Gun confiscated....such bs.

[Indy317]

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

If a gun is in another person's hands, then that person is carrying and is in control. That is like saying someone could shoot someone else and then claim the person they were with who has a LTCH was actually the one who "maintained simultaneous control of the handgun," therefore they can't be charged with a crime. What kind of logic is this? Do we really want to tell people that even if they are firing a handgun, they can relax because they are not in control of the handgun?

 

[ryknoll3]

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?

What is he going to do? He didn't see the guy shoot the handgun. He never saw him in possession of it. Even if he cited him like he ended up doing, you could probably beat it in court no problem, because he doesn't have a shred of evidence that you ever touched the gun. The words out of the man's own mouth are what caused the action that took place.

 

[jedi]

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?

What is he going to do? He didn't see the guy shoot the handgun. He never saw him in possession of it. Even if he cited him like he ended up doing, you could probably beat it in court no problem, because he doesn't have a shred of evidence that you ever touched the gun. The words out of the man's own mouth are what caused the action that took place.

ryknoll3 beat me to it. There was another thread on INGO (sry can't find it) in which someone was had to stop at one of those INS checkpoints on the highway in AZ and the immigration officer asked something along the lines of "Where are you coming from, heading to?" and the INGO member said "I've been advised my my lawyer to not answer any questions and to instead relay them to him."

The INGO member had time to kill while on his vacation and wanted to see where it would go. The INS officer told him. "Advised by your lawyer hu?"
& again said...
"I've been advised my my lawyer to not answer any questions and to instead relay them to him."

To which the INS officer just left him thru the checkpoint.

I'm not saying this would have worked for the OP but if you have watched the video (see my SIG) you will know that IT IS YOUR OWN WORDS that always get you in trouble!

 

[Prometheus]

I'm curious here. . . .

If we've come to the conclusion that the OP was indeed on the wrong side of the law in this particular case, then how was the CO "abusing power" and "screwing" him? It sounds like he did exactly what we pay him to do-- enforce the laws.

The US and Indiana Constitution trump the bogus (and luckily repealed) no transport law. The CO screwed him and violated the Oath he took to uphold and defend the above mentioned Constitutions.

 

[BarryJaxon]

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?

YUP!

 

[ATM]

If a gun is in another person's hands, then that person is carrying and is in control. That is like saying someone could shoot someone else and then claim the person they were with who has a LTCH was actually the one who "maintained simultaneous control of the handgun," therefore they can't be charged with a crime. What kind of logic is this? Do we really want to tell people that even if they are firing a handgun, they can relax because they are not in control of the handgun?

You obviously remember the last thread in which this topic and related court language were discussed.

You don't have to agree with the court's logic... but to pretend that the court hasn't discussed the difference of simple possession and exercising dominion over an object does not make your stance any more logical.

Less, actually.


ETA : We're not just making this stuff up: Henderson vs State

 

[Hammerhead]

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?

Aside from the fact that there is the 5th Amendment and the right to remain silent when speaking to LEOs, there's absolutely no requirement to answer any questions from any LEO for any reason.

You don't have to talk, you don't have to smile, you don't have to do anything but stand there and wait. If he was being charged with an infraction or ordinance violation, all he had to do was ID himself.

Can you point to somewhere that says we have to answer questions from LEOs? Even if they start copping a 'tude about it and jumping around like an organ grinder's monkey, you still don't have to speak.

 

[PatriotPride]

Sounds like the same idiot I've dealt with.

 

[Indy317]

You obviously remember the last thread in which this topic and related court language were discussed.

You don't have to agree with the court's logic... but to pretend that the court hasn't discussed the difference of simple possession and exercising dominion over an object does not make your stance any more logical.

Less, actually.


ETA : We're not just making this stuff up: Henderson vs State

That case about constructive possession seems to have little to do with this incident. The OP wrote:"He did state that he saw me firing the gun in question." "My wife says that the possession charge is because by shooting it I possesed it." Sounds like "actual possession" to me. What did the court write in Henderson? "Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item." I don't see how a case about constructive possession has anything to do with an incident involving the LEO witnessing actual possession?

 

[ATM]

That case about constructive possession seems to have little to do with this incident. The OP wrote:"He did state that he saw me firing the gun in question." "My wife says that the possession charge is because by shooting it I possesed it." Sounds like "actual possession" to me. What did the court write in Henderson? "Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item." I don't see how a case about constructive possession has anything to do with an incident involving the LEO witnessing actual possession?

If the LTCH holder maintains simultaneous constructive possession, then the argument could be made that even one simply possessing would not be meeting a requirement for exercising exclusive dominion and control.

Courts override the simple definitions of broad codes all the time.

Look up what infringed meant before they got a hold of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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?

If I asked asked who owned the firearm, and no one spoke up, but rather looked at me like idiots, I would walk over to the firearms, pick it up, and walk away.... lost/found property

 

[ryknoll3]

If I asked asked who owned the firearm, and no one spoke up, but rather looked at me like idiots, I would walk over to the firearms, pick it up, and walk away.... lost/found property

post deleted

 

[indytechnerd]

If I asked asked who owned the firearm, and no one spoke up, but rather looked at me like idiots, I would walk over to the firearms, pick it up, and walk away.... lost/found property

I can't rep you without spreading the wealth a bit, but that's good stuff. (probably doesn't need to be in purple either)

 

[MeatyBacchus]

I'm curious here. . . .

If we've come to the conclusion that the OP was indeed on the wrong side of the law in this particular case, then how was the CO "abusing power" and "screwing" him? It sounds like he did exactly what we pay him to do-- enforce the laws.

Big +1

Sometimes when you roll the dice you're going to pay the price.

 

[J_Wales]

Screw job.

Get a lifetime permit.

 

[thumperdogg]

I went through this while I was waiting for 3 months to get my permit, even paying for L1!! I avoided taking my gun to a public range because I knew that something like this could happen. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a bunch of BS and we should not even have to have a permit to carry. On the other end, you should know what the laws are and should not even had taken your gun. This just lets them take advantage of you, which you knew they would!!!

 

[beararms1776]

It's bs what happened considering you had a license before hand and awaiting your new one. I wouldn't consider taking a gun to a range before the new law. It just isn't worth the risk of loosing it for your home protection.

 

[dross]

There's a recent thread over in the politics forum that goes into depth about all the discretion officers have and how they get to use it and how they might choose to use it for this or that reason.

I would say this was a pretty darn good opportunity to use a little of that discretion.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I think the problem is the OP was *carrying* his firearm.

If it had been on the bench, then I dont think there would have been an issue, but since he was carrying with out a LTCH, he was screwed.

wrong on this point, which I think is what the entire issue pivots on.

The way I read it, the op had his gun on "his side" of the table! Not on HIS side!

 

[Osobuco]

Wow, so if I am at the range with my wife and she shoots MY gun then she is breaking the law? Remember - in Indiana husband wife have joint property ownership unless spelled out in a prenup or other legal docs. I have LTCH but she does not.