Hammond LEO interaction today

[MDave]

I have one. I just havent used it much on my property since Ive had two years of no problems. Even LEO driving by when I walk to walgreens, nothing. Going to have it on even in my yard now. and yeah I'll use that phrase though I doubt they would have done anything differently.

I think in the thick of things your focus needs to be on not getting physically mistreated. Everything else can get straightened out. If it gets to lethal or non-lethal force your going to be in a rough place. While it sucks it sounded like you made the best of the situation you were presented with. I can't think of a single thing I would do differently myself.

 

[Roadie]

I was questioning him about the need to provide a photo ID. Until now I didnt know you didnt even need an LTCH if you were carrying on your own property. Of course he would have got all in a huff anyway about the photo ID again but I learned something new.

You have been here 4.5 years and didn't know you could carry on your own property without an LTCH?

INGO, my brothers and sisters, we have failed..

 

[nakinate]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread so this may have been said, but I would have told them I can carry without ID or a LTCH on my own property. I would have followed that up by telling them to get off my property and I would have gone inside.

 

[actaeon277]

Unfortunately, I agree with the ruling to an extent. You can't award damages that were never lost. I'm sure you CAN award the win to the plaintiffs and tell the city it has to come off the books, but IANAJ and IANAL.

Ok, they can't award damages. But the damages were went after, because that was the only legal recourse.
Hammond will NOT remove the signs or the code. They are on the books. Someone doesn't know about Preemption, won't know they are invalid.

The only way to get them to REMOVE the code and signs was then the lawsuit.
All they need to do, is do like other places, and remove the dang code and signs.
But they refuse.

So know you're at a city park, someone sees the "No Gun" sign, what do you think they will do?
Call the police.

Then this thread happens.

 

[aikidoka]

I suggest taking a moment to spell out all of the abbreviations in your text. Not everyone is going to be read up on gunspeak. As my post number indicates I am not, I found myself puzzeling over LEO, Larry and LTCH. I am proud to say I think I figgered em out but heck. You will be dealing with bureaucrats and political types. Make it easier for them.

Also, remove every qualifier you have in the text. "Rather Chilling" Make it chilling. Shoot for less words as much as possible. It will give your message more impact.


You might also de-emphasize the use of I in the end of the communication.

Hopefully this is just a matter of poor training and not a case of intentionally misleading the public about what the law requires. It is difficult to think it is merely the former after the officers told me on several occasions I was not under arrest. This even after refusing to show my photo ID. Yet I felt threatened with having my property taken from me. This would have caused me hardship and put me out of my way to retrieve my property simply because an officer lost his professional demeanor.

I ended the interaction by shaking both officer's hands. I do respect LEO and their service to the community. This does not mean they should be going out and playing "their personal opinion enforcement officers" which was clearly what happened here after the LTCH was verified. I hope this harassment of law abiding gun owners on their own property is not official policy for the city of Hammond.

Good points, I copied your good work on the paragraph and tweaked here and there. Thanks

 

[aikidoka]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread so this may have been said, but I would have told them I can carry without ID or a LTCH on my own property. I would have followed that up by telling them to get off my property and I would have gone inside.

Yes I should have walked off before the second officer arrived. Until now I didnt know LTCH was no required on your own property. Even so I could have blown off officer Kruse before the second officer arrived and took my firearm. Wait, not sure if I had the LTCH back before my gun was taken. Yeah, didnt, so still screwed. I should have walked away as soon as Kruse pulled up.

 

[stephen87]

Ok, they can't award damages. But the damages were went after, because that was the only legal recourse.
Hammond will NOT remove the signs or the code. They are on the books. Someone doesn't know about Preemption, won't know they are invalid.

The only way to get them to REMOVE the code and signs was then the lawsuit.
All they need to do, is do like other places, and remove the dang code and signs.
But they refuse.

So know you're at a city park, someone sees the "No Gun" sign, what do you think they will do?
Call the police.

Then this thread happens.

I understand what you're saying, and I know you get what I'm saying as well, so no issue there. The issue is that you can't actually have a true lawsuit without damages. You can have a judge's ruling on what they need to do to stay legal, and as long as Hammond does not enforce it, it's a non-issue. I hate to say it, but the only way to get the laws off the book, by a judge ruling it, is to have a true lawsuit, damages and all. As much as I try to avoid it, someone will have to be arrested and challenge it in court after showing that because it's still on the books they are enforcing it.

 

[aikidoka]

You have been here 4.5 years and didn't know you could carry on your own property without an LTCH?

INGO, my brothers and sisters, we have failed..

Well, I'm not on here daily. But now I know

 

[nakinate]

Yes I should have walked off before the second officer arrived. Until now I didnt know LTCH was no required on your own property. Even so I could have blown off officer Kruse before the second officer arrived and took my firearm. Wait, not sure if I had the LTCH back before my gun was taken. Yeah, didnt, so still screwed. I should have walked away as soon as Kruse pulled up.

You can replace your LTCH for $20, next time that may be money well spent to remove yourself from the situation.

 

[aikidoka]

I cant edit the post that you guys have been giving me good advice on. I've taken all the LEO and LTCH out. I think it's about as good as it can get for a complaint text and for sending to Guy with a brief intro without obsessing about it. Thanks, I'll update this thread with any new info.

 

[actaeon277]

You have been here 4.5 years and didn't know you could carry on your own property without an LTCH?

INGO, my brothers and sisters, we have failed..

You know, it would be nice if there was some way for these poor police officers to be able to know things like this. If only the police had some kinda academy. Maybe a police academy or something like that.
Maybe they could know the law, that they are trying to enforce.

 

[jedi]

I'd even call the mayors office. Let them know your not a happy registered voter!

INGO members who are not in LAKE COUNTY.
The City of Hammond is the equivalent to the Southern Indiana City of Bloomington or the IL city of Chicago.
It is anti-gun 100% from the mayor to just about every councilman/women on the city board.
The Mayor of Hammond rules with an iron fist. He is the LAKE COUNTY D top dog and has a lot of power *cough* corruption *cough* in Indiana with the Ds. A complaint to him is like telling O that we are complaining about a federal gun law.

While you probably should file a complaint, we are talking about HAMMOND.
Mayor McCheese has already stated his dislike for gunowners, and the obstacles he will throw up to us.
Hammond was sued to remove ordnances in violation of Indiana Code, and to remove signs prohibiting carry at places that are LEGAL to carry at.
Hammond won the case, because they had not arrested anyone for those violations.
The ruling was, the books can show a law, and signs can tell you that that is the law, as long as they don't enforce it.

To me, this is B friggin S.

My advice (worthless, since I Am Not A Lawyer) is to call Guy Relford. He was the lawyer that took Hammond to court.
Maybe he can use this to show they are going after gun owners.
Maybe not.

^This!!

Our very own INGO ATTY GUY sued the city of hammond and lost at the Indiana Supreme Court level IIRC over the issue above!

This is the right contact for Guy Relford? Seem obviously so but dont want to screw up

The Law Offices of Guy A. Relford

I wonder if a copy also to the governor of Indiana would be worth it.

Well, I'm not on here daily. But now I know

Yes contact him first and STOP posting here until you hear back from him.
AGAIN STOP POSTING AND TALK TO HIM FIRST!!!!

 

[stephen87]

INGO members who are not in LAKE COUNTY.
The City of Hammond is the equivalent to the Southern Indiana City of Bloomington or the IL city of Chicago.
It is anti-gun 100% from the mayor to just about every councilman/women on the city board.
The Mayor of Hammond rules with an iron fist. He is the LAKE COUNTY D top dog and has a lot of power *cough* corruption *cough* in Indiana with the Ds.



Our very own INGO ATTY GUY sued the city of hammond and lost at the Indiana Supreme Court level IIRC over the issue above!

You really shouldn't call your mayor a D...
I think it only went to the Court of Appeals.

 

[jedi]

You really shouldn't call your mayor a D...
I think it only went to the Court of Appeals.

He is not my mayor. I have never been a resident of Hammond.

 

[KG1]

You know, it would be nice if there was some way for these poor police officers to be able to know things like this. If only the police had some kinda academy. Maybe a police academy or something like that.
Maybe they could know the law, that they are trying to enforce.

That would be nice but I think in some cases, maybe not necessarily this one, they do know the law but are counting on the fact that some of us do not. It's only when they are called to task by someone who is actually familiar with the law that they really cop (pun intended) an attitude.

 

[EricG]

OP, you have 90 days from the time of incident to file a complaint. I'd file one if I were you. Even If nothing happens immediately, these occurrences need to be documented.

Maybe even send copy to ISP with a nice letter.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Not surrender the gun? How do you think that would go down when the officer just moves in and goes for it while I'm saying it is safe where it is at? If I said I do not consent I doubt he would have stopped and said oh, sorry I didnt realize I didnt have your permission.

At that point, at the very least your lawsuit would have just grown some SERIOUS legs

Does Ofc. Kruse of the Hammond PD know Ofcrs. Ringo and Armentrout of the Terre Haute PD?

 

[Bunnykid68]

You can replace your LTCH for $20, next time that may be money well spent to remove yourself from the situation.

Or do not worry about replacing it at all.

 

[stephen87]

He is not my mayor. I have never been a resident of Hammond.

Then you shouldn't call HIS mayor a D.

 

[88GT]

Here is my write up. I havent sent it in yet.

During the early afternoon of 11.30.13 Officer Kruse pulled up in front of my house. I was at that time raking the leaves in my front yard. I have an Indiana License to Carry Handgun and I was legally carrying my firearm openly while working on my property. I had my handgun on the right side in a holster, my two spare mags on the left side and a fixed blade knife on my belt on the left in front of the spare mags. My keys were on my belt in front of my handgun and I had a folding knife in my right pants pocket.

Officer Kruse approached and asked if I was LEO and I replied no I was not. He asked why was I wearing all of that and I replied, I have a license to carry. He asked if I had my firearm on me and I said I did. I believe I also turned slightly towards him so he could see that I was carrying on my right side. He then asked for my license to carry which I promptly handed over. He then asked for my driver's license. I replied that as I understood it I was not required by Indiana law to turn that over if I was not committing a crime and he could verify the LTCH by calling it in.

Around this time another officer pulled up, but I did not get his name. He approached me to take my firearm, I said it was safe where it was but I did not resist. He took my firearm and also the knife I had on my belt.

At this point I have done nothing wrong. I am on my own property and yet my personal property has been taken away from me without my consent. I have worked on my front lawn for two years now and open carry when I do so if the weather permits and there have been no problems. Officer Kruse verified the LTCH and yet still continued to harass me about my photo ID. The other officer participated in this as well.

They claimed the law required me to have a photo ID if I was licensed to carry and carrying a firearm. I asked if they had a copy of the ordinances/laws in the car and could show me that I was incorrect. Officer Kruse said he did not have that. Around this time the other officer put my now unloaded firearm and knife in my mailbox. Officer Kruse asked what I would do next time. I said if I verify the law requires me to do so I will hand over my ID. Officer Kruse became angry and walked up to my house and took my firearm from the mailbox. He asked me if I wanted him to impound it and then I would have to provide photo ID to get it back. I asked him how he would explain to a judge that he saw me as a threat. He said that my not turning over my ID when asked was reason enough. He didn't know who I was, I could be my brother etc.

The officers said it didn't really matter if they were wrong because they can err on the side of safety, I was barking up the wrong tree and that I was looking at laws and ordinances in black and white by the letter and they were going to do what they needed for safety.

It is chilling when an officer claims it doesn't matter what the law says because they have some sort of spin to justify going beyond their lawful duties. Even worse is that this was preceded by being hassled on my own property even after the LTCH was verified. I was treated as guilty and needing to prove my innocence in the complete absence of any proof or reasons from the officers that I was not who I claimed to be.

Hopefully this is just a matter of poor training and not a case of intentionally misleading the public about what the law requires. It is difficult to think it is merely the former after the officers told me on several occasions I was not under arrest. This even after refusing to show my photo ID. Yet I was threatened with having my property taken from me. This would have caused me hardship and put me out of my way to retrieve my property simply because an officer lost his professional demeanor.

The interaction ended with myself and the officer's shaking hands. I do respect LEO and their service to the community. This does not mean they should be going out and playing "their personal opinion enforcement officers" which was clearly what happened here after the LTCH was verified. It is hoped this harassment of law abiding gun owners on their own property is not official policy for the city of Hammond.

Too long. You don't need a play-by-play.