Indiana Constitutional Carry 2017

[Bill of Rights]

Bill I was waiting for you to show up

It's nice to feel welcome.

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).

Don't officers make that decision on a regular basis? "Should this person (still) have a handgun?" vs "Should I allow this person to have a handgun while I'm around?" (reference disarming a driver, emptying his magazine, field-stripping his handgun, and giving him back a bag of parts with the instruction, "Don't reload this until I'm gone." There are many reports of this happening. I'm sure a couple of folks can relate similar stories. I personally cannot.)

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.

Surely you are aware of officers asking regularly, "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" at traffic stops or for that matter a person walking on the sidewalk being stopped a la Terry. If there really is RAS or even PC to believe a crime was (and this baffles me)or was about to be committed, investigate that. The gun makes no difference, does it?

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.

It's not just the "bad element", all of our society will feel a newfound sense of freedom... Based in reality, for once.
It's easy to quote Franklin, a la "freedom vs. liberty", but I see your point. I don't completely agree nor disagree with it, in that yes, there are people we don't want carrying guns: Those people need to not be free to carry knives, rocks, lead pipes, or any other weapon as well.

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.

I've said similar to that myself. You're also slightly misquoting him. It's close, but there's a significant difference: He said "maybe after a cooling off period". Now, to me, that sounds like a "waiting period" for purchasing, and I don't agree with it in that context. What would be similar, and have not only the same effect but also be respectful of liberty would be to say that once a person has satisfied all legal obligations, he should be made whole. In practice, this could refer to a stay in a "halfway house" after prison. The purpose of those places, as I understand it, is to reintegrate the person back into free society, where they can open their own door and not have to put their hands through a slot to be cuffed for someone else to open it for them. One aspect of a free society is that a free man may possess arms. This would be a good place to slowly re-acclimate the former prisoner to that right among others. Once free from that, why would you stop the former felon who just wants protection from his former associates from having that protection? (and if he uses the handgun offensively, it's a sentence enhancement, just as it is for anyone else)

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.

Props to you for attempting to satisfy both. I'm not sure it's possible, and thus, we may have to choose which we support: Greater LEO power/authority at the loss of liberty vs. greater liberty for good, honest people to exercise their rights at the expense of police having to work harder to find things people have actually done wrong. The story goes that a man was on trial and the prosecutor challenged, "Mr. Jones, at the time of your arrest, you had all the tools on you to commit burglary!" and Mr. Jones replied, "Madame, at this moment in this courtroom, you have on you all the tools needed to be a prostitute."

Tools mean nothing. Intent is everything.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

BTW: HB 1071 has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee:

• Chairman : Sen. Rodric Bray
• Ranking Member : Sen. Michael Young
• Majority Members
  • Sen. Michael Delph
  • Sen. Aaron Freeman
  • Sen. Susan Glick
  • Sen. Eric Koch
  • Sen. Joseph Zakas
• Ranking Minority Member
  • Sen. Lonnie Randolph
• Minority Members
  • Sen. Timothy Lanane
  • Sen. Greg Taylor

The Democrats on this committee are lock-step anti-gun people. You can try writing to them; personally, I think that's a waste of time.

Senators Bray and Freeman I know very little about, however Sen. Bray has been around long enough to be in a committee chair seat and Sen. Freeman is a Senate sponsor of HB 1071. Senators Young, Delph, Glick, Koch, and Zakas are all in our corner, as best I can tell. I've met Sen. Koch once, briefly, when he was still in the House. Very pleasant and very pro-gun rights, he seemed to me to be.

Please make your letters to these Senators direct but polite, and please, PLEASE check your spelling and grammar.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[WestSider]

Good points Bill, I agree on the intent thing. I still believe we can have both, as far as a balance officer power vs freedom, and it doesn't have to involve a plastic card, just some good training, a willingness to keep an open mind open communication, and common sense. If we have to choose, freedom has to win the day though, even if it sacrifices a little safety.

As for officer safety on the traffic stop example (ie asking if there are weapons, disarming folks, etc), there has to be room for a little discretion on the part of the officer, otherwise everyone would quit at the academy where you watch like 100 videos of officers getting shot on traffic stops. Nobody wants to sign up for a job where you can't take reasonable steps to guard yours safety. Not always easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. I certainly see your point and I've heard the stories as well with all the weird stuff like taking the bullets out, putting them in the trunk and the gun on the top of the car, etc...

 

[Hohn]

"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

Thank you for highlighting the absurdity of the "might do" argument.


Many of you will recall that TERRIBLE piece of NBC reporting amounting to "OMG these people are engaging in mutually agreeable firearms transaction and nobody's there to supervise!! Do you know what they MIGHT do with that gun?"

The report was here back when the link was alive. EDIT: found the new link. Also on youtube here:
[video=youtube_share;J5g7IxlAHEo]http://youtu.be/J5g7IxlAHEo[/video]

I remember when the reporter confronted a guy who sold a .50BMG with something like "that gun could take down a helicopter!" In another segment, the reporter implied that the presence of the gun seller's son at a transaction amounted to child abuse.


I remember watching that and thinking that I wish the reporter had confronted ME so I could respond to him with something like:

" Mr.NBC Reporter, you *might* be a dangerous sexual predator. You *might* want to attack my son and violate him. After all, you have all the potential to be, all the physical capability, and no one has furnished me with any background check proving to me that you are not a dangerous predator. Even with that background check, that only proves you do not previously have any suspicion, it does not prove that *presently* you have evil criminal intent towards me or my son. So let's apply your logic, assume that you *are* a predator and I can therefore argue self defense in what I'm about to do."

How do you think he'd feel about prior restraint then?

 

[Hohn]

BTW: did anyone else get the NAGR email blasting Jim Lucas as a sell-out?

 

[jamil]

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

Westsider?

Anything?

OMG! How WILL their law enforcement, enforce! They took away a tool of the state that infringes on law abiders for the purpose of catching non-law abiders. OMG! There'll be blood in the streets!

 

[chipbennett]

There are reasons why some in law enforcement are not a huge fan of this.
I'm not trying to start an argument. I think the card is silly, but that system is in place for a reason and taking it away will have a potentially substantial ripple effect.

What ripple effect?

The system is in place for no other reason than to extract a poll tax from law-abiding citizens, in order to obtain an exercise-of-rights permission slip from the state. The system serves absolutely no other purpose.

I'm just concerned because a full criminal history would have to be run on someone to check their status.

Why would LEO need to check someone's status? (Humor me; this is a thought exercise.)

 

[chipbennett]

I guess my point is that if the status (thumbs up / thumbs down) isn't part of the normal inquiry run by an officer on a contact with a citizen, in my opinion more people who are convicted felons will carry handguns because they won't ever get flagged for it. This is just my personal opinion. If that is something we need to accept, so be it i guess..

(Still part of my thought exercise...)

Why would an officer be running a "normal inquiry" during every mere contact with a citizen?

 

[chipbennett]

You are completely wrong on both points. It's not subject to the police officer's approval on the scene of the contact nor the possession of a piece of plastic. The systemic return is based on the status of the piece of plastic, not the possession of it, that has already been changed (thankfully). The police don't have the ability to walk up to someone and decide whether they should be carrying a handgun or not. That is based on their criminal history. I'm talking about the method of obtaining that information.

Exactly as it should be, in a free society!

 

[chipbennett]

..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.

Does the existence of a piece of paper, or a requirement to possess said piece of paper, constrain criminals from carrying handguns?

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I have a problem with anyone being arrested merely for exercising a constitutionally protected right. Anyone who has served his sentence (incarceration and any subsequent probation) should have full restoration of rights. If anyone cannot be trusted with full restoration of rights, that person should remain incarcerated.

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?

Yes. See above.

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.)

And even that argument is unfounded - unless ISA or some other LEA has statistical evidence that the introduction of the LTCH reduced the number of criminals in possession of handguns? We have what, a couple decades' worth of data now? Surely, if that argument is true, the data can prove it? On the other hand, if, after two decades of existence of the LTCH, there has been no meaningful change in the number of criminals illegally in possession of handguns, the efficacy of the statute should be called into question.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

(Still continuing my thought exercise...)

What do you consider to be a good/valid reason for police to "check" someone in possession of a handgun?

 

[chipbennett]

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.

This is the primary reason that I have gotten involved in the efforts to restore constitutional carry in Indiana - and it is the part that the vast majority of people simply don't understand. The LTCH statutes turns the mere exercise of a constitutionally protected right into a per se crime.

 

[gregr]

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.

Rhetorical question...have there ever been, to the best of your knowledge, any instances of law enforcement detaining, questioning, harassing citizens who were carrying lawfully, simply because they were carrying?

 

[ATM]

Rhetorical question...have there ever been, to the best of your knowledge, any instances of law enforcement detaining, questioning, harassing citizens who were carrying lawfully, simply because they were carrying?

Several instances documented by members right here on INGO.

 

[gregr]

Several instances documented by members right here on INGO.

Exactly. Just making note that simply because something isn`t against the law, that we may not bear hardship or harassment for exercising that right.

 

[MCgrease08]

Rhetorical question...have there ever been, to the best of your knowledge, any instances of law enforcement detaining, questioning, harassing citizens who were carrying lawfully, simply because they were carrying?

You must be new here.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/169733-1-sbpd-officer-maxey.html

There are certainly other threads here on INGO with stories of members having similar experiences with uninformed officers. This happens to be one of the most notorious.

 

[goldtrigger]

Post cards and e-mails will go out this weekend to the Senate Judiciary committee!

 

[Bill of Rights]

(Still part of my thought exercise...)

Why would an officer be running a "normal inquiry" during every mere contact with a citizen?

One answer I've heard, Chip, is that a police officer runs "wants and warrants" routinely, and this was how Tim McVeigh was caught, among others. The argument could be made that this is just good police work, but to me, it reminds me of a doc I used to work with, who would order LOTS of lab work, and just about everyone coming to the ED got a cat scan of something... head, abdomen/pelvis, whatever... in an effort to ensure that she would catch whatever was wrong. (This is called the shotgun approach, because if you blast every available test at every person, you'll find SOMEthing you can recognize and diagnose. Even if you do unnecessarily irradiate people and run up their costs with unnecessary tests.)
What I don't know is why it's legal. In Delaware v. Prouse, the Court found that pulling over every driver to check and see if they had a valid license to drive was unConstitutional. The logic seems to me to be the same, whether we're speaking of LsTCH or of checking every driver you pull over, effectively suspecting them of guilt until innocence is proven (not exactly, but similar: The lack of wants and warrants does not prove innocence, only lack of accusation.)
I've read here on INGO that there is some legal rationale why that logic does not carry from one case to the generality, but I don't recall what that rationale is.

A driver's license and a marriage license are valid in all 50 states. Why is not a state handgun permission slip? Why does not the quote from Benson Everett Legg apply (I know, he isn't SCOTUS, but the fact quoted is still true. Hat tip to Actaeon277 for the quote.)

We have a paradigm in place now that says we need state permission to exercise that specific right. Paradigms can shift, and this one should.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bb37]

One answer I've heard, Chip, is that a police officer runs "wants and warrants" routinely...

As things currently stand in Indiana, if an officer checks the validity of your driver's license, a flag on the report indicates whether or not you are an LTCH holder. That's probably the fastest way for an officer to know.

A driver's license and a marriage license are valid in all 50 states. Why is not a state handgun permission slip?

States rights? 10th Amendment? I believe that the states have agreed that a driver's license is valid in all 50 states for purposes of interstate commerce (which the Federal government is permitted to regulate per the Constitution). Not sure what the argument is about the interstate validity of marriage licenses (I'm not entirely sure that we need marriage licenses...but we do need legal registration of marriages which the license provides). The issue here is whether or not permission to carry a handgun is a Federal issue or a state issue. And, that seems to be the core of the argument against Indiana's LTCH. Since carrying a handgun is a right granted by the 2A and is otherwise regulated by the Federal government, what, exactly, are the states accomplishing by further regulating it?