guns confiscated and tickets Atterbury

[Sticky]

Didn't I hear that there is currently some IN legislation, up for consideration, that will allow carrying/shooting a handgun at a recognized range without a carry permit? Rumor maybe?

 

[SirRealism]

Didn't I hear that there is currently some IN legislation, up for consideration, that will allow carrying/shooting a handgun at a recognized range without a carry permit? Rumor maybe?

Nope, it's not a rumor: NRA-ILA :: Indiana: Four Pro-Gun Bills to be Considered on Monday, January 31!

 

[nk1124]

Just get the license....and make sure those you take shooting with you are legal as well......it's easy, and then after you are checked, you can BS with the DNR officer about firearms,....... instead of how to get them back.

Dumb question maybe, but does this mean that you cant take your non-shooting friend out to the range if they dont have a license and you do?

I never had a problem with the license requirement except in regards to driving through the state and not stopping. It could make for some long detours to avoid certain states.

 

[schafe]

Dumb question maybe, but does this mean that you cant take your non-shooting friend out to the range if they dont have a license and you do?

I never had a problem with the license requirement except in regards to driving through the state and not stopping. It could make for some long detours to avoid certain states.

Not a dumb question at all.
While some consistently refuse to acknowledge it, your non-shooting friends really need the license too. While the number of problems over this issue are few and far between, most legal types i've talked to about it say that your non-shooting friends shooting a handgun at the range can be a legal problem. The gray area argument seems to center around the concept of "control " of the firearm. So unless your non-shooting friends are your own kids, inside the range is not a "safe haven" against the state handgun laws. Don'tcha hate vagueness in gun law?

 

[ATM]

While some consistently refuse to acknowledge it...

That would be me.

 

[Indy317]

Dumb question maybe, but does this mean that you cant take your non-shooting friend out to the range if they dont have a license and you do?

The gray area argument seems to center around the concept of "control " of the firearm.

The law is pretty clear, I don't see any gray area and the issue is more a concept of carrying than control.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license ...
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.


There are a few exceptions: Certain people who fall into a particular catagory and those with licenses, a few others as well. There is no range exception. If anyone tells you otherwise, just make sure they will foot your legal defense bill if on the slim chance, you end up getting into legal trouble. It is better to spend the money on a lifetime license to carry than it would be to spend it on a lawyer.

 

[ATM]

The law is pretty clear, I don't see any gray area and the issue is more a concept of carrying than control.

If you haven't looked at the court's discussions of the control matter from similar cases, you won't know that it is a gray area.

If anyone tells you otherwise, just make sure they will foot your legal defense bill if on the slim chance, you end up getting into legal trouble.

I would foot the defense bill for any non license holder I allow to shoot my handguns in my presence.

It is better to spend the money on a lifetime license to carry than it would be to spend it on a lawyer.

Sure, try to convince someone who's never even shot before and may be afraid of guns to go get a license to carry so you can take them to the range to try one out. Probably not going to happen.

I'll take them and it will be fine.

 

[Indy317]

If you haven't looked at the court's discussions of the control matter from similar cases, you won't know that it is a gray area.

And this is the problem. No one can say with 100% certainty how things will turn out. I give you for offering to pay for the legal defense, but you understand that could run into the tens of thousands of dollars? For the most part, the state has unlimited funds, do you have six-figures to drop to take this all they way to the Indiana Supreme Court? I have never seen an appeals case that deals with this issue, so using past cases arguing about "control" seems irrelevant. I also wouldn't understand why an elected official(s) would want to change the law if there wasn't at least the possibility of someone getting arrested/charged with a crime.

Sure, try to convince someone who's never even shot before and may be afraid of guns to go get a license to carry so you can take them to the range to try one out. Probably not going to happen.

I'll take them and it will be fine.

If the person is too scared to get a little piece of paper, that's not someone I would care to take shooting. The new shooter I am helping had no issues getting the license. I told her that I could careless if she wanted to go shooting without one, but that she would have to buy her own gun because I'm not risking any of mine getting confiscated. Another poster here posted that DNR has already given some folks a summons to appear. I would think that the guns were confiscated as evidence. What a PITA it would be, even if charges are dropped. Again, if folks aren't willing to spend just $150 (or whatever is now) for a carry license, I would question if they really are that interested. Just because they get a license doesn't mean they must then carry.

You say it will be fine, but you have no way to back that 100%. It is nothing more than your opinion that it will be fine. You will only fund the legal defense, which could run up to the tens of thousands, for only those people you take shooting. Some folks here may take your advice, and then they may be SOL if they end up on the wrong side of the law. I don't think it is right to make such blanket statements.

 

[ATM]

And this is the problem. No one can say with 100% certainty how things will turn out.

Life comes at you fast. Few things are 100%

If the person is too scared to get a little piece of paper, that's not someone I would care to take shooting.

Nobody is scared of getting a piece of paper - they just aren't interested.
I'm talking about non-gun or anti-gun people.
Most would just decline the offer to try something they don't think they'd like anyway.

The new shooter I am helping had no issues getting the license.

Your example seems like she was already interested in getting into shooting.

Another poster here posted that DNR has already given some folks a summons to appear. I would think that the guns were confiscated as evidence.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that summons were given to anyone shooting with an LTCH holder.
Perhaps you're mixing this issue with the unlicensed people who take their guns to a range (without an LTCH holder) and get them confiscated and ticketed.

Again, if folks aren't willing to spend just $150 (or whatever is now) for a carry license, I would question if they really are that interested.

No question about it. The people I'm talking about aren't interested at all.
I'm trying to change that by getting them to give it a try.
If they like it, the next step is getting a license so they can do it without me.

You say it will be fine, but you have no way to back that 100%. It is nothing more than your opinion that it will be fine.

My opinion is kind of a big deal (...to me)

Some folks here may take your advice, and then they may be SOL if they end up on the wrong side of the law. I don't think it is right to make such blanket statements.

I didn't give advice. I said what I do and what I'm willing to do.

It will be fine.

 

[kingnereli]

And this is the problem. No one can say with 100% certainty how things will turn out. I give you for offering to pay for the legal defense, but you understand that could run into the tens of thousands of dollars? For the most part, the state has unlimited funds, do you have six-figures to drop to take this all they way to the Indiana Supreme Court? I have never seen an appeals case that deals with this issue, so using past cases arguing about "control" seems irrelevant. I also wouldn't understand why an elected official(s) would want to change the law if there wasn't at least the possibility of someone getting arrested/charged with a crime.



If the person is too scared to get a little piece of paper, that's not someone I would care to take shooting. The new shooter I am helping had no issues getting the license. I told her that I could careless if she wanted to go shooting without one, but that she would have to buy her own gun because I'm not risking any of mine getting confiscated. Another poster here posted that DNR has already given some folks a summons to appear. I would think that the guns were confiscated as evidence. What a PITA it would be, even if charges are dropped. Again, if folks aren't willing to spend just $150 (or whatever is now) for a carry license, I would question if they really are that interested. Just because they get a license doesn't mean they must then carry.

You say it will be fine, but you have no way to back that 100%. It is nothing more than your opinion that it will be fine. You will only fund the legal defense, which could run up to the tens of thousands, for only those people you take shooting. Some folks here may take your advice, and then they may be SOL if they end up on the wrong side of the law. I don't think it is right to make such blanket statements.

I've asked numerous leo's and been at ranges when leo and DNR license checks have happened. It is perfectly fine for a person without a LTCH to shoot in the presence of a LTCH holder. The license laws are intended to cover carrying a handgun on your person, out in public, for the purposes of self defense. They aren't intended to prevent a non-licensed person from even touching a handgun.

If you want to talk case law can you point us to a conviction for CWOL when the handgun was in at least partial control of a licensed individual?

 

[88GT]

Indiana's handgun license is inexpensive and one doesn't have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one, compared to many other states. Allowing one to carry a pistol to and from a range without a license could open a big can of worms. One could always claim that he or she is going to or coming from a range and it would be hard to prove otherwise. I don't think the law as it stands is unreasonable.

And what exactly is the problem with that? Or don't you believe that law-abiding people have an expectation of unfettered liberty?

Going to the store, filling out a simple form, buying the handgun and taking it home the same day isn't easy enough?

If easy is your argument, you should be lobbying for no LTCH requirement at all.

I don't understand why people can't just be happy with the way we have it here in Indiana. It's 1000x better then a lot of other states.

"Shut up, Deacon. Take the beating. You knows we's got it 1000x better than those poor bastards over at the Tara Plantation."

Better is not the standard, sir. And it's not your place to determine if it's acceptable to the rest of the population either.

I support the laws in this state regarding transportation of handguns. If you think $125 is a lot of money then you probably should not be investing hundreds of dollars into firearms and ammunition.

What is so magically bad about transporting a farking handgun that's got you guys thinking something awful might happen? As if a legally transported long gun couldn't be used for nefarious purposes because it was legally transported? Where's the facepalm smilie? Ugh. If I gave out negative rep, you'd both be the first recipients.

I'm happy it will not happen again, but I think they should still check and let the people know they are not OK to keep doing it.

Before I bust your chops, a request for clarification. Do you think ROs?LEOs should check for the purpose of education and give warnings for "first time offenders" or do you think the check should originate out of a misplaced idea that the state has some real authority over that particular liberty and should seek to exercise it at will? (I'm not very subtle with my insinuations. Sorry)

 

[ATM]

Where's the facepalm smilie? Ugh.

Well make up your mind.


Do you want the facepalm?

...or the ugh?



(fine choices, I might add.)

 

[long coat]

Before I bust your chops, a request for clarification. Do you think ROs?LEOs should check for the purpose of education and give warnings for "first time offenders" or do you think the check should originate out of a misplaced idea that the state has some real authority over that particular liberty and should seek to exercise it at will? (I'm not very subtle with my insinuations. Sorry)

Education.

(I'm not subtle either )

 

[Indy317]

I've asked numerous leo's and been at ranges when leo and DNR license checks have happened. It is perfectly fine for a person without a LTCH to shoot in the presence of a LTCH holder. The license laws are intended to cover carrying a handgun on your person, out in public, for the purposes of self defense. They aren't intended to prevent a non-licensed person from even touching a handgun.

If you want to talk case law can you point us to a conviction for CWOL when the handgun was in at least partial control of a licensed individual?

There is no case law on this issue, which is why I think it is dangerous to post statements here saying "It will be OK." There are thousands of LEOs in Indiana, no one can say 100% that one wouldn't lock-up a person without a LTCH shooting at a range. There is nothing in the law that would prevent any LEO from arresting someone for carrying a handgun at a range. The person(s) they are with having or not having LTCH doesn't matter. The laws intent may only come into play after the person is in front of a judge or jury. My issue with this is that I would rather prevent an arrest from the onset. If this really was such a non-issue, then I have to wonder why folks want to change the law to include shooting ranges just like we do a person's place of business or place of purchase/repair.

 

[MTC]

And it wouldn't be an issue, if we actually had a right to bear arms (handguns/pistols in this case) in our home state while off our own property, a right that was taken away by IC 35-47-2-1(a).
Long before their formation, the ideas of groups like Handgun Control, Inc were, and still are, very much alive through codified statute right here in Indiana.