that have been changed in my lifetime. Many you use daily and feel like you are superior because you used the proper name - BullshiX. You probably call your vehicle a car - Automobile is the correct name. A Television is now called a TV.

Wrong. Still don't get it. Let me help.

A car is a type of automobile is a type of vehicle. Trucks, vans, and buses are all types of automobiles. Automobiles are a type of vehicle. A clip is not a type of magazine. It is a separate thing. Would you call a fuel pump a gas tank? A fuel pump fills a gas tank, much like a clip fills a magazine. If I called a filling station a fuel tank, would that be okay? What about if I was a veteran, is it okay then?

TV is a shortened form of television. You're desperately clawing at an argument, but you've come up short. You are wrong. That's it.

Many military personnel call a Magazine a Clip - My BIL did - and I guarantee he was twice the man you will ever be. By the way I don't make assumptions - they just make an ass out of you and me. I guess the first part of that can be considered true.

Don't tell me what the military calls things. I am a Soldier. We call magazines magazines, and clips clips. We use clips to load magazines to load firearms. Are you getting this yet?

 

[CPT Nervous]

Ok. Aside from clip vs mag (don't even get me started)....

I know that the OP was talking about giving the magazine to the kid.
But I think someone said it would be stupid but not illegal if it was the gun.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be illegal in that circumstance.
Indiana Code 35-47-10
(source)

IC 35-47-10-5
Dangerous possession of a firearm
Sec. 5. A child who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly:
(1) possesses a firearm for any purpose other than a purpose described in section 1 of this chapter; or
(2) provides a firearm to another child with or without remuneration for any purpose other than a purpose described in section 1 of this chapter;
commits dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony if the child has a prior conviction under this section.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.203-1996, SEC.4.

The exemptions listed are....
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A child who is attending a hunters safety course or a firearms safety course or an adult who is supervising the child during the course.
(2) A child engaging in practice in using a firearm for target shooting at an established range or in an area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited or supervised by:
(A) a qualified firearms instructor; or
(B) an adult who is supervising the child while the child is at the range.
(3) A child engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that uses firearms as a part of a performance or an adult who is involved in the competition or performance.
(4) A child who is hunting or trapping under a valid license issued to the child under IC 14-22.
(5) A child who is traveling with an unloaded firearm to or from an activity described in this section.
(6) A child who:
(A) is on real property that is under the control of the child's parent, an adult family member of the child, or the child's legal guardian; and
(B) has permission from the child's parent or legal guardian to possess a firearm.
(7) A child who:
(A) is at the child's residence; and
(B) has the permission of the child's parent, an adult family member of the child, or the child's legal guardian to possess a firearm.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.1-1995, SEC.78; P.L.203-1996, SEC.2.

None of those exemption appear to apply.
And it doesn't seem to make a difference loaded or unloaded.

Am I right????

back to the original question, if I was a police officer and witnessed this, I would have arrested the adult with the gunand charged him with Criminal Recklessness with a firearm.

The man provided the kid with the magazine. I cannot see how handing a mag to a kid, while the holstered gun remains holstered, can qualify for Criminal Recklessness with a firearm.

 

[actaeon277]

The man provided the kid with the magazine. I cannot see how handing a mag to a kid, while the holstered gun remains holstered, can qualify for Criminal Recklessness with a firearm.

Maybe you missed this part.
"I know that the OP was talking about giving the magazine to the kid.
But I think someone said it would be stupid but not illegal if it was the gun."

I wanted to know about if he had given him the gun.
Several people stated that would be legal.
And I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

So what about if he had given him the gun?

 

[CPT Nervous]

Maybe you missed this part.
"I know that the OP was talking about giving the magazine to the kid.
But I think someone said it would be stupid but not illegal if it was the gun."

I wanted to know about if he had given him the gun.
Several people stated that would be legal.
And I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

So what about if he had given him the gun?

I understood your post. It was Sloughfoot's that I was answering. I was using the I.C. Sorry for the mix up.

 

[actaeon277]

I understood your post. It was Sloughfoot's that I was answering. I was using the I.C. Sorry for the mix up.

I stand corrected.

But I'm still hoping for an answer.

 

[Burnsy]

Don't tell me what the military calls things. I am a Soldier. We call magazines magazines, and clips clips. We use clips to load magazines to load firearms. Are you getting this yet?

Game, set and match.....

 

[CPT Nervous]

I stand corrected.

But I'm still hoping for an answer.

You are right.

 

[actaeon277]

Since we're talking about people saying clip wrong, and how it's wrong to change magazine to clip.....

NRA Firearms Fact Book, 3rd Edition, page 89
quote
Clip or Magazine
This oversimplification is not rigidly adhered to by all manufacturers or writers.
....
in 1909-1910 US Ordinance reports referred to the "clip" (not "magazine") of the upcoming service pistol...
end quote.


So it looks like this arguement is a recent thing. Because they both used magazines and clips, together. They didn't use to be two seperate things.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Since we're talking about people saying clip wrong, and how it's wrong to change magazine to clip.....

NRA Firearms Fact Book, 3rd Edition, page 89
quote
Clip or Magazine
This oversimplification is not rigidly adhered to by all manufacturers or writers.
....
in 1909-1910 US Ordinance reports referred to the "clip" (not "magazine") of the upcoming service pistol...
end quote.


So it looks like this arguement is a recent thing. Because they both used magazines and clips, together. They didn't use to be two seperate things.

Yeah. That's over 100 years old. There is a clear distinction today.

 

[Mosinguy]

Since we're talking about people saying clip wrong, and how it's wrong to change magazine to clip.....

NRA Firearms Fact Book, 3rd Edition, page 89
quote
Clip or Magazine
This oversimplification is not rigidly adhered to by all manufacturers or writers.
....
in 1909-1910 US Ordinance reports referred to the "clip" (not "magazine") of the upcoming service pistol...
end quote.


So it looks like this arguement is a recent thing. Because they both used magazines and clips, together. They didn't use to be two seperate things.

But back then there were few magazine fed weapons around. Everything was clip fed.

 

[sloughfoot]

The man provided the kid with the magazine. I cannot see how handing a mag to a kid, while the holstered gun remains holstered, can qualify for Criminal Recklessness with a firearm.

instead of conjecture I speak from experience. The prosecutor and Judge convicted my guy and his license to carry handgun was revoked after the conviction.

 

[MikeDVB]

instead of conjecture I speak from experience. The prosecutor and Judge convicted my guy and his license to carry handgun was revoked after the conviction.

I'm lost...

 

[sloughfoot]

I'm lost...

taking the magazine out and then reinserting it in the pistol requires touching and manipulating the pistol even though it remains in the holster.

 

[MikeDVB]

taking the magazine out and then reinserting it in the pistol requires touching and manipulating the pistol even though it remains in the holster.

Is there a law that states you cannot touch or manipulate a firearm?

 

[sloughfoot]

Is there a law that states you cannot touch or manipulate a firearm?

I thought I stated it. Criminal Recklessness with a firearm. It would apply in a restaurant with people around

 

[MikeDVB]

I thought I stated it. Criminal Recklessness with a firearm. It would apply in a restaurant with people around

Ah, I was looking for IC already cited here...

I see 'Criminal Recklessness' as IC 35-42-2-2.

The only reference I see to firearms is this:

(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or

I found it via IC 35-47-11.1-4 which says "(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm."

Being that IC 35-47-11.1 is Chapter 11.1. Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories - I would suspect that it referencing IC 35-42-2-2 as 'criminal recklessness involving the use of a firearm' to be the correct IC.

Is there one I'm missing that makes your point?

 

[sloughfoot]

I am posting this on my smart phone while in Florida so please cut me a little slack but you are reading the wrong section of the IC.

35-42-2-2 (b) (1) (2) (a) class D Felony.

this is what you would be charged with if you manipulate a firearm in public especially in a crowd and you're lucky enough to not be shot by someonewho misinterprets your actions.

 

[MikeDVB]

I am posting this on my smart phone while in Florida so please cut me a little slack but you are reading the wrong section of the IC.

Prepare for the double negative, but I have never not cut you slack .

35-42-2-2 (b) (1) (2) (a) class D Felony.

There is no 35-42-2-2 (b) (1) (2) (a)... There is only 35-42-2-2 (b) (1) [or] (2):

I searched the entire IC for "manipulate" and there are no occurrences, and I searched for "firearm" and the only occurrence is the one I quoted previously about shooting into an occupied dwelling or place where people likely to gather.

There is no other mention of the word 'firearm' in IC 35-42-2-2 or anywhere else in 'IC 35-42-2'.

Not giving you a hard time, but you still haven't provided the IC that backs your statement up - I suspect if one were arrested under that IC as you explain, they wouldn't be prosecuted as what you're saying is illegal isn't actually illegal - unless I'm not seeing it and you're simply quoting the wrong IC.

If such a law really does exist, I do want to know what it is - and am not simply questioning you to give you a hard time.