Carrying without LTCH

[mistap]

Wow! I am so dense! What about driving my car? OK, I know that driving is a privilege (uh..... NO, its not. Not really)

Moot point: I haven't the inclination to drive your car.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Moot point: I haven't the inclination to drive your car.

I see what you did there....... I stand corrected.

 

[Richwon4]

So arrested is what happens when someone get caught carrying without a permit, but what kind of offense goes on record for that guy when he gets caught. I'm guessing it is far more common than people like to think. Misdemeaner, Felony?

 

[mistap]

So arrested is what happens when someone get caught carrying without a permit, but what kind of offense goes on record for that guy when he gets caught. I'm guessing it is far more common than people like to think. Misdemeaner, Felony?

Depends on of what charge one is convicted. I believe the statute is posted elsewhere in this thread. For the most, it's an A misdemeanor, but there are aggravating circumstances which can elevate the charge to a felony, IIRC

 

[CBR1000rr]

I was just watching the fun without offering an opinion when a thought occurred to me. I want to ask the guys who refuse to get licensed to exercize a right this question; Are any of you married? Did you obtain a license for this? If you did, then what do you think about doing that? If not then how do you negotiate the legal ramifications involved by not being legally married?

I am not taking sides yet, I am still mulling it over. The ripples seem to go everywhere. Now I am thinking if there are any licensed plumbers out there? Lawyers? Doctors?....... Just studying on the subject.

You bring up an interesting point. I believe most are missing the potential ramifications and possible conflict of interests.

For the record, I am married with children. I am also opposed (as most men are ) to the idea of marriage. My stance is that I don't need a permission slip to signify my love for my spouse. My wife is an animal of a different color on this issue which is the only reason I am legally married today. I love my wife and can not imagine life with out her. Getting married was her dream and an opportunity for me to help her fulill a life long dream and I took it.

What most people don't realize is that the ability to marry and enjoy the benefits of said legal partnership is granted to all of us in the Declaration of Independence. The issue with this regarding your question becomes one of moral debate and depending on which side of the fence you fall can very well make you an oppressor.

For me, the issue I draw is that we have placed a license on the pursuit of happiness. Since definition of happiness, for some, happens to conflict with the teachings of Jesus, many believe it is perfectly fine to restrict the freedoms of a few.

Again, for me it boils down to your line in the sand. Are you willing to say that your rights are more important than anothers? And if so, at what point do you become the tyrant?

 

[mistap]

What most people don't realize is that the ability to marry and enjoy the benefits of said legal partnership is granted to all of us in the Declaration of Independence. The issue with this regarding your question becomes one of moral debate and depending on which side of the fence you fall can very well make you an oppressor.

...
Again, for me it boils down to your line in the sand. Are you willing to say that your rights are more important than anothers? And if so, at what point do you become the tyrant?

What many others do not realize is that the DoI, while one of the founding documents of our country, is not the Supreme Law of the Land.

The other weakspot in your position is that The Right to Pursue Happiness, was identified in the DoI as having been "endowed" upon men by thier Creator. The inconvenient truth is that this Creator declared homosexuality an abomination long before Jesus set foot on the Earth.



Edited due to time constraints

 

[CBR1000rr]

What many others do not realize is that the DoI, while one of the founding documents of our country, is not the Supreme Law of the Land.

You are correct sir. It is not the document in question but it doesn't detract from the value of the words contained. Had the 5th amendment not removed the word "happiness" from this simple phrase, I would have used the constitution as the reference.

 

[JettaKnight]

Carrying a gun inside the waistband without any kind of holster.

Not the safest way to carry a gun.

I can't believe there's ten pages or so and Kirk hasn't made an appearance to mention Steve Whatshisname.

 

[Hohn]

You have just defined myself sir. I refuse to submit to the scrutiny of the government just so I can exercise my 2A rights. These are the same rights everyone happens to be quasi fighting for. I am most certainly a qualified individual who has never been arrested and only pulled over a handful of times. I am in no way prohibited from owning a firearm or being given permission to carry a handgun. I simply do not agree with ANY restrictions placed upon ANY of our rights.

Now, being the rebel I am, I do NOT carry a pistol (Mexican Carry or Puerto Rican carry in my case) out of respect for the law. This doesn't mean I am defenseless or at the mercy of a criminal who opts to disobey the law of the land.

So, you're an anarchist. You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe you do WTH you want, when you want, and that's that.

Gov't is not some stranger dictating from on high. It's your neighbor. And his neighbor. It's how we come to some sort of agreement on the rules that will govern our society.

You cannot have a functional society without restrictions on liberty. Either those restrictions will be internal or they will be external. For people of virtue, manners, and morals, internal restrictions will suffice and you can have an ordered society with very few laws at all. This is what our Founders hoped for-- but they ASSUMED the people of good moral character would not NEED a bunch of external laws to govern them-- they could govern themselves.

Or, for a society of hedonists or anarchists, you have to have an external law that is a poor substitute because no one will ever agree on the definitions and because no external governance (coercion) is as effective as voluntary submission.


This is consistent with your other post about marriage and such. You don't like the law or apparently understand it very much. If everyone took the attitude you do, we'd have complete and utter chaos.


JMO

 

[buckhunter21]

Sad thing is, if caught and then tries to apply for LTCH the arrest will either delay or even cause him not to be able to carry legally.

 

[Smokepole]

I know a guy that used to OC, and was under the impression that as long as he OC'd he did not need a LTCH. Sd. a cop that he knew told him that. I have since advised him that is NOT the case and I haven't seen him OC since.

 

[BoldCourageousWoman]

While selling conceal carry purses @ the Indy 1500, I was surprised that several women admitted to carrying w/o permits; including one from Illinois. I understand the Constitutional right argument, but I would not want to explain it to a jury if I had to use it for self-defense.

 

[Bunnykid68]

While selling conceal carry purses @ the Indy 1500, I was surprised that several women admitted to carrying w/o permits; including one from Illinois. I understand the Constitutional right argument, but I would not want to explain it to a jury if I had to use it for self-defense.

If you needed to use it for self defense, at least you would be able to explain it to a jury because if you didn't have it you may very well be dead

 

[CBR1000rr]

So, you're an anarchist. You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe you do WTH you want, when you want, and that's that.

Gov't is not some stranger dictating from on high. It's your neighbor. And his neighbor. It's how we come to some sort of agreement on the rules that will govern our society.

You cannot have a functional society without restrictions on liberty. Either those restrictions will be internal or they will be external. For people of virtue, manners, and morals, internal restrictions will suffice and you can have an ordered society with very few laws at all. This is what our Founders hoped for-- but they ASSUMED the people of good moral character would not NEED a bunch of external laws to govern them-- they could govern themselves.

Or, for a society of hedonists or anarchists, you have to have an external law that is a poor substitute because no one will ever agree on the definitions and because no external governance (coercion) is as effective as voluntary submission.


This is consistent with your other post about marriage and such. You don't like the law or apparently understand it very much. If everyone took the attitude you do, we'd have complete and utter chaos.


JMO

It's JMO but your comment makes no sense.

Am I an anarchist? No. In fact, I am not only a firm believer in the rule of law but I am also a firm believer in enforcing said law with actual punishment. I believe that our society has degraded to the point it has because some stranger is sittin on a high horse deciding that punishment isn't really the answer and that we should further restrict the rights of law biding citizens as opposed to forcing people to take responsibility for their own.

As for my ideas of marriage? What makes you think I don't believe in rule of law because of my position on marriage? The reality is that my opinions say quite the opposite about me. Marriage isn't finalized by the state. Marriage is a commitment that two people make to each other with or without some paper from the state. I love my wife. I don't need the state to tell me that my love is real or valid and I sure as hell don't need to pay them to tell me this.

Regarding your statement that government isn't some stranger sitting on high and dictating our lives, I would have to disagree. I understand law as well as most but I understand the political process quite well and to believe that politicians care more for their constituents more than the money and power associated with their position is to be nieve. Proof to my claim can be found in the current gun control debate and the lack of attention to the drugs being force fed to our nation. Our government would rather attack the second amendment that to tackle the big pharm profit machines. In fact, some stranger on high would rather allow my friends wife to be raped and murdered because he made a childish mistake on his 18th birthday which has forever removed his ability to own a firearm to protect his family than take on the pharm giants.

I believe there are 10 laws that were written and hold more weight than any law currently on the books. We should be enforcing these laws and actually punishing those who choose to break them.

 

[Doug]

While selling conceal carry purses @ the Indy 1500, I was surprised that several women admitted to carrying w/o permits; including one from Illinois. I understand the Constitutional right argument, but I would not want to explain it to a jury if I had to use it for self-defense.

Many people are abysmally ignorant of gun laws. It would be easy to convince a large part of the general public that you can buy a full-auto machine gun on E-bay and have it mailed directly to you house.

It may also be that they intend to shoot and leave, hoping no one recognized them.

 

[NetPIMP]

It would be easy to convince a large part of the general public that you can buy a full-auto machine gun on E-bay and have it mailed directly to you house.

Wait wait wait wait... WAIT... Are you saying this is NOT legal!?!??

If so, you seriously just ruined Christmas.

 

[JettaKnight]

I know a guy that used to OC, and was under the impression that as long as he OC'd he did not need a LTCH. Sd. a cop that he knew told him that. I have since advised him that is NOT the case and I haven't seen him OC since.

And that's why I don't like the term, "Concealed Carry Permit" applied to the LTCH.

 

[Brandon812]

So if people are carrying without LTC, does that mean they can walk into any gun shop, buy a gun, and walk out? Sorry, i'm new at this whole gun and carry and buy stuff. From reading, you can buy a gun without LTCH, but you can't transport it. Well, technically you can if you don't get caught by the police. If it's true that you can buy without a License, but you can't get it home. Then it seems a little redundant. Can someone clarify this for me?

Thanks

 

[NetPIMP]

So if people are carrying without LTC, does that mean they can walk into any gun shop, buy a gun, and walk out? Sorry, i'm new at this whole gun and carry and buy stuff. From reading, you can buy a gun without LTCH, but you can't transport it. Well, technically you can if you don't get caught by the police. If it's true that you can buy without a License, but you can't get it home. Then it seems a little redundant. Can someone clarify this for me?
Thanks

Sure ...

LTCH is NOT required to purchase & own. If you buy at retail (i.e. thru a licensed dealer), a background/NICS check is done. Private transactions do not require such checks at the moment - just that the "seller" has no reasonable cause to believe the "buyer" is not a "proper person."

An LTCH is required if you want to step onto non-private property with a loaded handgun on your person and ready to engage. Otherwise, you can drive around with it "unloaded, secured, and out of reach" all you want. There are rules about where you can and can't have a gun at all, but past that, you can take it with you wherever the heck you want.

You do not need an LTCH to transport or carry a long gun (rifle, shotgun) tho they are subject to the same rules about where you can/can't have a gun (schools, jails, courthouses, etc). That said, if you go walking down a public street with an AR on your shoulder, be prepared to be challenged about that, despite it being 100% legal (so long as you're not a prohibited person, and not within 1000ft of a school, etc).

You can buy any gun you want, and you can lawfully transport it wherever - the LTCH applies only to handguns and whether or not you can have it on your person, loaded, and ready to engage when you're not at home.

Enjoy!

PS - some more searching/reading would have answered this, but I've got some time to kill, so there you go.... the short version.

 

[Lycurgus]

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in 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 without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.
(c) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun.
(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.326-1987, SEC.1; P.L.195-2003, SEC.6; P.L.98-2004, SEC.155; P.L.118-2007, SEC.35; P.L.164-2011, SEC.1; P.L.6-2012, SEC.231.