Dennys Not So Great

[lyons0425]

Here is is.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._that_honor_indianas_ltch-25.html#post1940032

But there is at least one update to it, WI now issues a license/permit and honors ours. And OH might hopefully soon, legislation was passed in the house to honor all states, now it just needs to get passed in the senate and signed by the Govn.

Any links on the OH law?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Also your not required to carry your LTCH anymore, you used to have to but the language of the law was changed. They can verify if you have one issued to you by your name/dob/address.

IC citation, or it didn't happen.

Edit: Grrrrr. Okay, I looked up 35-47-2-1 and saw the last annotation was from P.L.6-2012, so I go looking it up. It was HEA 1009 http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/HE/HE1009.1.html . Problem is, 35-47-2-1 wasn't amended by PL6, it was replaced in toto! Looks like a bit of digging to find out what really changed there. Maybe P.L.164-2011 will have some clues.

Edit: Edit: P.L.164-2011 was SEA 506 http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/SE/SE0506.1.html . SEA 506 reads in part:

*quote redacted on account of the IC page formatting and the post formatting don't play nice together, but suffice it to say the link above reveals all*

So, it looks like that change went into effect 7/1/2011, and was maintained when the whole section was replaced by P.L.6-2012.

*grumble* *grumble* I knew there was a reason I never went into law. This stuff is tedious.

 

[CathyInBlue]

That does beg the question, however, of how do you deal with a JBT like the OP who hasn't been retrained on 35-47-2 since 1997.

 

[KG1]

IC citation, or it didn't happen.

Edit: Grrrrr. Okay, I looked up 35-47-2-1 and saw the last annotation was from P.L.6-2012, so I go looking it up. It was HEA 1009 Enrolled Act, House Bill 1009 . Problem is, 35-47-2-1 wasn't amended by PL6, it was replaced in toto! Looks like a bit of digging to find out what really changed there. Maybe P.L.164-2011 will have some clues.

Edit: Edit: P.L.164-2011 was SEA 506 Enrolled Act, Senate Bill 0506 . SEA 506 reads in part:

*quote redacted on account of the IC page formatting and the post formatting don't play nice together, but suffice it to say the link above reveals all*

So, it looks like that change went into effect 7/1/2011, and was maintained when the whole section was replaced by P.L.6-2012.

*grumble* *grumble* I knew there was a reason I never went into law. This stuff is tedious.

I see you got it figured out. The part about the license "being in the person's possession" was stricken.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That does beg the question, however, of how do you deal with a JBT like the OP who hasn't been retrained on 35-47-2 since 1997.

Same way you deal with any LEO that doesn't know the law.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Get falsely arrested and then sue the department for not training them better?

 

[confused89]

So I didn't feel like reading all of this, but I do have a question. If you are asked to leave after you ordered your food, but before you get your food do you have to pay for it? Also if you recieved your drink and then are asked to leave do you have to pay for the drink even if you didn't drink it? Then if you got your food but were not able to eat it do you have to pay for it?

 

[CathyInBlue]

I would argue that having ordered, you've entered into an unwritten contract with the establishment of food for money. That means you have a contractual interest in the property, and hence can't be run in for trespassing. Buuuuuuuut, that would be a hair to split in a court room, not a diner.

In the moment, I would ask the waitress to call the manager over to get a confirmation that the manager has, indeed, empowered the JBT as his agent to remove you. Either the manager confirms, in which case, you ARE trespassing, or the manager denied so empowering the JBT, in which case, the JBT can not act as the manager's agent. The former being the case, the trespass statute is clear, you have to leave IMMEDIATELY.

IC 35-43-2-2(a) A person who: (2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent; [...] commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.

You either have a contractual obligation to pay the bill, in which case, you're not trespassing, or you do not have a contractual obligation to pay the bill, and, if you knowingly or intentionally tarry between your seat and the nearest convenient door, such as to cash out your bill, that could be interpretted as refusal.

The only parts of the trespass statute that references the power of a law enforcement officer to eject a person under their own authority are (a)(7) and (c), but those are in reference to abandonned properties and are directed at squatters. If the diner is not abandonned or comdemned, they don't apply, and even if they did, they require the LEO have RAS.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Get falsely arrested and then sue the department for not training them better?

False arrest is not necessary, suing is not always necessary. I meant you should react the same way you would personally. Formal complaints, writing letters, calling, lawsuit, etc are all ways of dealing with it.

So I didn't feel like reading all of this, but I do have a question. If you are asked to leave after you ordered your food, but before you get your food do you have to pay for it? Also if you recieved your drink and then are asked to leave do you have to pay for the drink even if you didn't drink it? Then if you got your food but were not able to eat it do you have to pay for it?

I did read your question but I just didn't feel like answering it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In light of the INSC's smack down in Lyles a few days ago, I would say there is NO contractual interest in your meal, so having ordered/eaten/finished your meal, but not having yet paid before being ordered to vacate by the property owner or their agent, you are absolved from your duty to pay for goods or services rendered by the proprietor by his insistence, through the trespass statute, that you leave without refusal.

 

[Spyke05]

Scutter you are incorrect. You do not need to produce the LTCH or ID unless probable casue has been established. I will cite source in a moment.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Actually, RAS is the standard to detain (Terry stop), for the purpose of a field investigation. That is the level at which production of LTCH to falsify a charge of violating 35-47-2 would engage. Of course, unless the FI is for an infraction or ordinance violation, you still don't have to produce ID.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Scutter you are incorrect. You do not need to produce the LTCH or ID unless probable casue has been established. I will cite source in a moment.

Well, you said a "moment" and its been 4 hours... If you can't prove otherwise I believe Cathy is correct here.

The RAS would be the fact that carrying a handgun in Ind is a crime and you either need to provide proof you are an exempted person or possess a valid LTCH- the easiest way of course is to show it to them.

 

[CathyInBlue]

But, it's not a de facto crime. Licenses to commit that crime are easy to get and common. Therefore, the default assumption cannot be that anyone carrying a handgun is committing the crime. The default assumption must be that anyone carrying a handgun has a license to do so, just like the default assumption must be that anyone operating a motor vehicle has a license to do so.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

But, it's not a de facto crime. Licenses to commit that crime are easy to get and common. Therefore, the default assumption cannot be that anyone carrying a handgun is committing the crime. The default assumption must be that anyone carrying a handgun has a license to do so, just like the default assumption must be that anyone operating a motor vehicle has a license to do so.

Incorrect. No assumptions can be made in criminal law. It took a SCOTUS decision to not allow traffic stops to check your DL.

If a LEO has RAS that you have a handgun, you need to provide a reason why he should not arrest you for carry without a license. Open Carry is obviously RAS that you are committing a crime. Possessing a valid LTCH exempts you from that crime.

 

[KG1]

Incorrect. No assumptions can be made in criminal law. It took a SCOTUS decision to not allow traffic stops to check your DL.

If a LEO has RAS that you have a handgun, you need to provide a reason why he should not arrest you for carry without a license. Open Carry is obviously RAS that you are committing a crime. Possessing a valid LTCH exempts you from that crime.

I get what you're saying.

It seems to me though that Open Carrying would not be obvious RAS to prove that you are committing a crime, as you put it, in and of itself since you are legally licensed to do so.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I get what you're saying.

It seems to me though that Open Carrying would not be obvious RAS to prove that you are committing a crime, as you put it, in and of itself since you are legally licensed to do so.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I'm not saying I agree with the morality of hassling an OCer for his LTCH but I also don't want someone new to OC getting arrested because they refuse to show a LEO their license.

The fact is you need to show you are licensed if you are approached for carrying a handgun.

 

[Spyke05]

Sorry it took so long but I was working but I have had a personal experience with this. I was stopped by a LEO while OCing(For the record I usually CC) and was asked to produce my gun permit and I asked why and was told that it was making people at the Wal Mart I was at nervous and I asked him if I had to show it because I was curious due to some videos I had seen on youtube where people were recording officers who asked to see permits and yes some where in Indiana and they refused stating that without probale cause they did not need to produce their permits and after periods of harassment were released with no reprocussions. The officer stated that no I technically did not have to though it is a hassle for him and it would make things easier.(All this being said though I did show my permit and thanked him for the information and he was very nice about the whole thing.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sorry it took so long but I was working but I have had a personal experience with this. I was stopped by a LEO while OCing(For the record I usually CC) and was asked to produce my gun permit and I asked why and was told that it was making people at the Wal Mart I was at nervous and I asked him if I had to show it because I was curious due to some videos I had seen on youtube where people were recording officers who asked to see permits and yes some where in Indiana and they refused stating that without probale cause they did not need to produce their permits and after periods of harassment were released with no reprocussions. The officer stated that no I technically did not have to though it is a hassle for him and it would make things easier.(All this being said though I did show my permit and thanked him for the information and he was very nice about the whole thing.

Well, for future reference the videos you watched and the cop you talked to were most likely mistaken.

People's fear have nothing to do with the law but I have seen so many LEOs use it for justification to do many extralegal actions. If I were you, you need to read up on Ind Code 35-47 (all of them, they contain most of Ind gun laws) and also start with two case laws: Washington v state, and Richardson v state. Both are searchable on google, just type in the name plus handgun and it should be the correct one. Be sure you find the ISC version of Richardson because they reversed the appeals court decision and explained why. There are also two different 'Washington's and while both are useful the more important one is the guy with the gun and drugs under his seat, not the one on a moped.

 

[2A_Tom]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I'm not saying I agree with the morality of hassling an OCer for his LTCH but I also don't want someone new to OC getting arrested because they refuse to show a LEO their license.

The fact is you need to show you are licensed if you are approached for carrying a handgun.

Actually that is not what the law says. An indicment or information is the act of being charged with a crime and an arrest is just that. In both cases you must prove that you have a LTCH in the case of a stop there must be reasonable suspicion that you are, have or are about to commit a crime.

However even though it is not required by law, and is a minor harassment, we should probably all suffer to produce our LTCH to the JBT.

Now where are the libertarians to dispute me.