Gun confiscated....such bs.

[Lucas156]

It seems that even though I did break the law he was still selective as to who enforce it on.

agreed and this is the problem with these gun laws. They only make it harder on the law abiding citizen and they don't really deter crime.

 

[Lucas156]

Did the father have an ltch? If so he probably assumed the father owned all of the guns. Your story is different, your friend wasnt allowing you to shoot his guns, you had your own there. However were you on private property? If you were on private property i dont think the law has anything about having a handgun on private property.

The law says nothing about ownership so that is a non-issue. The question is who was in possession of a handgun without an ltch therefore the other parties that were shooting there whom were not cited were also breaking the law.

 

[jsheets1]

Exactly!

 

[Hammerhead]

IC 35-47-10
Chapter 10. Children and Firearms
IC 35-47-10-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A child who is attending a hunters safety course or a firearms safety course or an adult who is supervising the child during the course.
(2) A child engaging in practice in using a firearm for target shooting at an established range or in an area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited or supervised by:
(A) a qualified firearms instructor; or
(B) an adult who is supervising the child while the child is at the range.

This is why the kid or adult supervising the kid can't be ticketed or charged.

I don't know about the wife.

To the OP, one thing that you posted was that you didn't get a lawyer because your wife is one and she couldn't do anything, that seems odd. Your wife may or may not be all caught up with firearms laws. It might have been prudent to seek an attorney out who is, even if your wife says she can't do anything.

I also wouldn't have plead to anything. Aside from your admission of ownership, the CO would have to prove that you were shooting (evidence other than he saw it laying on the bench and you said it was yours). You may own the gun but have gone to the range with your buddy who was shooting it while you watched. Let him prove otherwise.

Sorry you're stuck in the position you're in. It must suck. Here's hoping you get your gun back promptly.

 

[sadclownwp]

Guys this is simple, we are all gun owners, and as gun owners it is up to us to know the laws. We own tools that are made to destroy whatever is directly in front of them, with that comes the responcability that we must all live up to. Knowing the law is the job of every gun owner, and gun owners who do not know the laws become stories that anti gun owners use to fuel their fires. This is something that we should all understand, and the lesson should be clear, now lets all learn from this members mistake and not let it happen to anyone else.

 

[jsheets1]

He did state that he saw me firing the gun in question. That makes sense that a child can shoot while being supervised since it is then considered learning. I would guess were it gets dicey is if your over 18.

 

[85t5mcss]

Great, if I take my daughter to the range (being a child in the eyes of Indiana) and she misses a target, then it no longer meets the criteria of the IC above either. I'd still like to know how this turns out completely. If there was a cre committed, then I don't quite understand how OP can still be considered a proper person. And at the same time I don't see which IC has been utilized for the citation and confiscation of a firearm.

Going to bed, it's 2AM, I'll be up about 6 and check this out later.

 

[Hammerhead]

He did state that he saw me firing the gun in question. That makes sense that a child can shoot while being supervised since it is then considered learning. I would guess were it gets dicey is if your over 18.

Yes, because at 18, you are an adult legally and are able to be issued a LTCH.

If he saw you shooting, there's still a burden of proof. Granted, it's been shown time and time again that LEOs are afforded a pretty solid "we're going to believe a LEO over a citizen" standard.

There's also been some debate as to the legality of holding and/or shooting a firearm at a range being "possession" or "carrying" or not. I can't say one way or the other how that actually is supposed to be.

Well...as of two hours ago, that legal question is moot. For your instance, the CO obviously felt that shooting or holding was possessing or carrying. Yes, he does have discretion on enforcement, just like a PD LEO or deputy who pulls you over and gives you a warning instead of a ticket.

I don't agree that the law was correct and am glad that it is now different. Your situation still sucks.

 

[edporch]

-Snip_
I grew up in Rensselaer...
-Snip-

Me too!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Great, if I take my daughter to the range (being a child in the eyes of Indiana) and she misses a target, then it no longer meets the criteria of the IC above either. I'd still like to know how this turns out completely. If there was a cre committed, then I don't quite understand how OP can still be considered a proper person. And at the same time I don't see which IC has been utilized for the citation and confiscation of a firearm.

Going to bed, it's 2AM, I'll be up about 6 and check this out later.

No, she's there for the purpose of target shooting, even if she misses.

As to a crime being committed, I don't see it defined as either misdemeanor or felony. I'm thinking it's an infraction, and thus, would not have bearing on his being a proper person. LEOs or attorneys, please do correct me if I'm mistaken on that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ryknoll3]

No, she's there for the purpose of target shooting, even if she misses.

As to a crime being committed, I don't see it defined as either misdemeanor or felony. I'm thinking it's an infraction, and thus, would not have bearing on his being a proper person. LEOs or attorneys, please do correct me if I'm mistaken on that.

Blessings,
Bill

Looks like it's a Class A Misdemeanor.

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
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or

(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.

 

[MattCFII]

My biggest my mistake was being honest. I should have told him It was my buddies. I try to be honest with leo whenever I can though.

Yep, the 4th & 5th amendment are there for a reason. Watch the often linked "Don't talk to the cops" on Youtube. If you are in any possible doubt that you may be in violation, in most cases it is a good idea to STFU.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for what Police do for us and most of them truly want to help others. BUT that doesn't mean that they don't have a job to do and have obligations (and in some case more than just that) to enforce the law. In most cases though being honest equals a confession to your crime. Saying, "yeah I was going a little fast" is saying "Yes, I'm guilty, now we just need to figure out the severity of my crime." I understand if people just want to take your punishment like a man to just be honest. Yes, being honest may avoid escalation and even worse situation, but not always.

One exception to this "don't talk" policy in my book is in a post self defense shooting incident where you need to get across you were in fear for your life, you were the victim, there is the evidence/witnesses, you'll sign a complaint and then STFU until you get legal counsel.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

BoR, it's a Class A misdemeaanor, 0 to 365 days and up to 5K fine.

My biggest my mistake was being honest. I should have told him It was my buddies. I try to be honest with leo whenever I can though.

Your biggest mistake was talking. You arrested yourself by talking.

Again, don't talk to cops, smile and blow kisses.

 

[sporter]

So you went to the range without your LTCH and was carrying a firearm in a holster.

Seems you knew your were in violation of the law and went ahead and did it anyways and then got caught.

Not a good choice. Many of us here do not agree with the laws, but we follow them.

 

[Bond 281]

So you went to the range without your LTCH and was carrying a firearm in a holster.

Seems you knew your were in violation of the law and went ahead and did it anyways and then got caught.

Not a good choice. Many of us here do not agree with the laws, but we follow them.

Read the thread, it was lying on a bench, not being carried. The CO was a pompous douchebag who pretty clearly abused his power. This is yet another shining example of the bs police do. As Kirk said, don't talk to cops.

 

[dice dealer]

Isn't there an exemption that if you renew within some amount of time and your LTCH expires, that your application for renewal then acts as a temporary LTCH?

I renewed mine like a week before it expired (of course for the lifetime), the officer who filled out my paper work informed me to make sure I kept my old LTCH and my receipt were I had applied for my renewal and I could still carry until my new one came in ..
again mine had not expired yet but did before my new one came in ..

Sorry to hear about your luck .

 

[45fan]

This situation really sucks. I Dont see that the OP actually broke any law, as I dont see anything about ownership in the law, only the transport or carry of a handgun. To me, is sounds like the OP was targeted for having a handgun that the CO wanted.
Fortunately, Indiana has changed the laws in this regard, and in the future, in this situation, the CO wouldnt have a leg to stand on if he tried to confiscate a handgun.

 

[esrice]

Like has been posted, it was on the bench, not his hip.

For the record I too read the OP as it being on his person, aka his "side". If, by "side", he meant his side of the table then that changes things.

 

[warangelcometh]

Wow bro, sorry to hear that. I shoot at JP all the time and have for 20+ years and have never had any CO encounters or problems? For you I guess it's wrong place at the wrong time? My only question is: were you acting in a manner that would arouse suspicion from the CO and therefore warrant the inquiry ?

 

[schafe]

It appears that the CO went right up to the limit of the law at the time. The OP was shooting a handgun, and did not have a valid LTCH....case closed. As for the family in the other lane... The one not exempted by law at that time was the wife, if the OPs story is accurate. The CO may not have seen her touch a handgun, and believed she was only there to observe, and besides, he can choose to stop just one individual, just like LEOs can pick just one out of a few speeding cars to stop.
If we have a handgun, or if we shoot someone elses, we just need to have the license....it saves soooo much hassle and aggravation.
Also, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I don't intend to be the test case for the additional IC going into effect today, either.