Gun confiscated....such bs.

[Lucas156]

In hindsight I think Kirk Freeman has some pretty darn good advice......well except for the blowing kisses part

 

[long coat]

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(b) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body in the person's dwelling or on the person's property or fixed place of business.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.326-1987, SEC.1; P.L.195-2003, SEC.6; P.L.98-2004, SEC.155; P.L.118-2007, SEC.35.
IC 35-47-2-2
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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

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.
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.
He didn't transport the gun, some with a LTCH did. (Untill he said he was shooting it, he was fine)


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.
After you BUY the gun you can take it home, untill you pay it not yours, so no touching.



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.
You are right about the law, it is the law. And it turns out he had a good LTCH, so all is thrown out, its the law.

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.

yes it is private property

It must be your property (land), but doesn't have to be your gun.

 

[MattCFII]

In hindsight I think Kirk Freeman has some pretty darn good advice......well except for the blowing kisses part

For the record it was my idea first by about 4 minutes Well that is without the kisses part Pretty interesting it we both pulled out the exact same quote and were probably writing it at about the same time, we must be long lost twins or something.

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...

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

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

 

[jsheets1]

I think to prevent confusion the seller at the point of purchase should provide a new gun owners packet. Since the law is/was so confusing and even veteran gun owners are unaware of some things. After reading all the I.C. after the fact I realized I was astray of the law. With the new law at least it eliminates one misconception but there are still so many. I mean yeah your gun has to be locked up on transport, by what counts, a glovebox, the guns case with a cable lock, a small safe. Is it the Leo's discretion like many things? And what about ammo being separate? Does it have to be in a box, loaded in a magazine in your pocket, in your trunk. Once again down to the Leo's discretion. That's what bothers me the most too much is up to discretion, shouldn't a law be better spelled out? Thankfully I do get to retain my ltch as well as get my gun back eventually and after the 100 dollars I saved when buying it, it will only cost me 100 bucks or a weekends worth of ammo to learn a lesson. I just wish the co would have been more decent.

 

[MattCFII]

So what was the issue date on your new LTCH?

 

[jsheets1]

2 days after the infraction it happened on a Saturday the license was issued on Monday and received Wednesday.

 

[gunman41mag]

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!

But is LAWYER/WIFE didn't want to defend him He should have hired a different lawyer, but he didn't want to spend any $$$

 

[jsheets1]

My wife is a liberal Believe me though if she could have done something to keep our pockets from being 2 bills lighter she would have.

 

[jedi]

It must be your property (land), but doesn't have to be your gun.

Not true.

Prior to 01 JUL and even now a person can go into a gun store or private range (ie. a business that has a range) and WITHOUT an IN handgun permit can touch and fire (on that premise) any handgun they wish and be LEGAL about it. I need to look for the thread but it revolves around the fact that an individual going into a private range is renting or taking training and as such the firearm on his person by in ownership of the biz which still retains responsibility/ownership.

2 days after the infraction it happened on a Saturday the license was issued on Monday and received Wednesday.

But is LAWYER/WIFE didn't want to defend him He should have hired a different lawyer, but he didn't want to spend any $$$

But as we now know from the OP the infraction occurred 2 days **BEFORE** the license was issued per the date on the license. As such the OP had an INVALID license at the time of the infraction.

The only concern I know have for the OP is will the DNR report this to the ISP and thus in a few weeks and/or months the ISP will send him a letter advising that his license was suspended due to the "not a proper person" clauses?

That is what happened to Bill B (INGO Member) and even after a year of the charges being dismissed and he going to Indy to appeal his suspesion due to a wrongful arrest (in which he won a lawsuit against the town) he still DOES NOT have his license!!!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2024-saint_john_indiana_not_gun_friendly.html

 

[jedi]

My wife is a liberal

She her to Chicago then it's not that far from NWI. I'm sure we can find you a more "gun-friendly" 1 here in IN.

 

[jsheets1]

Funny that you say that jediagh she is from Illinois lol. Well so far it has been quite a while 4 months so hopefully I am good to go. Who knows when they do audits though. My job depends on my ability to carry a firearm so hopefully its good to go. That is one of the reasons I was shooting actually, I was gonna have to qualify eventually and wanted some practice.

 

[ATM]

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.

Agreed. No law was broken.

Bad confiscation. Bad plea.

 

[Indy317]

Read the thread, it was lying on a bench, not being carried.

Here is what I just read in the original post: "He asked if the pistol on my side was mine."

The thing is, we have multiple threads on this where some highly regarded INGO members post about how this would never, ever happen. They say "It will be OK." When I ask them to write that they would fund the defense of anyone arrested, they won't.

I've always thought the law was stupid, but the fact is, the OP or anyone else wanting information could come to a gun board like INGO and believe the internet lawyers and end up screwed. Thankfully with the new law it is a non-issue.

 

[Indy317]

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.

Where do you folks come up with this stuff?

The law says nothing about "possession." It clearly uses the English words "carry" and "body." Possession has nothing to do with this case.

No wonder people get locked up. They come on this forum and get horrible, horrible advice. Funny how those who claim this was a crime before the new law never offered to cover the legal fees of those arrested. I have an idea, why don't all the people who claim that this wasn't a criminal act start a fund for the OP and help him cover the money he is out for his non-criminal act?

 

[RichardR]

Where do you folks come up with this stuff?

The law says nothing about "possession." It clearly uses the English words "carry" and "body." Possession has nothing to do with this case.

No wonder people get locked up. They come on this forum and get horrible, horrible advice. Funny how those who claim this was a crime before the new law never offered to cover the legal fees of those arrested. I have an idea, why don't all the people who claim that this wasn't a criminal act start a fund for the OP and help him cover the money he is out for his non-criminal act?

Who was in possession of the handgun, (possession in the legal sense) is what is the determining factor to whether it was being carried without a license.

While the OP was the owner, both the OP & his range companion told the CO that it was the range companion who had custody of the handgun for the duration of the range trip.

I am not sure why there is any confusion about this, it's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Indy317]

Who was in possession of the handgun, (possession in the legal sense) is what is the determining factor to whether it was being carried without a license.

While the OP was the owner, both the OP & his range companion told the CO that it was the range companion who had custody of the handgun for the duration of the range trip.

I am not sure why there is any confusion about this, it's a pretty simple concept.

That is some strange concept. If you don't have a license and aren't a member of certain groups of individuals, handguns are conrtraband items when it comes to carrying them upon your person. Doesn't matter if the gun is owned by you or someone else. The entire "possession" or conrol factor is irrelevant as well outside of some very, very specific circumstances (ie: Criminal loses his gun and a non-LTCH citizen picks it up to make sure criminal can't get the gun). It is like saying "Officer, yes, that is marijuana you found in my pocket. However, I'm not in possession and have broken no law because the guy I'm here with has custody of the marijuana. Therefore officer, you need to arrest my friend." Or here is another one: "Officer, yes, I know I'm driving this car and I know it is stolen. However, my backseat passenger is actually the one in custody of this vehicle, though I'm in control. Therefore, you need to arrest the backseat passenger for vehicle theft or trespassing/joyriding, not me."

If a handgun is on your body, you are carrying it. Unless you are within the law under the exemptions, then you are breaking the law.

 

[esrice]

If a handgun is on your body, you are carrying it. Unless you are within the law under the exemptions, then you are breaking the law.

I had the same opinion until it was found that the OP's reference to "his side" was talking about his side of the shooting table, and not his body. Poor choice of wording perhaps, but it was cleared up a few pages back.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Do you have to sign it again after you recieve it in the mail?

There is some kind of document you get in the mail from the state and it's not valid until you sign it after you get it in the mail. I don't remember exactly what it is and I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I got mine.

 

[ATM]

I have taken people to the range with their handgun while they were waiting for their LTCH.

They did not wear it holstered "on their side" but we did leave it "on their side" of a table while we checked targets, etc.

I maintained simultaneous control of the handguns we both used. At no time were they in exclusive control or exercise dominion over the arms.

Had they been placed in any legal jeopardy by someone who doesn't understand that courts define legal definitions *not dictionaries*, I would have advised them to not make a plea and paid their court costs if necessary.

It would have been OK.

 

[level.eleven]

For those saying don't speak with the police, what was the OP to do in that situation? When asked who owned the firearm, were both shooters simply to stare at the CO and offer no response at all? I'm pretty sure the CO wouldn't have just said "shucks" and moved on his way and allowed the party to leave. Wouldn't the situation have a greater chance to escalate beyond what occurred?