Gun confiscated....such bs.

[dom1104]

Wow. 3 things jump out at me in this thread.

1. There are a lot of really, REALLY ignorant gun owners. This is not rocket science, and you NEED to know the legal ramifications of what we do on a regular basis, or you will end up in "trouble" just like this guy.


2. We live in a state that issues LIFETIME permits.. for goodness sake people, take advantage of that.

3. I think folks are starting to get a little too... slack when it comes to gun laws, no I dont think it, I know it. "THEY" can still come and bite you on the buttocks people, this isnt a free country you know.

If you drive with an expired drivers license, and you get pulled over, you would expect to get a ticket yes? How is this different at all? Other than being more serious in the eyes of the law?

 

[RichardR]

I think a lot of folks here are missing or overlooking that the OP's shooting companion claimed "possession" of the handgun for the duration of their range outing, this is an extremely important part of the story.

Under the law there are four distinct elements of possession - sole, joint, actual & constructive.

In this scenario the possession of the confiscated handgun would have fallen under "joint, actual" - meaning that the OP's shooting companion was lawfully allowed to transport & possess the handgun for the OP, so long as the OP's companion remained in proximity to & could at any time, exert control over the firearm.

I would say that all of the elements of possession were met by the OP's shooting companion, thus the confiscation was bad.

 

[gunman41mag]

I think the OP needs a "NEW" LAWYER/WIFE

 

[insanemonkey]

I am confused by this. Maybe some of you can help me understand. I know that as of today it does not matter, but still.

Lets say I take my wife to a range to shoot. Now since she is over 18 that means it is illegal for her to shoot since she does not have a LTCH. I do and I transported and maintain possession of the gun. Would it only be legal if it was on private property? Since she would be given permission to shoot on it. But if it is on public property. If we are given permission by those in charge of the public property wouldn't it have been legal?

This whole thing seems like it is pushing the limit or beyond the limit of what the law was meant to do.

 

[gdkaiser]

Expired LTCH? Did it lapse or u renewed within the 30 days prior to it expiring? This will/would make a difference as well.

No I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express, either. If u received it 2 days later, then sounds like u renewed within the window. If that is the case, and u plead guilty, what recourse do u have since there would be no crime IF those are the circumstances.

What's the date of the incident? What's the date o the issue on LTCH?

If you recieved the permit in the mail two days after the incident then the CO would have gotten a status of current if he would have ran your permit name I would go to the CO and show him at the time he wrote you and confiscated your gun (at least when you appear for the citation) it was not illegal for you to be shooting at a public range

 

[Hoosierdood]

I think the OP needs a "NEW" LAWYER/WIFE

 

[Hammerhead]

If you recieved the permit in the mail two days after the incident then the CO would have gotten a status of current if he would have ran your permit name I would go to the CO and show him at the time he wrote you and confiscated your gun (at least when you appear for the citation) it was not illegal for you to be shooting at a public range

Yes and no. There's an odd part of the story here. (Kirk, Gunlawyer, Joe, correct me if I'm wrong) As a citizen who's been granted a LTCH you are required to have it on your person when you carry outside of your land (old law). If you were caught without it, you could be arrested. If you were, all you had to do was produce it and the arrest would vanish. The OP stated that the CO informed him this was the procedure. Somehow, however, this got overlooked. If he was in the system as being a valid carrier at the time (should have been with it's arrival two days later) the CO should have run his name and seen if it was valid. Unless the OP left that out, he didn't.

When the OP went to retrieve his weapon, he should have gone and produced a valid LTCH, and the citation should have vanished. This also should have been brought up at trial. The OP, however, explained to the CO that the LTCH he had was expired and he had the paperwork from the renewal. This is where the CO saw the "illegal" possession or handling of a firearm.

Somebody dropped the ball on this. You were a valid LTCH carrier even without the current LTCH in your possession. You didn't know you were, and the CO didn't check to see if it'd been processed and approved. The prosecutor didn't read the law, neither did your lawyer, and you took a plea.

Get a better lawyer and see if there's an option here to get this reversed. You were legal at the time.

 

[Jack Ryan]

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

He's probably been hiding in the bushes and following you for months looking for just the right chance and hoping you'll be late on your renewal. They followed me all the way to Wisconsin and hounded me for 5 years after mine expired. Even when I moved back I just wouldn't renew to tease them and make them keep following me. Every couple weeks one would jump out of the bushes, "GOTCHA!" only for them to learn it was a plastic knock off and I'd just laugh.

 

[jedi]

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.

It's in my SIG but here is the link that the OP and EVERYONE else needs to see/read!

A Guide to Protecting Your Rights: What to do when LEO stop you and your are carrying.[/b]
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...what_to_do_when_leo_stops_you.html#post915009

 

[jsheets1]

Actually I did ask him if he could run my name to see if it was current. He actually refused to.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Since this was all pre July 1, everything I post will relate to that.

The fact your buddy has a LTCH is irrelevant for you. If you fired even a single round out of any handgun, your or his, you were illegally carrying that weapon. You have every right to argue about the guy next to you and his wife, but that does not take away from that fact that you did not follow the IN gun laws.

Please post the law that says someone else can't take you and your gun to the range.

It has been posted on this forum, probably hundreds of time and I believe is in the FAQ section. Before July 1 , you could not transport your gun to the range without a LTCH. You cannot carry it anywhere but your own property.

Going by what the CO said, anyone without a LTCH can't touch one at the gun store or gun show.

The OP had his gun on a table not on him.

That's not the same thing. You are at a place of purchase, you are legally allowed to buy a handgun without a LTCH, but again you must take it directly home after.

I don't think the OP is a good enough psychic to have known in March that the transportation law would pass and go into effect in July.

Probably not, but he knows his LTCH is in the process. Sucks he got burnt but he has no one to blame but himself. The law is the law, however dumb it may be.

But at least we dont have to worry about this any longer, lock up your gun in your trunk, go to the range, shoot and have fun, pack it up and go home.

 

[Lucas156]

Question: under the old law if you go to a gun shop that has a range can you legally shoot one of the shops guns at the range without your LTCH?

 

[jedi]

Question: under the old law if you go to a gun shop that has a range can you legally shoot one of the shops guns at the range without your LTCH?

yes it is private property

 

[Roadie]

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.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

Gotta agree with the other posters. If your License is dated on or before the day of the incident, then I would think the above bolded text applies..

 

[jedi]

Gotta agree with the other posters. If your License is dated on or before the day of the incident, then I would think the above bolded text applies..

Yes and No.

The Key word in the IC you posted is valid license. In the OP case he did NOT have a valid license as he stated it had expired and he was in the process of getting a new one and the "temp" provision was not in play since he let too much time elapse between his expired license and his application for a new one. So under the eyes of the law he had no license at the time of the offense.

 

[Roadie]

Yes and No.

The Key word in the IC you posted is valid license. In the OP case he did NOT have a valid license as he stated it had expired and he was in the process of getting a new one and the "temp" provision was not in play since he let too much time elapse between his expired license and his application for a new one. So under the eyes of the law he had no license at the time of the offense.

If the issue date is on or before the date of the incident, isnt it a valid license, just not in his possession?

 

[RichardR]

Yes and No.

The Key word in the IC you posted is valid license. In the OP case he did NOT have a valid license as he stated it had expired and he was in the process of getting a new one and the "temp" provision was not in play since he let too much time elapse between his expired license and his application for a new one. So under the eyes of the law he had no license at the time of the offense.

Well if you consider that the OP received his renewed license in the mail, two days after the incident, therefore that probably means that it was already "active" both in the system & by law, at the time of the incident.

It really doesn't matter if he hadn't received the pink print out of it in the mail or not.

 

[Roadie]

Well if you consider that the OP received his renewed license in the mail, two days after the incident, therefore that probably means that it was already "active" both in the system & by law, at the time of the incident.

It really doesn't matter if he hadn't received the pink print out of it in the mail or not.

Logically, it would HAVE to be valid on the "Issue Date" listed on the LTCH, as there is no way to prove "Date of Receipt".

 

[jedi]

Logically, it would HAVE to be valid on the "Issue Date" listed on the LTCH, as there is no way to prove "Date of Receipt".

Oh yes Roadie I see what you are saying now! Correct if the date on the pink paper is **BEFORE* or even on the date of the citation then he does have a VALID license just not on him so when he goes to court the case should be dismissed!

 

[Roadie]

Oh yes Roadie I see what you are saying now! Correct if the date on the pink paper is **BEFORE* or even on the date of the citation then he does have a VALID license just not on him so when he goes to court the case should be dismissed!

In theory at least.