What it was written in response to doesn't change what was written, even if a civil lawsuit needs to be filed to get the law to be followed. Should it go upward and be changed from the bench or revised by the legislature then that is something left for the future. A IN Court of Appeals ruling in a DUI case in 2011, was overturned; the conviction was overturned because the letter of the law, not what law enforcement said the legislature intended when it was written, was what was to be followed.
Don't take my word for it though, read Kem Gumm vs the State of Indiana:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10241103pss.pdf
Which is a good thing, because on a parallel note, if SB-1 where to be followed in the manner many in LE (and it's not a knock on you there's an FOP letter that was full of sensationalism without fact to back it up) rumored it to be "open season on law enforcement), we'd be in a very different situation than we are now where resistance must be to illegal entry as stipulated in the letter of the law. So posting what the law actually is in regards to the question, is for my
relevant. Especially when us mere citizens need to make a decision based upon it.I merely passed along what the statue said (and provided a link to it), pointed out that under certain circumstances your firearms can legally be seized, and pointed out the value of searching out those posts you alluded to and that this question has indeed been raised in the past. Shame on me for mentioning there might be something worth searching for while also providing the tip of the ice berg, I thought providing basic info for some search terms that would lead to discussion would be helpful to other users.
And every time i have given him (The LEO) my pink card and all he has said was "Where is the firearm" and "Dont reach for it" I even said (Jokingly) "Oh yes officer that was the first thing i thought to do when you pulled me over lol" He laughed of course, that got my a warning instead of a ticket!!!
