INGO member in handcuffs

[ATM]

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

Me either. I never get any attention.



Nothing requires them to check, but I can't find anything prohibiting them from doing so if they choose.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I agree, but not all LEOs are...

And most of us are talking about a few officers that broke the law, not LEO's in general.

 

[Fargo]

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

There is no need for such a ruling because it is explicit in the statute:

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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

 

[bigus_D]

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

My understanding is that it has been ruled as such.

 

[machete]

There is no need for such a ruling because it is explicit in the statute:

I already covered that Fargo,,, It might be back a few pages by now...

The first words of that law are "In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter"

You cant get to an information or indictment unless the officer has RAS or PC to make an arrest. It doesnt say "prove to an officer on the scene"...

 

[Fargo]

I was singled out and had my weapon taken from me. I would of been the only one if atfconsumer would of been more compliant.
I also have a form signed by chief of police of Indianapolis saying it is a rifle.

There is no permit required to do what I did.

How long is the barrel on your MP5? If it is under 16 inches it is a handgun for Indiana law purposes. What the Chief of IMPD* says means exactly nothing in court when the Indiana Code is clear:

IC 35-47-1-6
"Handgun"
Sec. 6. "Handgun" means any firearm:
(1) designed or adapted so as to be aimed and fired from one (1) hand, regardless of barrel length; or
(2) any firearm with:
(A) a barrel less than sixteen (16) inches in length; or
(B) an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

Don't get me wrong IM, I'm completely on your side on how you guys were treated. However, SBR's are not rifles under the Indiana code.

Best,


Joe

*Cieselski's legal training consists of an Associates in Criminal justice and a couple of decades as a cop. Those are not the qualifications I would be looking for when seeking legal advice or determinations. That is especially so since he is barred by the criminal code from practicing law in Indiana.

 

[Fargo]

I already covered that Fargo,,, It might be back a few pages by now...

Cool, musta missed it. This thread moves fast.

Best,


Joe

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Ok I have to ask, and I know I am probably going to get some negative responses.

Why even bother carrying a rifle? What point does it serve other than because you can? Protection? Political statement? Attention getter?

I would imagine that if I was strolling through downtown Ft Wayne with my 15-22 over my shoulder I may get some unwanted attention from the police. I mean you had to know that at some point there would be some heat coming right?

I know it shouldn't be different, but it is. I am not excusing what the cops did, clearly they were not following the laws. But, Its just not normal to see some guy out in the middle of the city with a rifle, albeit a bad ass one that I would LOVE to own

 

[ATF Consumer]

Ok I have to ask, and I know I am probably going to get some negative responses.

Why even bother carrying a rifle? What point does it serve other than because you can? Protection? Political statement? Attention getter?

I would imagine that if I was strolling through downtown Ft Wayne with my 15-22 over my shoulder I may get some unwanted attention from the police. I mean you had to know that at some point there would be some heat coming right?

I know it shouldn't be different, but it is. I am not excusing what the cops did, clearly they were not following the laws. But, Its just not normal to see some guy out in the middle of the city with a rifle, albeit a bad ass one that I would LOVE to own

Regardless of the purpose behind carrying something that is unusual, doesn't give officers the right to throw the constitution out the window and make things up as they choose. A protected right is just that. He violated our rights, breaking the law, which makes him a criminal in uniform.

 

[bigus_D]

Ok I have to ask, and I know I am probably going to get some negative responses.

Why even bother carrying a rifle? What point does it serve other than because you can? Protection? Political statement? Attention getter?

I would imagine that if I was strolling through downtown Ft Wayne with my 15-22 over my shoulder I may get some unwanted attention from the police. I mean you had to know that at some point there would be some heat coming right?

I know it shouldn't be different, but it is. I am not excusing what the cops did, clearly they were not following the laws. But, Its just not normal to see some guy out in the middle of the city with a rifle, albeit a bad ass one that I would LOVE to own

I wasn't there and haven't carried a rifle in public... but I think the point is made very well in your post.

It IS not normal to see somebody carrying a rifle, but it is ALSO NOT against the law. Further, it is a constitutionally protected RIGHT. By accepting detainment for breaking no law, one errodes the rights of all.

 

[Eddie]

Ok I have to ask, and I know I am probably going to get some negative responses.

Why even bother carrying a rifle? What point does it serve other than because you can? Protection? Political statement? Attention getter?

I would imagine that if I was strolling through downtown Ft Wayne with my 15-22 over my shoulder I may get some unwanted attention from the police. I mean you had to know that at some point there would be some heat coming right?

I know it shouldn't be different, but it is. I am not excusing what the cops did, clearly they were not following the laws. But, Its just not normal to see some guy out in the middle of the city with a rifle, albeit a bad ass one that I would LOVE to own

How about these reasons for carrying a long gun:
-Walking a few blocks to the edge of town to go shooting in the woods
-Hunting all day and emerging onto a county road
-Carrying a rfile down the street to my friends house so that he can see if he wants to buy it
-I stop to get gas and I have a long gun in the car that I don't want to leave unattended

Those are all normal reasons for carrying a long gun. It should make no difference whether it is being carried in a city or somewhere out in the county.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Ok I have to ask, and I know I am probably going to get some negative responses.

Why even bother carrying a rifle? What point does it serve other than because you can? Protection? Political statement? Attention getter?

I would imagine that if I was strolling through downtown Ft Wayne with my 15-22 over my shoulder I may get some unwanted attention from the police. I mean you had to know that at some point there would be some heat coming right?

I know it shouldn't be different, but it is. I am not excusing what the cops did, clearly they were not following the laws. But, Its just not normal to see some guy out in the middle of the city with a rifle, albeit a bad ass one that I would LOVE to own

I don't think anyone thought that there wouldn't be any attention, but a conversation would have been a much better way to handle the situation IMO

 

[public servant]

Really?! Where is the Mystical Military coming from?! The Military is not Large enough to do this at all.

It is far more Realistic to suspect and prepare for the Fact that LEOs and LEAs will be the agressing force if the S does hit the Fan...

I did some quick research. If my research is correct...

There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US. There are 2.9 million soldiers (active and reserve).

So you tell me who is more capable of pulling off such a project? Not to mention when the blue helmets show up.

 

[Joe Williams]

I did some quick research. If my research is correct...

There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US. There are 2.9 million soldiers (active and reserve).

So you tell me who is more capable of pulling off such a project? Not to mention when the blue helmets show up.

I like the blue helmets. Gives us a good aiming point

 

[Clay]

This thread

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/ame]

makes me laugh.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

How about these reasons for carrying a long gun:
-Walking a few blocks to the edge of town to go shooting in the woods
-Hunting all day and emerging onto a county road
-Carrying a rfile down the street to my friends house so that he can see if he wants to buy it
-I stop to get gas and I have a long gun in the car that I don't want to leave unattended

Those are all normal reasons for carrying a long gun. It should make no difference whether it is being carried in a city or somewhere out in the county.

Really? Yeah because hunting then stepping onto a county road and walking around downtown Indy with an MP5 are totally the same thing lol.

I really have no interest in starting a fight, I was just curious as to the reason he did it anyway. Not saying he was wrong, clearly he is legally allowed to do so, just curious thats all.

I don't think anyone thought that there wouldn't be any attention, but a conversation would have been a much better way to handle the situation IMO

I agree with you 100%, that would most certainly have been a better way for the cops to handle it. But then my question becomes, whats the point of it. It just looks like it was done solely for attention or just to prove you can. I really don't have any issues with it, but I guess if you want to do it you should at least be prepared to have a run in with the police.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I agree with you 100%, that would most certainly have been a better way for the cops to handle it. But then my question becomes, whats the point of it. It just looks like it was done solely for attention or just to prove you can. I really don't have any issues with it, but I guess if you want to do it you should at least be prepared to have a run in with the police.

The point is to get the LEO's to understand the law, hopefully that can happen from informal conversations but a lawsuit might have to happen

And I think everyone there was prepared for a run in with the police, I know I was expecting some police interaction, unfortunately I was running late or I would have been cuffed too and filling a complaint as well.

 

[dross]

How about carrying one so that LEOs would approach and he could then educate them on the law they are sworn to uphold.

 

[Sgt Rock]

Wow, 118 pages and so much back and forth. I would offer this: I will concede that the police have the right to check for our LTCH, I personally did not feel violated by them "insuring the public safety". They asked and we complied. LTCH's and ID all around, everyone legal. You would think they would say "You fellas have a nice day", we go to lunch (our original intent) and that's the end of it. Right? Wrong! THAT'S the problem. Everything else is incidental.

 

[bigus_D]

Any response on the complaint(s) filed with IMPD?