Dennys Not So Great

[CathyInBlue]

The Melvin Washington case from 2010.

We really need to get in the habit of citing court cases with the year, at least, if not the Full case number.

United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232
State v Richardson (2010) ISC, 49S02-0910-CR-428
Washington v State (2010) CAI, 49S02-0907-CR-649
Malone v State (2008) CAI, 49S02-0701-CR-18
Gaddis v State (1997) CAI, 49A02-9611-CR-727
State v Johnson (2001) ISC, 71S03-0009-CR-529
Lyles v State (2012) ISC, 49S02-1201-CR-49

These are the most current and relevant case law that implicates, directly or indirectly, the A1 S32 and 2A rights in Indiana of which I'm aware.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Let me see if I can add some clarity to thie "in the case of a stop there must be reasonable suspicion that you are, have or are about to commit a crime" that seems to confuse people.

In Indiana, it is illegal to own or carry a "chinese throwing star." This is indisputable.

Indiana Code 35-47-5

If a police officer sees you walking with a chinese throwing star attached to your belt there is no need for "reasonable suspicion that you are, have or are about to commit a crime". He can see in plain sight that you are committing a crime. There is no mitigation.

In the same way, and under the Indiana code, it is just as illegal to be in public carrying a handgun. If an officer of the law sees you with a handgun, he does not need "reasonable suspicion" to know that you are breaking the law. It is right in front of him.

However, unlike with the throwing stars, there is mitigation. IF you have a LTC then you are exempt from the law. So how does the officer know if you have mitigation? He asks. You answer with proof. End of story (or should be.)

We would all like the officer to start the check-out process with the assumption that you have mitigation, but it doesn't always work that way with some jackwagons. That's when most of the problems start.

One can argue that the officer should "know" that you are not breaking the law with his psychic powers, but it doesn't work that way.

BTW... I am not justifying the situation... just explaining the way things are.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Let me see if I can add some clarity to thie "in the case of a stop there must be reasonable suspicion that you are, have or are about to commit a crime" that seems to confuse people.

In Indiana, it is illegal to own or carry a "chinese throwing star." This is indisputable.

Indiana Code 35-47-5

If a police officer sees you walking with a chinese throwing star attached to your belt there is no need for "reasonable suspicion that you are, have or are about to commit a crime". He can see in plain sight that you are committing a crime. There is no mitigation.

In the same way, and under the Indiana code, it is just as illegal to be in public carrying a handgun. If an officer of the law sees you with a handgun, he does not need "reasonable suspicion" to know that you are breaking the law. It is right in front of him.

However, unlike with the throwing stars, there is mitigation. IF you have a LTC then you are exempt from the law. So how does the officer know if you have mitigation? He asks. You answer with proof. End of story (or should be.)

One can argue that the officer should "know" that you are not breaking the law with his psychic powers, but it doesn't work that way.

BTW... I am not justifying the situation... just explaining the way things are.

I just don't have the patience to type all of that out everytime.

 

[Jack Burton]

I just don't have the patience to type all of that out everytime.

copy - save - copy - paste is my little friend.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

copy - save - copy - paste is my little friend.

I'm on too many different computers and phones for that to work. I used to be slick at it, my laptop has all kinds of goodness saved on it and easy access but I rarely get to use it with my 14 month old son's newfound love of all things breakable and mobility.

 

[actaeon277]

Thank you Jack Burton. That was a good explanation.

 

[Rookie]

I'm on too many different computers and phones for that to work. I used to be slick at it, my laptop has all kinds of goodness saved on it and easy access but I rarely get to use it with my 14 month old son's newfound love of all things breakable and mobility.

TASER! TASER! TASER!

Just a suggestion...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

TASER! TASER! TASER!

Just a suggestion...

His mom says no... But that was my first thought too

 

[Rookie]

Mom always ruins the fun...

 

[eldirector]

I just don't have the patience to type all of that out everytime.

Maybe add it to your sig?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe add it to your sig?

I'd rather keep it short and sweet. Kind of my flavor of the week

 

[2A_Tom]

With all due respect that is still not what the "LAW" says.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

With all due respect that is still not what the "LAW" says.

Why do you have to argue a completely moot point??? Just becuase it is not written straight into the IC that you need to show your LTCH at the request of a LEO can you not use your reasoning and figure out that it is the necessary end result of the compilation of the rest of the IC and case law?

Why make it more complicated than necessary?

 

[Jack Burton]

Why do you have to argue a completely moot point??? Just becuase it is not written straight into the IC that you need to show your LTCH at the request of a LEO can you not use your reasoning and figure out that it is the necessary end result of the compilation of the rest of the IC and case law?

Why make it more complicated than necessary?

Technically, he's right. You DON;T have to "show" your LTC.

However, at that point the officer has the full right to arrest you for illegally possessing a firearm in public. Since you do have a gun in your possession no further evidence is needed that you are breaking a law.

You only have to show your LTC if you choose to claim the mitigating circumstances. However, you cannot have it both ways... claiming the mitigation (at that moment in time) and willfully not showing the LTC.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Technically, he's right. You DON;T have to "show" your LTC.

However, at that point the officer has the full right to arrest you for illegally possessing a firearm in public. Since you do have a gun in your possession no further evidence is needed that you are breaking a law.

You only have to show your LTC if you choose to claim the mitigating circumstances. However, you cannot have it both ways... claiming the mitigation (at that moment in time) and willfully not showing the LTC.

I KNOW he is technically right but that isn't the end result if you don't want arrested. I kind of think that the difference between going to jail and not going to jail would be obvious.

I think it is irresponsible to talk about not being required to prove you possess a valid LTCH when it could easily (and justifiably) land someone in jail.

 

[KG1]

We can go back and forth about this forever. The way I look at it is, one way or another you will have to prove that you are legally carrying a firearm at some point in time so why not just show LTCH upon request since that is the reason they are issued and you carry them in the first place?

 

[2A_Tom]

DoI understand you to imply that even if it is not law that it is ok because the Leo said so. Have you read Melvin Washington v. State of Indiana 49A02-o97wCR-649.
The LEO received report of open display of a shotgun.
The Court said it could have been a false report by his enemy.
The LEO saw a glint of metal and yelled gun, searched Washington, produced said gun, learned that Washington was a felon and arrested him.
The court supressed the handgun because "the seizure of the weapon was illegal where there was an absence of an articuclable basis that there was a legitimate concern of officer safety or a belief that a crime had been comited or was being committed."

This man was a felon, carrying illegally without a LTCH and the court essentially said that the officers had performed an illegal Treey stop.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that carrying a handgun in and of itself is not reasonable suspicion let alone reasonable cause. Kirsch, Judge.

In the case of a Chinese throwing star there are no exceptions to the illegality of carrying them.
In the case of a handgun there are two notable exceptions. The tie goes to the runner. In the absence of reasonable suspicion the deference goes to the Citizen.

That is what the coutr said. Period.

IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAW THERE SIMPLY IS NO LAW AND LEO CAN NOT JUST MAKE THEM UP.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

DoI understand you to imply that even if it is not law that it is ok because the Leo said so. Have you read Melvin Washington v. State of Indiana 49A02-o97wCR-649.
The LEO received report of open display of a shotgun.
The Court said it could have been a false report by his enemy.
The LEO saw a glint of metal and yelled gun, searched Washington, produced said gun, learned that Washington was a felon and arrested him.
The court supressed the handgun because "the seizure of the weapon was illegal where there was an absence of an articuclable basis that there was a legitimate concern of officer safety or a belief that a crime had been comited or was being committed."

This man was a felon, carrying illegally without a LTCH and the court essentially said that the officers had performed an illegal Treey stop.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that carrying a handgun in and of itself is not reasonable suspicion let alone reasonable cause. Kirsch, Judge.

In the case of a Chinese throwing star there are no exceptions to the illegality of carrying them.
In the case of a handgun there are two notable exceptions. The tie goes to the runner. In the absence of reasonable suspicion the deference goes to the Citizen.

That is what the coutr said. Period.

IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAW THERE SIMPLY IS NO LAW AND LEO CAN NOT JUST MAKE THEM UP.

I am talking about minding your own business OCing in public. LEO doesn't have to make up anything if they can SEE your handgun. If they can't, then there is obviously NO RAS for a search now is there?

See the bolded portion? That is what you are confused by. It is inferring to a report of a concealed handgun, not one in plain sight. If the LEO can't see it then there is no RAS, if they can see it there is RAS of a crime, therefore you need to prove you are licensed.

 

[2A_Tom]

What i am debating is the LAW. please cite and Paste IC, Indiana or Supreme Court case law that says that a LEO has the right to check your LTCH for no reason other than he sees a weapon as he did on Washington.

BTW if I had argued Washington, my grounds would have been IC 34-47-2=1-(b)-(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;

Also I want to know how to aply for a LTCCTS

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What i am debating is the LAW. please cite and Paste IC, Indiana or Supreme Court case law that says that a LEO has the right to check your LTCH for no reason other than he sees a weapon as he did on Washington.

BTW if I had argued Washington, my grounds would have been IC 34-47-2=1-(b)-(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;

Also I want to know how to aply for a LTCCTS

LTCCTS?