lots of police called on me

[groovatron]

Lawyer up, sue them.

Get a lawyer and sue them. .

It's time to lawyer up and sue them into the stone age.

call a laywer IMMEDIATELY.

Call GOA, NRA and others for advice and legal counsel.

the OP should consult with a lawyer to see if he has a case.

Just sayin.....

 

[Roadie]

Just sayin.....

So, what are you trying to say?

 

[inav8r]

Even though a LTCH is required to carry a handgun in Indiana, the police had no reasonable articulable suspicion that he did not have one. Merely carrying a firearm is not legal foundation sufficient to create such suspicion, according to several federal court rulings.

I'm no lawyer, but I see Indiana Appellate court rulings that, I think, go against this thinking. The one case I found states a LTCH is the defense when someone is found to be carrying a gun, such as in:

Source "Once the State demonstrates that the defendant carried a handgun on or about his person, away from his dwelling or business, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that he possessed a valid license. Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406, 411 (Ind. 1999). Proof that a defendant had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on the defendant to prove he possessed a valid license." Emphasis added.

And more recently in:

Source The State bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones had carried a handgun away from his dwelling or business. Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1; Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406, 411 (Ind. 1999). Once the State had proved those elements, the burden was on Jones to prove that he possessed a valid license to carry the handgun. I.C. § 35-47-2-24; Harris, 716 N.E.2d at 411.

EDIT: I'm certainly not saying, nor endorsing that the police have a right to arrest you on the spot for OC, or possession, or CC (for that matter), they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT - if you're carrying the proper paperwork. However, it is my belief, that if they know someone to be in possession of a gun they do have the duty and cause to investigate to determine if that person has the proper paperwork (LTCH).

 

[Roadie]

I'm no lawyer, but I see Indiana Appellate court rulings that, I think, go against this thinking. The one case I found states a LTCH is the defense when someone is found to be carrying a gun, such as in:



And more recently in:

In CS the Defendant was a minor, however, the case does reference "Harris v. State", so I tried to find that case. My Google-Fu is weak, because I found several cases that REFERNCE "Harris v. State", but I can't find "Harris v. State" itself, ugh.

 

[thompal]

I don't think the ACLU would come within a mile of sponsoring a PRO-2nd Amendment case... now if it were a precedent setting case against law abiding citizens owning firearms, they'd likely knock down the door to do it.

Don't be too quick to completely write off the ACLU. I heard an ACLU representative on the TV the other day make a rather pro-2nd Amendment statement!

 

[inav8r]

In CS the Defendant was a minor, however, the case does reference "Harris v. State", so I tried to find that case. My Google-Fu is weak, because I found several cases that REFERNCE "Harris v. State", but I can't find "Harris v. State" itself, ugh.

Found it in the Indiana Supreme Court Archives. Harris v State. You'll be disappointed tho, it then refers to Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind. 1987) and the archives don't go back that far...

 

[Roadie]

Found it in the Indiana Supreme Court Archives. Harris v State. You'll be disappointed tho, it then refers to Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind. 1987) and the archives don't go back that far...

Thanks!

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.

(b) is the part that interests me most in this situation. It seems that providing your LTCH makes you exempt, but only AFTER arrest and/or prosecution, right? Again, IANAL, lol.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The forum seems to be shouting "sue." I'm saying the OP should consult with a lawyer to see if he has a case with enough legs to give him a reasonable chance of winning before risking his savings account.

he wont even be charged a dime if he listens to the advice of at least one lawyer i know of that has posted here about this. many lawyers will probly take this case.

a question for you Captain Bligh: you dont think he has a case when cops unlawfully ordered him face down on the ground when he hadnt violated any law seen personaly by them? Sorry but many judges rulings would agree that that very act violated his rights and was an ILEGAL action by the police. he broke no laws, but the police who were supposed to protect him did break the law. Police cant even frisk you just because they feel like it even. they cant even do it so they feel safe if you havent given them any legitimate reason to feel unsafe. being out at 2am or looking like a thug, or having a beard, or even wearing a gun is not a legitimate reason either. The biggest point about him suing the department and the officers will be to show police all over this country that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are tired of the ILLEGAL CRAP from cops that dont know the law or the few that wish to skirt it intentionaly. We have a few good officers that are members here, who have talked about how much they make it a point to do their job to know the law and protect citizens rights, and to those and others that show as much dedication their line of work i applaud them. but to those that wish to have a complex and apower trip, i say BOOOOO, and its time to find a new line of work or the citizens will help you out of the one your in now. were not gonna take it anymore!

 

[thompal]

It really amazes me how so many people are talking about suing, lawyering up, calling the NRA. How many of you saying this actually know the OP. I dont. I agree that there are sh--head cops who shouldnt be doing the job that are on power trips. No disputing that fact. However just because the OP says thats how it all went down, doesnt mean thats the way it went. Did anyone here witness this? Not saying it didnt go this way but would be intrested in seeing some proof before we start suing!Two sides to every story folks, lets not forget that. Just my 2 cents.

Umm, I think that is what a jury has to decide. If someone feels they have had their rights violated by the police, then it is up to them if they want to sue, or not. If he tells his side of it to us, and we agree, then maybe it's just a bit of encouragement. If, after hearing his side, we had said "forget it," then he could also take that into consideration.

There are some of the "old school" Republicans, who think that, pretty much WHATEVER The State does in the name of "law and order" is just fine, and will make any excuse to justify even blatantly illegal actions by police. A good rule of thumb (at least a Libertarian thumb) is that if it's illegal for a citizen to do, then it is, by extension, illegal for a police officer to do, since all of the police's authority flows FROM the people TO The State.

 

[inav8r]

(b) is the part that interests me most in this situation. It seems that providing your LTCH makes you exempt, but only AFTER arrest and/or prosecution, right? Again, IANAL, lol.

The theory is that it shouldn't go this far, but if it does, this code is your protection.

 

[Markedup]

So about 15 mins ago im walking into speedway on the corner of sherman and w state here in fort wayne IN.

There is no Speedway filling station on the corner
of Sherman and West State Blvd. in Fort Wayne.
This is just my personal opinion.


Thanks

Mark

 

[bigiron]

There is no Speedway filling station on the corner
of Sherman and West State Blvd. in Fort Wayne.
This is just my personal opinion.


Thanks

Mark

things that make you go HMMMMMM............

 

[lawrra]

There is no Speedway filling station on the corner
of Sherman and West State Blvd. in Fort Wayne.
This is just my personal opinion.


Thanks

Mark

You're right, it's only a little bit down the street....literally 500 feet.

 

[djl02]

It's insane that an officer of the law dont know the law,as basic as open carry.

 

[JetGirl]

But there is a Circle K right there (I think).
Easy enough to mix them up, I guess.

 

[ryanbr]

So it is now past noon on Monday, Has a formal complaint been made yet to the department? As much attention as this has got I think I would have been there first thing this morning.

 

[Digital_photog]

The speedway on Sherman is about a block south of State. According to the Fort Wayne Police website there was a "party armed" call to that block at 11:18 am on Saturday.

 

[rayf268]

I think it might be a stretch to win seeing that people get placed in cuffs and put on the ground for as little a thing as a burnt out light in the early am. I am not saying its right just that cops seem to play the tough guy role often and get away with it. other wise I bet you would hear of a lot more law suits from "thug" types getting pulled over and getting the third degree.

Sorry I play devils advocate alot

 

[silentvoice71]

I was workin excuse me for having a job and i am also busy at home i am trying to do this in a timely manner.......Would you like to get the papers for me?

 

[silentvoice71]

i talked to pat white....