Gov Daniels signs the work guns bill

[JBusch8899]

Please site the IC with the pistol in the trunk of car clause.

No IC. However, there is law of the safe passage provision.

US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

 

[dburkhead]

Is it me or are most people overlooking the other aspect of HB 1065 -- the no confiscating of firearms during an "emergency" part?

Not forgotten just that aspect has essentially no "controversy" on this board so it doesn't generate a lot of discussion.

 

[CarmelHP]

No IC. However, there is law of the safe passage provision.

US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

What exactly does that have to do with transporting a gun to work?

 

[ghunter]

Thank you Mitch! Now remember guys, keep your car locked, and don't leave it running in front of the 7-11 with your AR in it. It's bad enough to give a crook a free car- don't give him a free gun.

 

[Joe Williams]

No IC. However, there is law of the safe passage provision.

US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

You are overlooking the "interstate" part. Doesn't apply to "intrastate" travel. Further, the federal law requires that the possession be legal at both the originating and destination points. Neither is legal in Indiana, with the few exception listed in the code.

 

[IndyBeerman]

No IC. However, there is law of the safe passage provision.

US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

I see ya reaching, but you just keep coming up short.

The safe law passage only protects you if you leave Indiana and are traveling to say Pennsylvania, through Ohio. But you will still need to have it secured from within reach and ammo and magazines separate from the handgun while in Ohio and it must be a drive through. You may not spend the night or extended time there before reaching PA.

 

[JBusch8899]

Originally Posted by sporter
Please site the IC with the pistol in the trunk of car clause.

Sorry everyone, but having a computer problem earlier, and I couldn't post the appropriate citations, along with the supporting argument to the relevant federal law.

Gray v. State, 159 Ind. App. 200, 305 N.E.2d 886, 888 (1974), “the ‘secure wrapper’ contemplated by the statute must be such as to prevent immediate or ready access to the injurious capabilities of weapons thus carried.

Beck v. State, 414 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), applied the Gray holding in determining that a handgun under the front seat of a vehicle with the cylinder within easy reach in the back seat was not in a “secure wrapper”

Both are Shepardized, standing as law within Indiana now.

Furthermore, the above mentioned federal citation referring to FOPA applies in limited circumstances as well. When state law is silent on a particular issue normally reserved to the various states, federal law must be followed as well.

EDIT: Last citation affirming the cases above:
RICHARD G. TORMOEHLEN v. State of Indiana
Opinion rendered May 30, 2006

 

[dburkhead]

No IC. However, there is law of the safe passage provision.

US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

This law. It does not say what you think it says.

Point the first: Interstate, not intrastate. Transport entirely within a single state is not covered by this law.

Point the second: Legal at both origin and destination. Even if one could argue that Intrastate were covered, the provision to be legal at both ends of the trip would trip you up unless the IC provided for legality at both ends--which fails the general case.

Thus, this law does not make transporting unloaded in the trunk legal within the State of Indiana.

 

[darinb]

This is great. I always kept a firearm in my vehicle but it is nice to know that now it is legal. I work with alot of "sophicated liberal types" so this is especially nice to know.

 

[JBusch8899]

This law. It does not say what you think it says.

Point the first: Interstate, not intrastate. Transport entirely within a single state is not covered by this law.

Point the second: Legal at both origin and destination. Even if one could argue that Intrastate were covered, the provision to be legal at both ends of the trip would trip you up unless the IC provided for legality at both ends--which fails the general case.

Thus, this law does not make transporting unloaded in the trunk legal within the State of Indiana.

If you would have read the post right above yours, then you would have seen the the problem with the post you just referenced, as well as the rest of the argument I was attempting to state.

Additionally, I didn't realize this entire thread was dedicated persons residing, travelling, etc. exclusively within the state of Indiana. This is the reason the subsequent and whole post stated "limited circumstances" when referring to FOPA.

 

[dburkhead]

Sorry everyone, but having a computer problem earlier, and I couldn't post the appropriate citations, along with the supporting argument to the relevant federal law.

Gray v. State, 159 Ind. App. 200, 305 N.E.2d 886, 888 (1974), “the ‘secure wrapper’ contemplated by the statute must be such as to prevent immediate or ready access to the injurious capabilities of weapons thus carried.

Beck v. State, 414 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), applied the Gray holding in determining that a handgun under the front seat of a vehicle with the cylinder within easy reach in the back seat was not in a “secure wrapper”

Both are Shepardized, standing as law within Indiana now.

Definition of a secure wrapper does not the same thing as saying that being in a "secure wrapper" is legal transport (except in the specific instances provided for in Indiana law).

Furthermore, the above mentioned federal citation referring to FOPA applies in limited circumstances as well. When state law is silent on a particular issue normally reserved to the various states, federal law must be followed as well.

State law is not silent on the matter. In a vehicle, except as provided by other parts of the statute, is expressly forbidden in Indiana law. And "secure wrapper" is not enough by itself to meet those criteria. There are situations where one can transport if it's in a "secure wrapper" but only in those situations.

EDIT: Last citation affirming the cases above:
RICHARD G. TORMOEHLEN v. State of Indiana
Opinion rendered May 30, 2006

And where in this decision does it say that "carry in a trunk is legal even if it's not in one of the explicitly listed situation in the Indiana Code"?

I know you want it to be legal. Lots of people want it to be legal. But per the explicit wording of the IC it isn't and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.

 

[dburkhead]

If you would have read the post right above yours, then you would have seen the the problem with the post you just referenced, as well as the rest of the argument I was attempting to state.

Sheesh!

And it would still have been wrong. None of your "legal cites" address the actual issue: whether carrying unloaded in the trunk is legal in Indiana in the general case (as opposed to the specific cases listed in the IC).

Find a cite that addresses the actual issue and you mite have something. Until then the actual wording of the IC, which expressly forbids transporting in a vehicle except in certain, specified, circumstances stands.

 

[CarmelHP]

Gray v. State, 159 Ind. App. 200, 305 N.E.2d 886, 888 (1974), “the ‘secure wrapper’ contemplated by the statute must be such as to prevent immediate or ready access to the injurious capabilities of weapons thus carried.

Beck v. State, 414 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), applied the Gray holding in determining that a handgun under the front seat of a vehicle with the cylinder within easy reach in the back seat was not in a “secure wrapper”

Both are Shepardized, standing as law within Indiana now.

Not sure what your point is here. I don't think that anyone is questioning that for any exemption to apply under Indiana law that the firearm has to be securely wrapped and inaccessible (both had their convictions upheld by the way). It's the other requirements that are not met. Taking a gun from home to drive to work to lock the gun in your car because you cannot possess it within your fixed place of business does not comply with the statutory exceptions to having a LTCH while transporting. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Furthermore, the above mentioned federal citation referring to FOPA applies in limited circumstances as well. When state law is silent on a particular issue normally reserved to the various states, federal law must be followed as well.

Not sure what your point here is either. FOPA regards interstate transport of firearms, and overrules state law in that area. FOPA does not address intrastate transport. For the safe passage provisions in FOPA to apply in interstate travel you must be traveling between two points where possession is legal, the firearm must be stored according to FOPA standards, and in between those two points, your only purpose must be traveling. Your scenario is not interstate, possession is not legal at both points (you're not transporting to a fixed place of business, leaving it in your car is not a fixed place of business) and you have other purposes during your travel (i.e., work).

Additionally, I didn't realize this entire thread was dedicated persons residing, travelling, etc. exclusively within the state of Indiana. This is the reason the subsequent and whole post stated "limited circumstances" when referring to FOPA.

Then the relevance to the subject of the thread, having guns in your vehicle while at work, an Indiana statute, is lost, right?

 

[JBusch8899]

God I hate to spell out such elementary legal concepts. Perhaps I'll do so this weekend. but now, I'm going to bed so I can work in the AM.

 

[CarmelHP]

God I hate to spell out such elementary legal concepts. Perhaps I'll do so this weekend. but now, I'm going to bed so I can work in the AM.

Everyone get your popcorn and go potty, this may be a long show.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I have time.

 

[The Meach]

God I hate to spell out such elementary legal concepts.

So Don't.

Obviously nobody here seems to want to heed you wise words. so why waste them on our deaf ears?

Nobody forced you to come spew BAD legal advice, so why continue?

 

[Big Hank]

Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by him in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business;
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in his possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business; or
(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

Could someone in the know please clarify the line I highlighted please. I understand express companies to be "shipping companies"......Is this simply so UPS and FedEx can drop deliver firearms? Or is this giving a company the ability to defend its freight? Slightly off topic, but thanks for the help.

Also related to My Man Mitch! Lets not forget that a thank you can go a long way the next time we want help with something. I'm going to try to knock out a thank you email in the next day or two.

 

[rhino]

God I hate to spell out such elementary legal concepts. Perhaps I'll do so this weekend. but now, I'm going to bed so I can work in the AM.

Dude, you're wrong. The others had posted the pertinent portions of the Indiana Code and tried to help you see, so I won't add to that.

I'm getting the sense that you've painted yourself into a corner and too prideful to admit that you're wrong. That's unfortunate, but getting snappish isn't going to change that you're wrong.

If you are an attorney, you may wish to reconsider professions. If you're a law student, you may wish to study a bit more. If you're neither and just stubborn, you may wish to consider that it's possible you are wrong (because you are). This is going to end in a much more positive manner if you can find the strength to reexamine your position and accept the truth that was shown to you.

Good luck.

 

[dburkhead]

Everyone get your popcorn and go potty, this may be a long show.

If I remember correctly you're a lawyer, are you not?