Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)

[2A_Tom]

I have committed an infraction. Run my plate and license and complete your business in a polite and professional manner.

I will be polite and ask why I was pulled over.

He will say you know why.

I will say actually I slowed and pulled over to let you go by to an emergancy.

I will have my hands glued to ten and two.

You obviosly didn't listen to The Gun Guy Last friday or watch the video of the Summer Study where the ISP lawyer admitted that there is no law that allows an officer to disarm for officer safety unless there is RAS or PC and that they are not allowed on a trafic stop to ask about guns "because of recent court rulings".

 

[T.Lex]

You obviosly didn't listen to The Gun Guy Last friday or watch the video of the Summer Study where the ISP lawyer admitted that there is no law that allows an officer to disarm for officer safety unless there is RAS or PC and that they are not allowed on a trafic stop to ask about guns "because of recent court rulings".

I'm now further confused about what we're arguing about.

I did not assert that there is "a law that allows an officer to disarm for officer safety unless there is RAS or PC." I did not bring up disarming at all. I don't even think I brought up officer safety.

And, if you're telling me Guy said that police on a traffic stop are not even allowed to ASK about a handgun in plain view, I'll believe you and promptly email him to clarify. My reading of Pinner is that that is a over-extension of the holding.

 

[rhino]

I feel like we're arguing about something, but I'm really not sure what.

I knew that I never liked you, but until now I didn't know why!

 

[brotherbill3]

While we're sitting here arguing about lug nuts - like a bunch of lug nuts some might say -

The media in the outside world is tearing at the case for ConC (my short for Constitutional Carry) - to get past this set of hearings. ...

I just put a quick thing together - but if you're on other social media, or in other groups, wherever discourse may occur on the matter
We need to be sharing facts with the rest of the public - not just in our little corner.
The media sure enough is not going to do this - they do not like ConC or Guns anywhere.

Make sure if you interact you offset with facts - and try to step out and interact with the rest of the real world
(sorry I'm getting very cynical after several years of trying to get people to share / spread good info).


ANYWAY - here's the content I just added to IMAGC - and the bulk of which was added to the star's failure of an article on this.:

Constitutional Carry Legislation - Your Support is needed.


Since the hearing on Tuesday - the Indiana media has been sharing its HIGHLY anti-rights biased version of the facts. While we obviously cannot change what they right - WE (all supporters of ConC - Constitutional Carry) - need to work together to dispel the false "facts" and misguided opinions and emotions of the anti-rights crowd.


WE - you, me, pro 2A organizations, Facebook groups and pages that support our rights and liberties - we all need to work to educate and inform our neighbors, and the public in general of the facts. Take a stand for your rights.


Where to even begin? Here are some helpful facts for you to use to counter the false statements, propaganda and misguided opinions. Go find an article or comment and give them the straight scoop. ...


1) There are now 13 states with Constitutional Carry (ConC, for short) ... already approved. And several other (besides Indiana) considering this over the last few years - expect more to follow suit.


2) There are over 30 states that allow UN-licensed open carry of handguns already; and this number is also growing.


3) There are even more state that allow UN-licensed open carry of "Antique" - i.e. Percussion Cap or similar, revolvers - INCLUDING - "not shocked" - Indiana.


4) As is evident from the arguments against "shall issues CC" (as it became the standard years ago) and these 13 states - there is no "Blood in the streets" / "wild west" syndrome. - In fact - the opposite is true. Homicides have declined over the last 20-25 yrs - as a general trend (yes there are spikes, at times due to other issues).


5) The current laws area in conflict with the state Constitution (A.1.S.32: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.); while the IC makes it a crime to carry a hand gun ("bear arms") and the LTCH (License to Carry a Handgun) is a "positive defense" against this crime, of exercising a constitutional right.


6) The licenses only delays and hinders the law abiding; criminals, intent on doing harm, will carry without the "permission slip" from the state.


7) The police "organizations" - do not want to lose their "training funds" (which were already provide an alternative source for this in legislation last session) - which comes from a poll tax on the exercising of this right.


8) This does not change who is "allowed" to have a gun - All prohibited people (felons, primarily) are still prohibited from possessing a firearm - ANYWHERE.


9) This does not affect who can buy - or how transactions occur - at all. Totally Irrelevant.


10) All existing LTCH's will remain in effect (to their expiration) and continue to be available for the purposes of reciprocity to carry in other states that require and honor Indiana's LTCH.


11) Indiana's LTCH is not a Concealed Carry Permit - you can, and many do, legally open carry. It is also not a requirement for carrying long arms (rifles and shot guns).


12) This does not change where firearms are allowed or prohibited by law.


13) It is illegal (Pinner, IN Supreme Court Decision) for an officer to stop someone "just for carrying a gun" - even to verify if they have an LTCH, short of having some other PC/RAS that another serious crime is / was afoot.


14) MOST officers - not "leadership organizations" - support law abiding citizens carrying a handgun.


ALSO - PLEASE LIKE, SHARE AND COMMENT BACK.


We're here to Empower You With Facts.
But it's up to you to stand up for this - IF we're going to get it passed.


Thanks!!!
- - - BB3

 

[T.Lex]

I knew that I never liked you, but until now I didn't know why!

I feel like I should be offended, but I'm really not sure why.

 

[rhino]

I feel like I should be offended, but I'm really not sure why.

I feel like I should explain it to you, but I do not want to do that and I'm not sure why.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

3) There are even more state that allow UN-licensed open carry of "Antique" - i.e. Percussion Cap or similar, revolvers - INCLUDING - "not shocked" - Indiana.

I hope this point will be stressed at the next hearing.

 

[brotherbill3]

I hope this point will be stressed at the next hearing.

Kirk, Did I miss much of anything? ...

I did this more "on the fly" than I often do. ... oh and a link for those on FB to "like share comment and stuff" ...

https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/1412807168811174

 

[chipbennett]

The officer already has RAS to detain based on the traffic stop. A handgun in plain view allows the question of whether the potential possessor has a Larry.

The officer does not need RAS independent of the RAS he already has. Instead of a handgun, if it were a pack of cigarettes, the officer could ask if the person is over 18.

I feel like we're arguing about something, but I'm really not sure what.

Maybe KF or Fargo or Mark can correct me, but I'm not familiar with any requirement that additional RAS is necessary for limited question/investigation. Imagine if Pinner had been stark naked except for a handgun taped to his forehead. The officer would've been able to detain him on indecent exposure and ask about whether he had a Larry.

No, I don't think so. The default position is not a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; therefore, the mere presence of a firearm is not individualized, reasonable suspicion that possession of said firearm is unlawful.

And the cigarettes analogy is poor. The officer already has the driver's license, which indicates the age of the driver.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm now further confused about what we're arguing about.

I did not assert that there is "a law that allows an officer to disarm for officer safety unless there is RAS or PC." I did not bring up disarming at all. I don't even think I brought up officer safety.

And, if you're telling me Guy said that police on a traffic stop are not even allowed to ASK about a handgun in plain view, I'll believe you and promptly email him to clarify. My reading of Pinner is that that is a over-extension of the holding.

Police are allowed to ask any questions that they want. What matters is which such questions the detainee is legally compelled to answer.

I agree that the question about the handgun does not fall within the category of questions a detainee is legally compelled to answer, as affirmed by Pinner.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, Did I miss much of anything? ...

I did this more "on the fly" than I often do. ... oh and a link for those on FB to "like share comment and stuff" ...

https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/posts/1412807168811174

No, I don't think so. The problem is that our enemy's argument is a tub of oatmeal. It has no organization, no structure.

They know nothing of the law and of firearms so they merely ramble about their feelings and how daddy government can protect them.

 

[brotherbill3]

No, I don't think so. The problem is that our enemy's argument is a tub of oatmeal. It has no organization, no structure.

They know nothing of the law and of firearms so they merely ramble about their feelings and how daddy government can protect them.

Thanks! and you are correct. Still - we need to try ... (sigh).

 

[KellyinAvon]

No, I don't think so. The problem is that our enemy's argument is a tub of oatmeal. It has no organization, no structure.

They know nothing of the law and of firearms so they merely ramble about their feelings and how daddy government can protect them.

Exactly my observation from the hearing on Tuesday. Those who oppose us (and ConC as BrotherBill3 put it) have nothing but emotion. They couldn't keep it together just sitting in a room listening to the proceedings. That includes the IU professor who left her classes on to a Grad Assistant on day 2 of the semester. I was 2 rows behind her, she was spazzing out half the time. We have the data, we have the facts. As long as we are professional and reasoned in our approach (and show up in numbers) we got this.

Thanks! and you are correct. Still - we need to try ... (sigh).

Hope you can make it on 7 September Bill. Like I said, we got this.

 

[MCgrease08]

Welp. Moms Demand Action IN finally blocked me on Facebook. They don't like it when you call out the fact that many of the posts they claim came from "concerned citizens" at this week's hearing were actually posted by the same woman who runs their Facebook page.

She had stripped out the time stamps and identifying info from the tweets. I found her personal Twitter account pretty easily using the hashtags and called her out on it.

They wouldn't have to strip out identifying information if they actually had any of the public support they claim.

This is the same woman who literally got up and ran away from me while I was talking to her at the Fishers City Municipal open house a few months ago. She was running a booth for one of their new astro-turf groups called S.M.A.R.T. I challenged her on some of her "facts" and she literally abandoned the booth and ran away from me.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Welp. Moms Demand Action IN finally blocked me on Facebook. They don't like it when you call out the fact that many of the posts they claim came from "concerned citizens" at this week's hearing were actually posted by the same woman who runs their Facebook page.

She had stripped out the time stamps and identifying info from the tweets. I found her personal Twitter account pretty easily using the hashtags and called her out on it.

They wouldn't have to strip out identifying information if they actually had any of the public support they claim.

This is the same woman who literally got up and ran away from me while I was talking to her at the Fishers City Municipal open house a few months ago. She was running a booth for one of their new astro-turf groups called S.M.A.R.T. I challenged her on some of her "facts" and she literally abandoned the booth and ran away from me.

So would you call that, BEST DAY EVER??

 

[MCgrease08]

So would you call that, BEST DAY EVER??

Somewhat amusing, but more surprising and pathetic than anything.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Somewhat amusing, but more surprising and pathetic than anything.

It shouldn't surprise us.

 

[T.Lex]

First - Kirk - little help here, dude?

Second:

No, I don't think so. The default position is not a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; therefore, the mere presence of a firearm is not individualized, reasonable suspicion that possession of said firearm is unlawful.

This is a cart-horse problem.

RAS is the horse that pulls the investigative cart toward PC, and sometimes, BRD.

Pinner says dude with a handgun and nothing else wrong is not a horse. Its a... parakeet. A pretty bird that isn't very useful to get the cart anywhere.

Lots of other cases say a traffic stop is a big, powerful horse. Clydesdale. A fantastic horse for getting the cart almost anywhere.

Once there's RAS, the detention and questioning for almost whatever the officer wants, with Miranda basically being the boundary.

In other words, once there's RAS for something else, the officer doesn't NEED RAS to ask about the Larry.

Police are allowed to ask any questions that they want. What matters is which such questions the detainee is legally compelled to answer.

I agree that the question about the handgun does not fall within the category of questions a detainee is legally compelled to answer, as affirmed by Pinner.

Pinner didn't affirm this. In fact, the almost-last paragraph suggests that there is an ability by officers to go to a MWAG call and ask questions.

This time, you're suggesting I said something that I didn't say. I didn't say driver is obligated to answer the Larry question or be truthful. I am saying that a shocking number of criminals in that situation admit their criminality.

And again, I'm not saying this narrow situation (and narrow situations like it) justify the Larry system. I'm just struggling to express the truth that the Larry system is useful to LEOs in those certain situations.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In other words, once there's RAS for something else, the officer doesn't NEED RAS to ask about the Larry.

For a stop? Like PI? Or DC? Or robbing a liquor store? Sure.

Pinner merely blotted out the MWAG being the sole reason for the stop.

Pinner didn't affirm this. In fact, the almost-last paragraph suggests that there is an ability by officers to go to a MWAG call and ask questions.

Right consensually, and the smarter/older cops will always do everything consensually.

I am saying that a shocking number of criminals in that situation admit their criminality.

Allegedly.

And again, I'm not saying this narrow situation (and narrow situations like it) justify the Larry system. I'm just struggling to express the truth that the Larry system is useful to LEOs in those certain situations.

Given Pinner, those situations are extremely narrow.

 

[T.Lex]

For a stop? Like PI? Or DC? Or robbing a liquor store? Sure.

Pinner merely blotted out the MWAG being the sole reason for the stop.

While I have your attention.

Hypo: generic traffic stop, officer at window, sees handgun in plain view (console, floorboard, passenger seat, whatever), asks if driver has a Larry, driver admits he doesn't.

I think people think that the officer isn't allowed to ask about the Larry after seeing the handgun. But honestly, I'm still not sure if that's what we're arguing about.