Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Cygnus]

Northeastshooters.com - Frontpage News

Have you guys seen or heard of this?
NH governor just signed constitutional carry. They are keeping their license for those who want it for reciprocity. So now Kentucky and New Hampshire.
I was just going to get an out of state from them. Saves me $100

 

[bb37]

..right now it's an automatic green light / red light based on that status of the card...

Status of the card at the time it was issued or status of the card at the time the officer runs the drivers license? Does ISP routinely review current LTCH holders against the various criminal record databases to determine if the holder is still eligible for the license?

Let's say I'm legitimately issued an LTCH and then I go get myself convicted of a felony in another state. Will Indiana revoke my LTCH?

 

[ATM]

...Heck I wouldn't want that, but if I'm in a situation where the police have a lawful reason to ID me I have no problem with them being able to see whether I am a proper person to be carrying a handgun or not.

Nobody needs to check if I'm a proper person to be carrying a handgun.

What if I'm carrying a rifle?

 

[bb37]

If criminals are carrying handguns, then arrest then for their crime for which you have probable cause.

Let's say I'm a convicted felon. Let's say I'm pulled over for a burned out license plate bulb. Let's say I'm carrying a handgun at the time I'm pulled over. Officer runs my drivers license and registration. Will the DL check reveal that I'm a convicted felon? Should it? I'm not talking the entire record, but just a "yes" or "no".

Scenario 1: Let's say the DL check says I'm a convicted felon. The officer comes back to my car, sees the gun, and arrests me for illegal possession of a handgun.

Scenario 2: Let's say the DL check does not say I'm a convicted felon. The officer comes back to my car, sees the gun, assumes I'm a "proper person", and lets me go on my way with a warning for the burned out license plate bulb. Are we OK with this scenario?

Other than "without an LTCH, more criminals will be carrying guns" argument, what exactly is the ISA concerned about if the LTCH goes away? What problem do they think the LTCH solves? (No, I did not start at the beginning of this thread. If the answer to my question is back there, please direct me to the post that explains ISA's position.)

 

[WestSider]

Status of the card at the time it was issued or status of the card at the time the officer runs the drivers license? Does ISP routinely review current LTCH holders against the various criminal record databases to determine if the holder is still eligible for the license?

Let's say I'm legitimately issued an LTCH and then I go get myself convicted of a felony in another state. Will Indiana revoke my LTCH?

Theoretically yes, obviously I don't oversee that process so I can't speak on it, but presumably yes if you are convicted of a qualifying felony your LTCH is revoked. Don't know exactly how out of state convictions would get treated any different.

 

[WestSider]

Nobody needs to check if I'm a proper person to be carrying a handgun.

What if I'm carrying a rifle?

Happy for ya, don't give the police a reason to check and you're good to go then. Is this statement supposed to refute anything in which I have said?

 

[WestSider]

I talk to many police officers folks.. trust me they are on your side. Vast majority are fully in support of 2A rights and none of them are out to take your guns. I'm not against the constitutional carry as long as it doesn't in any way more difficult than it already is to enforce the laws and to try to prevent crime. I think good folks and police need to stand together on this to make sure it benefits us all.

 

[ATM]

Happy for ya, don't give the police a reason to check and you're good to go then. Is this statement supposed to refute anything in which I have said?

The police currently do have a legal provision to check, if I'm simply carrying a handgun in Indiana, a provision which should not be available to them absent reasonable suspicion that I am a prohibited person.

You seem fine with letting that infringement of our right stand, because you're OK with it.

What about carrying a rifle? Since that isn't a crime in Indiana, there is no basis for arbitrarily detaining and checking someone for doing it. Why shouldn't handgun carry be treated the same?

 

[WestSider]

The police currently do have a legal provision to check, if I'm simply carrying a handgun in Indiana, a provision which should not be available to them absent reasonable suspicion that I am a prohibited person.

You seem fine with letting that infringement of our right stand, because you're OK with it.

What about carrying a rifle? Since that isn't a crime in Indiana, there is no basis for arbitrarily detaining and checking someone for doing it. Why shouldn't handgun carry be treated the same?

Please point me to the provision that states an officer has legal authority to detain and investigate someone simply because they are carrying a handgun because I am honestly not aware of it.

As for the rifle thing, I'm with ya. As I've said the card is silly and I would rather it not be necessary.

 

[ATM]

... I'm not against the constitutional carry as long as it doesn't in any way more difficult than it already is to enforce the laws and to try to prevent crime. I think good folks and police need to stand together on this to make sure it benefits us all.

Which cops want to keep the law that makes it a crime to carry a handgun in Indiana?

How would repealing the criminal aspect of carrying a handgun in Indiana make it more difficult to prevent crime?

That's one less crime that could be committed.

 

[ATM]

Please point me to the provision that states an officer has legal authority to detain and investigate someone simply because they are carrying a handgun because I am honestly not aware of it.

IC 35-47-2-24

You can be arrested and charged for the crime of carrying a handgun in Indiana, burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt.

As for the rifle thing, I'm with ya. As I've said the card is silly and I would rather it not be necessary.

It is only necessary as an exemption to a silly law prohibiting the carry of handguns in Indiana.

Let's repeal the silly, leaving the card intact as an option for other silly states with their silly infringing laws.

 

[WestSider]

Which cops want to keep the law that makes it a crime to carry a handgun in Indiana?

How would repealing the criminal aspect of carrying a handgun in Indiana make it more difficult to prevent crime?

That's one less crime that could be committed.

IC 35-47-2-24

You can be arrested and charged for the crime of carrying a handgun in Indiana, burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt.



It is only necessary as an exemption to a silly law prohibiting the carry of handguns in Indiana.

Let's repeal the silly, leaving the card intact as an option for other silly states with their silly infringing laws.

I see nothing in that statute which allows an officer the ability to perform an unlawful detention. That section only states that if you are charged with the unlawful possession of a handgun It is the burden of you to prove you had a valid license just like it is your burden to show you have insurance if you are involved in a crash.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Westsider,

You're presenting some good questions. The questions have good answers as well, and I appreciate everyone's participation here in a civil, polite discussion. Thank you all!

Let's just say for a moment that Bruiser Smith, who has been jailed numerous times for attempted battery (hence his nickname) but never actually convicted of any felony, is found by Officer Friendly on a traffic stop, carrying a Glock with the famous Birdman sights. Bruiser had the aforementioned bad taillight, and has not done anything that day that is particularly noteworthy... he just happened to be driving in front of Officer Friendly and the good officer pulled him over to let him know the bulb was out. Whether with our current LTCH system or Constitutional carry, Bruiser is good to go, because he's literally done nothing (other than have extremely poor taste in weapons) wrong, correct?

A month later, Bruiser has been busted and freed on bail a couple of times. He is again stopped by the same officer, this time for expired registration (he fixed the taillight) Bruiser is again committing no crime when stopped, as he has the registration sticker in the vehicle, he just has not put it on the car yet.

Question: Why would Officer Friendly want to stop Bruiser from carrying his handgun without evidence that he is using it to commit some criminal act?

I do not intend to cast aspersions on you. I wonder if perhaps you have bought into the idea that the law (as in the words in the IC) actually stops someone from committing a crime he has decided to commit?

In the other states that have Constitutional carry, has there been a sudden and persistent rise in crimes of violence committed by those carrying firearms who otherwise would not have done so? Is there a reason to believe that those accused of any such crimes would have been stopped from doing so by words written in the criminal code, any more than words in the traffic code stop speeders or drunken drivers?

Please understand that I ask these questions without sarcasm. If there is evidence to indicate that this is an actual problem elsewhere, let's see what we can recommend to our legislators to head off those problems in Indiana before we face them.

Thank you for your input and responses, and again for your civility in those replies.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cbhausen]

..which is based on a background check which would reveal any prior convictions barring someone from carrying a handgun. Look I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just saying we can't have it both ways. The 2nd amendment doesn't have a stipulation barring certain people from carrying handguns, so by your logic no matter what prior convictions someone has, you feel they should be OK to carry a handgun, correct? I just want to be clear that this is your position.. Even if someone has multiple violent felony convictions you are OK with them legally carrying a handgun in your state.

Why use "your state" when quoting K_W? The locations under your avatars both suggest you're from Indiana. As for "having it both ways", no... Having it one way, "yes". "...shall not be infringed" is crystal clear.

If someone has paid their debt to society he or she should be made whole again (maybe after a cooling-off period once they get out).

As for what We the People can possess, anything I say. It isn't what one possesses that causes harm. It's what one does with said possessed items. In cases of justified self-defense, any weapon works for me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I see nothing in that statute which allows an officer the ability to perform an unlawful detention. That section only states that if you are charged with the unlawful possession of a handgun It is the burden of you to prove you had a valid license just like it is your burden to show you have insurance if you are involved in a crash.

You've said you don't believe it should be a criminal act to carry a handgun in Indiana. The fact is that it IS a criminal act to do so, misdemeanor or felony depending upon location. Thus, the detention would not be unlawful, but an officer CAN detain someone solely for having a handgun on them, to check them out and determine if they are licensed. That's what needs to go away.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

I see nothing in that statute which allows an officer the ability to perform an unlawful detention. That section only states that if you are charged with the unlawful possession of a handgun It is the burden of you to prove you had a valid license just like it is your burden to show you have insurance if you are involved in a crash.

Because there is an Indiana law which makes carrying a handgun a crime, the detention, arrest and charge would all be lawful. That law should not exist.

Without that law, there would be no charge for simply carrying a handgun in Indiana, so, no arrest, no detainment, no need to prove I have government permission to exercise my right.

When we repeal the prohibition on carrying handguns in Indiana, it won't make anything more difficult on cops except they'll need reasonable suspicion to jam someone up who is carrying a handgun, the way it's supposed to be.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Because there is an Indiana law which makes carrying a handgun a crime, the detention, arrest and charge would all be lawful. That law should not exist.

Without that law, there would be no charge for simply carrying a handgun in Indiana, so, no arrest, no detainment, no need to prove I have government permission to exercise my right.

When we repeal the prohibition on carrying handguns in Indiana, it won't make anything more difficult on cops except they'll need reasonable suspicion to jam someone up who is carrying a handgun, the way it's supposed to be.

"9-1-1, what is your emergency?"

(hysterical caller) "THERE'S A MAN CARRYING A GUN!"

Dispatch takes the time to find out where the caller is and dispatches officers who determine that the man is grocery shopping and doing nothing else in particular.
Result: Wasted time, and the possibility of a real crime being committed elsewhere that there was no nearby officer to respond to, because of this silliness.

"9-1-1, what is your emergency?"

(hysterical caller) "THERE'S A MAN CARRYING A COMPUTER TABLET!"

"Um...that's not against the law...?"

"BUT HE COULD BE ABOUT TO STEAL MY IDENTITY! HURRY UP!!"

"Call back and let us know if he actually commits a crime." (for those who work dispatch, if your response to the above is different, I apologize in advance. I've never dispatched police officers.)

Result: Officers remain available for real responses to real crimes. The citizen's rights remain intact, not subject to challenge and infringement for what he might do.

Why could the latter not apply to handguns as well, especially given that those who carry lawfully commit statistically relevant numbers fewer criminal acts than do LEOs as a whole? (again, not casting aspersions. There are good and bad apples on both sides of this fence, and that's kinda the point: Neither a hunk of metal on one's shirt nor a plastic card in the wallet prevent those bad apples- it takes the actions of people to separate the wheat from the chaff (and those good people are also on both sides of that fence.))

Blessings,
Bill

 

[WestSider]

Westsider,

You're presenting some good questions. The questions have good answers as well, and I appreciate everyone's participation here in a civil, polite discussion. Thank you all!

Let's just say for a moment that Bruiser Smith, who has been jailed numerous times for attempted battery (hence his nickname) but never actually convicted of any felony, is found by Officer Friendly on a traffic stop, carrying a Glock with the famous Birdman sights. Bruiser had the aforementioned bad taillight, and has not done anything that day that is particularly noteworthy... he just happened to be driving in front of Officer Friendly and the good officer pulled him over to let him know the bulb was out. Whether with our current LTCH system or Constitutional carry, Bruiser is good to go, because he's literally done nothing (other than have extremely poor taste in weapons) wrong, correct?

A month later, Bruiser has been busted and freed on bail a couple of times. He is again stopped by the same officer, this time for expired registration (he fixed the taillight) Bruiser is again committing no crime when stopped, as he has the registration sticker in the vehicle, he just has not put it on the car yet.

Question: Why would Officer Friendly want to stop Bruiser from carrying his handgun without evidence that he is using it to commit some criminal act?

I do not intend to cast aspersions on you. I wonder if perhaps you have bought into the idea that the law (as in the words in the IC) actually stops someone from committing a crime he has decided to commit?

In the other states that have Constitutional carry, has there been a sudden and persistent rise in crimes of violence committed by those carrying firearms who otherwise would not have done so? Is there a reason to believe that those accused of any such crimes would have been stopped from doing so by words written in the criminal code, any more than words in the traffic code stop speeders or drunken drivers?

Please understand that I ask these questions without sarcasm. If there is evidence to indicate that this is an actual problem elsewhere, let's see what we can recommend to our legislators to head off those problems in Indiana before we face them.

Thank you for your input and responses, and again for your civility in those replies.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill I was waiting for you to show up
Thanks for the good dialogue and question. I guess in my mind the officer has no reason or incentive to keep Bruiser from carrying a firearm. I think the distinction I have been trying to make is that it is not up to the individual officer on a contact to decide if the person should or should not have a handgun. I don't believe personally that should ever be the officer's job, absent the gun being actually used in the commission of a crime. The decision of whether they should be in possession of a handgun has already made for them based on the actions and conduct of the person (IE qualifying convictions causing their LTCH to be revoked). Now, on a normal traffic stop as you have said the officer, absent any other reasonable suspicion, would have no reason to even ask the person if they had any firearms in the vehicle. However, if there were other factors involved and further investigation revealed criminal activity in which a handgun was found, I personally then find it completely reasonable for the officer, through the normal inquiries, to validate that individual is a proper person to be carrying a handgun.

As for the other states argument, you are right in that I have no data to back up my prediction yet. I am just trying to look at it from the criminal's viewpoint. Let's toss the LTCH and background check system out the window. Now I can carry a gun without the officer (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) knowing whether I should have it or not, even if I'm stopped for a legitimate reason. I cannot imagine this not emboldening some bad element of our society to feel a newfound sense of freedom from the restrictions which were put in place to protect us. That is my only point. I'm all about 2A but I do believe there are some people that we absolutely do not want carrying guns around because of their past history.

CBHAUSEN just stated he thinks when someone is released from prison they have paid their debt and should be given a completely clean slate regardless of the significance or nature of the crimes. I respectfully disagree.

Let me say this again, I have absolutely no resistance to ditching the card system.. I paid for the 4 year licenses for years and then the lifetime when it became available and i hate it. But understand that part of the money for that card is going to making sure we at least make a good faith attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

If we can do both (get rid of the card and not hamper law enforcement), I'm all for it.

 

[WestSider]

Because there is an Indiana law which makes carrying a handgun a crime, the detention, arrest and charge would all be lawful. That law should not exist.

Without that law, there would be no charge for simply carrying a handgun in Indiana, so, no arrest, no detainment, no need to prove I have government permission to exercise my right.

When we repeal the prohibition on carrying handguns in Indiana, it won't make anything more difficult on cops except they'll need reasonable suspicion to jam someone up who is carrying a handgun, the way it's supposed to be.

OK that makes sense. I just don't understand why on earth a police officer would want to stop and detain someone for simply carrying a handgun... I see it all the time, make a mental note of it but it does not bother me in the least, actually makes me feel safer.. I could be in the minority but I don't think so. Good point anyway, I can get behind that ATM.

 

[ATM]

OK that makes sense. I just don't understand why on earth a police officer would want to stop and detain someone for simply carrying a handgun... I see it all the time, make a mental note of it but it does not bother me in the least, actually makes me feel safer.. I could be in the minority but I don't think so. Good point anyway, I can get behind that ATM.

I'm sure the bulk of the push back from law enforcement agencies is from the top, not a consensus of the officers on the street.