Dennys Not So Great

[rockhopper46038]

I would like to see some of the court cases you cited. The law reads the exact opposite.

Me too. Much as it aggrieves me, it appears the judges in this state have determined that asking for that pink piece of paper is a-ok with them. However, producing that same piece of paper is supposed to cause the police to vanish like wraiths in the night; but it doesn't always seem to have that effect.

 

[youngda9]

It would have been nice to request the manager to ask you to leave if indeed that is the case. Then you could've asked the manager WHO complained. My bet it was just the cops, and that they may not have ever even spoken to the management.

Sorry for your experience.

 

[Roadie]

On a side note... last nite I saw the Denny's commercial again. The 2nd Amendment reference had been edited out..

 

[mtgasten]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.
We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

to my understanding in the state of Indiana it is illegal to carry a handgun period. With that being said some of us are allowed to by the all powerful and magical LTCH. meaning that in Indiana when one is OC'ing (or CC'ing) it is legal for a police officer to ask you for your LTCH, now in states other than Indiana where it is legal to Open Carry without a License, then yes you are correct, i forget what the court case is, i believe it may be U.S. vs. Deberry.

 

[Excalibur]

They can ASK to see your permit/license, but you DON'T HAVE TO show it to them. They can go on with the long processes to threatening you but in the end, you ARE in the right to not show them anything, ID included. Suspicion doesn't mean there's a crime. The cops can be asses about it under the guise of "public safety" but they have no legal right to do anything to you until proven that you are in fact committing a crime. Yeah, they can inconvenience the **** out of you, but in the end, you are right to not say dick and they can pester you all you want.

If management of a business wants me to leave right away, I'll ask for a refund and go because I paid for services and if they are denying me, I want my money back.

Also this is why I suggested we all have a party at Denny's so not just one of us will get harassed.

 

[Scutter01]

They can ASK to see your permit/license, but you DON'T HAVE TO show it to them. They can go on with the long processes to threatening you but in the end, you ARE in the right to not show them anything, ID included.

Cite, please? The law says otherwise, as already noted in this thread.

 

[Roadie]

Cite, please? The law says otherwise, as already noted in this thread.

If I may..

They can ASK to see your permit/license, but you DON'T HAVE TO show it to them. They can go on with the long processes to threatening you but in the end, you ARE in the right to not show them anything, ID included. Suspicion doesn't mean there's a crime. The cops can be asses about it under the guise of "public safety" but they have no legal right to do anything to you until proven that you are in fact committing a crime. Yeah, they can inconvenience the **** out of you, but in the end, you are right to not say dick and they can pester you all you want.

If management of a business wants me to leave right away, I'll ask for a refund and go because I paid for services and if they are denying me, I want my money back.

Also this is why I suggested we all have a party at Denny's so not just one of us will get harassed.

From post 4:

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by a person convicted of domestic battery; exceptions
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.

IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies
Sec. 23. (a) A person who violates section 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, or 16 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates section 7, 17, or 18 of this chapter commits a Class C felony.
(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

Repeat after me:

Read thread, then post
Read thread, then post


​

 

[mtgasten]

Cite, please? The law says otherwise, as already noted in this thread.

agreed in Indiana (like i said earlier) carrying a handgun is illegal without a LTCH which is why officers are allowed to ask to see your LTCH, but other than that they can't do anything because of Richardson v. U.S.(i think thats that right one) otherwise you get arrested for carrying without a License

 

[Rookie]

Maybe he's basing it on this ruling...

UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.

 

[Roadie]

agreed in Indiana (like i said earlier) carrying a handgun is illegal without a LTCH which is why officers are allowed to ask to see your LTCH, but other than that they can't do anything (unless you don't have a LTCH then you get arrested) because of Richardson v. U.S.(i think thats that right one)

Even simpler than that. They can't do anything on private property without the permission of a representative of said property, once the LTCH has been verified..

Even then, it is not a "gun crime" not to leave, but rather trespass, if asked to do so..

 

[mtgasten]

Even simpler than that. They can't do anything on private property without the permission of a representative of said property, once the LTCH has been verified..

Even then, it is not a "gun crime" not to leave, but rather trespass, if asked to do so..

exactly! haha

 

[mtgasten]

Maybe he's basing it on this ruling...

UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.

yes i believe thats what he means (see one of my posts above) but i believe that doesn't work since in Indiana its illegal to carry without a License

it does work however in this situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Too many times the very simple truth has been posted and COMPLETELY ignored by many people.

In Indiana the END result is that when requested by a LEO, you need to show your LTCH or face arrest.

They CAN run your name and DOB and come up with your LTCH status but having an attitude in the beginning is likely that they will bypass that step and haul your butt into lockup and take possession of your weapon and the rest of your property until you PROVE before a judge you had a valid LTCH at the time of your arrest.

I can post case law up from Tactical Firearms Training's Indiana Gun Law Class this weekend tonight if there are still unbelievers out there.

 

[Roadie]

They can ASK to see your permit/license, but you DON'T HAVE TO show it to them. They can go on with the long processes to threatening you but in the end, you ARE in the right to not show them anything, ID included. Suspicion doesn't mean there's a crime. The cops can be asses about it under the guise of "public safety" but they have no legal right to do anything to you until proven that you are in fact committing a crime. Yeah, they can inconvenience the **** out of you, but in the end, you are right to not say dick and they can pester you all you want.

If management of a business wants me to leave right away, I'll ask for a refund and go because I paid for services and if they are denying me, I want my money back.

Also this is why I suggested we all have a party at Denny's so not just one of us will get harassed.

If you would like to test this, I would happily man the video camera for you

 

[Excalibur]

If you would like to test this, I would happily man the video camera for you

I think I made several posts how I hate it when people test the patience of cops on camera to prove a point when my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

 

[Scutter01]

my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

"Can" is not the same as "allowed". If they invent a reason to arrest you, you should be filing a civil rights lawsuit. "Taking you into the station" is an arrest.

 

[Roadie]

I think I made several posts how I hate it when people test the patience of cops on camera to prove a point when my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

I was responding more to the fact you say you dont have to provide LTCH..

 

[stephen87]

I think I made several posts how I hate it when people test the patience of cops on camera to prove a point when my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

It does not matter what your "buddies" say, they must have a legal reason to haul you away or they will face the repercussions. The truth is, as stated before, in IN it is a crime to carry a firearm without a LTCH. Also, not everyone carries a camera to test the police but to protect themselves. In the court of law if it were my word versus a LEO's word, guess who they'll believe?

 

[Ted]

"Can" is not the same as "allowed". If they invent a reason to arrest you, you should be filing a civil rights lawsuit. "Taking you into the station" is an arrest.

Of course, its may be just as easy for the police in Indiana to ID them for 24 hours.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think I made several posts how I hate it when people test the patience of cops on camera to prove a point when my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

You believe everything your cop buddies tell you?

"Can" is not the same as "allowed". If they invent a reason to arrest you, you should be filing a civil rights lawsuit. "Taking you into the station" is an arrest.

Just placing someone in handcuffs goes beyond detainment and qualifies as arrest.