INGO member in handcuffs

[machete]

You can ask them their intent if they are still alive. Won't matter, they can't change it now without getting elected back to that post. Fact remains, they made it a papers please state for all handgun carriers and nobody has cared to change that fact since.
Courts would be overstepping their bounds to legislate from the bench.
Get the stupid law changed through the proper channels but don't expect your thoughts (or mine) on original intent to be much of a factor on enforcement in the meantime.

I totally disagree. I cant find it in the law where cops have the express authority to walk up to every OC-er they find and demand papers,,,

Heres all it says

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
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.

If the cops had the permission to walk up to every OC-er and check for licenses it would be in there. I cant find it and I cant find where an OC-er is required to produce a license on demand of a cop. You can call that reading into the law but I say right back that the cops are reading what they want into the law too.

The basic rules of arrest still apply. There is no PC or RAS for papers-please-ing every OC-er just for OC-ing...

 

[.40caltrucker]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed or
exposed?

Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may
alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private
property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted
areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for
official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended
that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or
have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement
officer does have the right to inspect the permit.

Also this
[/FONT]IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

They put the burden of proof on the person carrying. It shouldn't be like this. I don't see them pulling over cars to see if they have a license right so why should we get stopped just to check ours. They should only be allowed to check for LTCH after we have committed a crime.

 

[Roadie]

I support LEO's right up to where they start breaking laws, then they become criminals and I don't support criminals.

Officer Highwhatever his name is, is a criminal

I agree, but not all LEOs are...

 

[machete]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed or
exposed?

Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may
alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private
property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted
areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for
official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended
that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or
have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement
officer does have the right to inspect the permit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Yeah thats what were all trying to figure out. I couldnt find that in the law. ISP looks like they just thought that up themselves...

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Also this
[/FONT]IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

I saw that. They can only get to that point upon PC and RAS not on a fishing expedition...

They put the burden of proof on the person carrying.

I dont see it that way... Sure the burden is on the person carrying but its only an issue after a valid stop is conducted...not every time a cop wants some papers please!!!

It shouldn't be like this. I don't see them pulling over cars to see if they have a license right so why should we get stopped just to check ours. They should only be allowed to check for LTCH after we have committed a crime.

+1

 

[E5RANGER375]

I agree, but not all LEOs are...

and I agree with that. But we must get those to stand up to the ones that are, no matter who they are or how high it goes.

If an officer lost his job for exposing the "blue wall of silence" I would be more than happy to contribute to a fund to help him pay his bills and a legal fund to get him reenstated.

 

[ATM]

...a person shall not carry a handgun ...without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

There it is. Shall not without a license. That's the basis of the restrictive IN law.

If the cops had the permission to walk up to every OC-er and check for licenses it would be in there.

No it wouldn't. That's not how laws work. They don't tell people what they can do - they tell people what they can't do.

There is no PC or RAS for papers-please-ing every OC-er just for OC-ing...

It's right there in bold above. Any handgun carrier. OC or CC. Shall not without a license. I don't like it either and want it changed.
But it is painfully obvious that a license check in IN is within the legal enforcement of the law we currently have.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

It's right there in bold above. Any handgun carrier. OC or CC. Shall not without a license. I don't like it either and want it changed.
But it is painfully obvious that a license check in IN is within the legal enforcement of the law we currently have.

Bull****. Show me RAS to believe I'm committing a crime, in this case carrying without a license. An officer that demands my license without cause will be in civil court explaining his RAS to believe that I did not have the license.

 

[ATM]

Bull****. Show me RAS to believe I'm committing a crime, in this case carrying without a license. An officer that demands my license without cause will be in civil court explaining his RAS to believe that I did not have the license.

He doesn't have to believe you don't have one to check for that stupid law.
The burden is on you to prove you have it and are thus excepted.

Get the law changed people. Or convince a judge to legislate some case law out of thin air as they sometimes like to do.

 

[Joe Williams]

He doesn't have to believe you don't have one to check for that stupid law.
The burden is on you to prove you have it and are thus excepted.

Get the law changed people. Or convince a judge to legislate some case law out of thin air as they sometimes like to do.

Not correct. In order to legally detain me, an officer MUST have RAS to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, and that I committed it or am about to commit it. IOW, if they wish to detain me to check my license, they must have RAS to believe that I do not have that license. There have been repeated federal court rulings in multiple jurisdictions that back this up.

 

[ATM]

Not correct. In order to legally detain me, an officer MUST have RAS to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, and that I committed it or am about to commit it. IOW, if they wish to detain me to check my license, they must have RAS to believe that I do not have that license. There have been repeated federal court rulings in multiple jurisdictions that back this up.

If you want that to be the case, lobby for the repeal of IC 35-47-2-24 (a).

 

[bigus_D]

Not correct. In order to legally detain me, an officer MUST have RAS to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, and that I committed it or am about to commit it. IOW, if they wish to detain me to check my license, they must have RAS to believe that I do not have that license. There have been repeated federal court rulings in multiple jurisdictions that back this up.

Joe, your posts are always so balanced and factual, but this time, you are mistaken.

Indiana courts have already ruled on the issue. The federal rulings support Indiana's law that once your LTCH is confirmed you must be free to go, but what you are presenting is hog-wash.

I'll go ahead and wish you the best... I hope you find the legal gold mine you appear to be after.

 

[machete]

There it is. Shall not without a license. That's the basis of the restrictive IN law.



No it wouldn't. That's not how laws work. They don't tell people what they can do - they tell people what they can't do.




It's right there in bold above. Any handgun carrier. OC or CC. Shall not without a license. I don't like it either and want it changed.
But it is painfully obvious that a license check in IN is within the legal enforcement of the law we currently have.

I respectfully disagree,,, That "shall not" does not make it open season to shake every OC-er down... Its not in the law that the "shall not" makes it open season so I think people are just making this up!!!

Sure the law doesnt tell people what it can do but it sure tells the government what it CAN do!!! Thats the purpose of the law!!! If the government doesnt have chapter and verse permission in the law to shake down OC-ers they dont have it.

There needs to be PC and RAS prior to asking for papers...

 

[machete]

He doesn't have to believe you don't have one to check for that stupid law.
The burden is on you to prove you have it and are thus excepted.

The burden is on you once you are charged,,, You only get charged after RAS and PC... Thats how criminal laws work...

The law didnt make a fishing expedition!!!

 

[ATM]

I respectfully disagree,,, That "shall not" does not make it open season to shake every OC-er down... Its not in the law that the "shall not" makes it open season so I think people are just making this up!!!

Sure the law doesnt tell people what it can do but it sure tells the government what it CAN do!!! Thats the purpose of the law!!! If the government doesnt have chapter and verse permission in the law to shake down OC-ers they dont have it.

There needs to be PC and RAS prior to asking for papers...

I can't continue speaking of laws with you. Lets talk guns sometime.

 

[Roadie]

He doesn't have to believe you don't have one to check for that stupid law.
The burden is on you to prove you have it and are thus excepted.

Get the law changed people. Or convince a judge to legislate some case law out of thin air as they sometimes like to do.

So then, is the burden of proof on the operator of a vehicle to provide a valid Driver's License at any time, OR, only when probable cause exists?

 

[Joe Williams]

If you want that to be the case, lobby for the repeal of IC 35-47-2-24 (a).

Can't be the case... cops never hassle me for OC'ing. Not even when they are yakking at me about other things LOL.

 

[bigus_D]

So then, is the burden of proof on the operator of a vehicle to provide a valid Driver's License at any time, OR, only when probable cause exists?

People have tried to comaire these two issues in several threads on INGO.

They are not the same in the eyes of indiana law/courts.

 

[Joe Williams]

Joe, your posts are always so balanced and factual, but this time, you are mistaken.

Indiana courts have already ruled on the issue. The federal rulings support Indiana's law that once your LTCH is confirmed you must be free to go, but what you are presenting is hog-wash.

I'll go ahead and wish you the best... I hope you find the legal gold mine you appear to be after.

You've said that earlier. Couldn't provide the court ruling then, can you now? Even if you can, what does that have to do with federal civil rights violations?

 

[ATM]

So then, is the burden of proof on the operator of a vehicle to provide a valid Driver's License at any time, OR, only when probable cause exists?

According to the case law for this jurisdiction and without something as glaring as IC 35-47-2-24 (a) that I'm aware of, only with PC of another infraction - the way handgun carry should be... could be... but isn't yet.

 

[Roadie]

People have tried to comaire these two issues in several threads on INGO.

They are not the same in the eyes of indiana law/courts.

Has it actually been ruled as such, or has it just never been challenged?