LTCH is shown when a LEO runs your DL

[BravoMike]

I agree popcorn tastes good!

 

[Tydeeh22]

my mom always has been looking out for me. she told me that when Lafayette Police run the (License plate).. not the Drivers license, the registered owner of the vehicle would come up along with the LTCH notification, if there was to mention.

 

[GBuck]

So what happens when someone is pulled over for something (say speeding). They have no LTCH, but they have a handgun, loaded of course and on their person. Let's say they could legally obtain a LTCH because they could qualify as a "Proper Person" under the IC. Let's assume they don't get a LTCH because they are caught up in a bad crowd (like a gang) and they really don't care what the law is. How does an officer handle that traffic stop?

That's my point! You always have to be cautious. That's why it's ludicrous to say its necessary for it to show up. It's just another thing that leads to unnecessary questioning.

 

[vitamink]

It's the difference between assuming and knowing. Most people you run into won't have a gun...the guy with the LTCH more than likely has a gun.

Here is another scenario:
You misjudge a turn and smash into a building right at the driver's door. Cop runs the car and you for the accident report. He sees you have an LTCH but you didn't have a gun on you. As he inventories the car he looks in the glovebox and under the seat and finally finds your priceless john dillinger owned 6 shooter that you like to OC because it's so cool and matches your outfit. Now your gun is either given to your avid gunfan wife, or taken to the property room instead of getting rained on through the broken glass of your wadded up car, or being used as a hold up tool by a tow truck driver out on work release.

If it bothers you that the police have this ability then sue them. I'd be willing to bet it was a lawsuit that gave them this ability to begin with. Some poor gun owner probably got arrested for carrying without a LTCH when he forgot his wallet. The police couldn't find out whether or not he had one and off to the pokie he went. Did he break a law, sure, but it was a mistake not an intentional act. Id prefer it if the cop just told me to go back home and get my wallet incase i get stopped again and save me the legal fees for my mistake.

Lawsuits at work:
some people liked the fact the cops would help people get into their cars when they locked their keys inside. A smaller percentage of those same people said the police destroyed their cars and the department should buy them newer nicer cars for all their pain and suffering. Now police don't get people into their cars for liability reasons.

Get enough people together and you can take away whatever tool you deem is not necessary for cops to possess.

 

[BravoMike]

It's the difference between assuming and knowing. Most people you run into won't have a gun...the guy with the LTCH more than likely has a gun.

Here is another scenario:
You misjudge a turn and smash into a building right at the driver's door. Cop runs the car and you for the accident report. He sees you have an LTCH but you didn't have a gun on you. As he inventories the car he looks in the glovebox and under the seat and finally finds your priceless john dillinger owned 6 shooter that you like to OC because it's so cool and matches your outfit. Now your gun is either given to your avid gunfan wife, or taken to the property room instead of getting rained on through the broken glass of your wadded up car, or being used as a hold up tool by a tow truck driver out on work release.

If it bothers you that the police have this ability then sue them. I'd be willing to bet it was a lawsuit that gave them this ability to begin with. Some poor gun owner probably got arrested for carrying without a LTCH when he forgot his wallet. The police couldn't find out whether or not he had one and off to the pokie he went. Did he break a law, sure, but it was a mistake not an intentional act. Id prefer it if the cop just told me to go back home and get my wallet incase i get stopped again and save me the legal fees for my mistake.

Lawsuits at work:
some people liked the fact the cops would help people get into their cars when they locked their keys inside. A smaller percentage of those same people said the police destroyed their cars and the department should buy them newer nicer cars for all their pain and suffering. Now police don't get people into their cars for liability reasons.

Get enough people together and you can take away whatever tool you deem is not necessary for cops to possess.

Sorry, but I don't understand you're first sentence.

You're scenario didn't answer my question.

I have no intentions of sueing the police.

 

[vitamink]

So what happens when someone is pulled over for something (say speeding). They have no LTCH, but they have a handgun, loaded of course and on their person. Let's say they could legally obtain a LTCH because they could qualify as a "Proper Person" under the IC. Let's assume they don't get a LTCH because they are caught up in a bad crowd (like a gang) and they really don't care what the law is. How does an officer handle that traffic stop?

That's my point! You always have to be cautious. That's why it's ludicrous to say its necessary for it to show up. It's just another thing that leads to unnecessary questioning.

Then he goes to jail.

I never said it was necessary, i just gave examples of when it comes in handy.

You might think it's ludicrous that a cop would have that info and possibly use it to question you extending the length of your traffic stop. A person going to jail for forgetting their wallet would probably find it equally ludicrous that cops don't have access to that info saving them jail time court costs and fees. Ludicrous would imply it is just beyond any logical reasoning that the info would appear.

 

[vitamink]

Sorry, but I don't understand you're first sentence.

You're scenario didn't answer my question.

I have no intentions of sueing the police.

My first reply was to someone else, the second was to you. I should have quoted. To answer your question though

...then he goes to jail.

 

[BravoMike]

My first reply was to someone else, the second was to you. I should have quoted. To answer your question though

...then he goes to jail.

Why would he go to jail if the officer never knew the gun was there?

What if you take my exact same scenario, except let's assume he was pulled over for drunk driving. Like you mentioned earlier he knows there's a good chance he can go to jail and could resort to some extreme measures to make sure he doesn't go to jail. Meanwhile the officer runs his plates and surprise.... nothing shows up.

I know that you agree that officers need to assume that everyone is armed because...

I agree you should assume everyone is armed.

I understand you're point of LEO's wanting to have the most amount of information possible, but I am still trying to figure out how this system is helping keep LEO's safe. Especially if we both agree that everyone is assumed to be armed.

 

[IndyGunner]

....all that information is to keep officers out on the road safe. If you were an officer doing a traffic stop you would want to know if someone had a LTCH.

Its non of their business. It is a legally owned firearm from a citizen who is legally able to have said firearm. Any police interaction that didnt include me waving my firearm around or endangering others has no basis for knowing ANYTHING about my firearms. Period.

 

[BravoMike]

Its non of their business. It is a legally owned firearm from a citizen who is legally able to have said firearm. Any police interaction that didnt include me waving my firearm around or endangering others has no basis for knowing ANYTHING about my firearms. Period.

I agree with IndyGunner. I would go even further to say that I don't think we should be required to have our pink permission slip to be able to carry. Personally, I believe that if one is legal enough to buy a handgun, then one is legal enough to carry a handgun.

Also, I would argue that the majority of people in IN that have a LTCH, do not carry. I know plenty of people who have an IN LTCH simply because they thought it was the the best option, legally, to transport their gun to the range.

 

[vitamink]

Why would he go to jail if the officer never knew the gun was there?

Sorry, I thought you were implying the officer was aware of a gun but "no LTCH on file" came back on his computer.

What if you take my exact same scenario, except let's assume he was pulled over for drunk driving. Like you mentioned earlier he knows there's a good chance he can go to jail and could resort to some extreme measures to make sure he doesn't go to jail. Meanwhile the officer runs his plates and surprise.... nothing shows up.

Then the officer does the same thing he'd do anyways, just with a little less information the end result is the same he's just a little more surprised when he sees the gun

I know that you agree that officers need to assume that everyone is armed because...


I understand you're point of LEO's wanting to have the most amount of information possible, but I am still trying to figure out how this system is helping keep LEO's safe. Especially if we both agree that everyone is assumed to be armed.

Again, it's just more information and the difference between assuming someone has a gun and knowing. Short of being able to read a person's mind, no amount of information will keep you 100% safe. Like I said before, i don't think this has anything to do with keeping LEO's safe and more along the lines of proving you have a LTCH when you forget it or your wallet gets stolen so you don't spend the night in jail, bond out, get a lawyer, take days off to go to court and pay a crap load of money for a simple mistake. Many people forget their LTCH, many drivers forget their licenses. As eldirector says, "yes i have a gun and you already know i'm legal...are we done?"

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Again, it's just more information and the difference between assuming someone has a gun and knowing. Short of being able to read a person's mind, no amount of information will keep you 100% safe. Like I said before, i don't think this has anything to do with keeping LEO's safe and more along the lines of proving you have a LTCH when you forget it or your wallet gets stolen so you don't spend the night in jail, bond out, get a lawyer, take days off to go to court and pay a crap load of money for a simple mistake. Many people forget their LTCH, many drivers forget their licenses. As eldirector says, "yes i have a gun and you already know i'm legal...are we done?"

Bingo. I cannot agree with a statement more than I agree with this.

 

[danmrt868]

A friend of my wife started working in dispatch for the isp a while ago. And she said the hole state was in the process of making it so all leo in indiana could see when they ran a person info.

 

[BravoMike]

Ok, I give up. In the above post you are contradicting yourself and now your above post seems to be a 180 from this post.

What is the intent of LEO's having this information? Surly it's not for someone getting pulled over, who forgot their LTCH at home.

I hope i can clear things up if that was directed towards me. The examples i posted all occurred in the last 4 days and were true and accurate involving gun owners who were proper people years ago and, by virtue of a bad decision or two, are no longer. It wasn't an attempt to make gun owners look like bad people. Just some anecdotal empirical evidence that this stuff happens...alot. I understand the idea that YOU know that YOU don't do anything wrong.

Some people do bad things, gun owners are people, therefore SOME gun owners do bad things. Just because the state agreed that you were awesome 20 years ago doesn't mean you will maintain your awesomeness for the next 20 years. Cops have a 1000X more stringent background check done on them...but cops are people, and some people do bad things, therefore some cops do bad things. PEOPLE **** up all the time.

For a cop, the more information you have, the better equipped you are to deal with a situation. I'll use the example of the gun owner/child molester. The suspect decides that his step daughter (14) is hotter than his wife and starts having sex with her. Eventually daughter gets fed up and calls the police. <<Skipping ahead>> Dad thinks no one knows what's going on and is minding his business on his way home from work. While on his way home he's trying to use his phone to update his facebook page or something and nearly sideswipes another vehicle. The cop behind him runs the plate followed by the registered owner. <ring> <warrant hit> felony child molest. No other prior convictions however a LTCH pops up.

Now you're the cop. You know from being the police that when people get caught for molesting children then tend to feel their life is over and there is one of 3 options they tend to take and 2 have happened to you in the last 5 years.
A. They surrender
B. They do anything they can to avoid going to jail, even if that means killing you
C. They kill themselves

You know this guy is going to jail, and probably has a gun.

In this particular situation the cop called for backup. Backup arrived and both approached the vehicle. The stopping officer opened the door informed the suspect of his warrant and asked him to keep his hands where he could see them and step out of the vehicle. The suspect then reached behind the passenger seat and the officer drug him out of the car by his left arm preventing him from getting whatever it was he wanted. The fight was on and spilled out into I65. After getting him handcuffed he cried hysterically that they should just kill him and beat his head against the walls of the wagon while being transported to lock up.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Mike, I had a response all typed up with links to case law and everything. I have no idea what happened. I'll work on another response later.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So what happens when someone is pulled over for something (say speeding). They have no LTCH, but they have a handgun, loaded of course and on their person. Let's say they could legally obtain a LTCH because they could qualify as a "Proper Person" under the IC. Let's assume they don't get a LTCH because they are caught up in a bad crowd (like a gang) and they really don't care what the law is. How does an officer handle that traffic stop?

If it is concealed like criminals usually carry and they keep their mouth shut it proceeds like any other where there is no weapon present. What kind of question is that?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, I give up. In the above post you are contradicting yourself and now your above post seems to be a 180 from this post.

What is the intent of LEO's having this information? Surly it's not for someone getting pulled over, who forgot their LTCH at home.

It is information, period. It isn't anything to get worked up over because it ONLY benefits the LTCH holder. Are you familiar with the Richardson and Washington case laws?

Once a LEO has verified your LTCH and there are no other circumstances they have no justification to disarm you or question you further about your firearms.

The part I bolded are what throws people. Having a LTCH is NOT the be-all end-all of police-citizen interaction. If you act like a moron, if you DID commit a crime or look like someone who did, if they have any other RAS at ALL then the LTCH is a hill of beans. There is going to be some grey area and there is no way around it.

What possibly could be bad about them having this information? They already have your name and address from your plates or drivers license. Who cares if they know you have a gun? If they were going to use this information to confiscate your firearms one day the ISP ALREADY has this info. The only way around that is to not have an LTCH and not carry a handgun or carry one illegally. Not really advised too much.

 

[BravoMike]

What kind of question is that?

I don't see that as not being a legitimate question to illustrate my point. GBuck seems to have understood what that meant. I couldn't have said it better than him. I was trying to illustrate a point because it seem this its for officers safety comes up and I don't think that this system offers much in the way of officers safety.

That's my point! You always have to be cautious. That's why it's ludicrous to say its necessary for it to show up. It's just another thing that leads to unnecessary questioning.

 

[BravoMike]

It is information, period. It isn't anything to get worked up over because it ONLY benefits the LTCH holder. Are you familiar with the Richardson and Washington case laws?

Once a LEO has verified your LTCH and there are no other circumstances they have no justification to disarm you or question you further about your firearms.

The part I bolded are what throws people. Having a LTCH is NOT the be-all end-all of police-citizen interaction. If you act like a moron, if you DID commit a crime or look like someone who did, if they have any other RAS at ALL then the LTCH is a hill of beans. There is going to be some grey area and there is no way around it.

What possibly could be bad about them having this information? They already have your name and address from your plates or drivers license. Who cares if they know you have a gun? If they were going to use this information to confiscate your firearms one day the ISP ALREADY has this info. The only way around that is to not have an LTCH and not carry a handgun or carry one illegally. Not really advised too much.

Why do some people get worked up over whether or not they should inform officers that they have a gun on them? Probably for the same reason some people don't agree with this. Because it could likely lead to the officer asking to take the gun for "Officer Safety".

Yes, I'm aware of the case laws you pointed out, unfortunately many LEO's are not.

Disclaimer: I am in no means anti-police, please don't take my comments here as such. A couple of my best friends are officers and I have the utmost respect for them.

 

[KG1]

Why do some people get worked up over whether or not they should inform officers that they have a gun on them? Probably for the same reason some people don't agree with this. Because it could likely lead to the officer asking to take the gun for "Officer Safety".

Yes, I'm aware of the case laws you pointed out, unfortunately many LEO's are not.

Disclaimer: I am in no means anti-police, please don't take my comments here as such. A couple of my best friends are officers and I have the utmost respect for them.

I think you hit on something right here. It's not that the officer has that information per se but it's how he would handle the situation after gaining the knowledge of an LTCH and how much of an issue he is looking to make of the firearm that you may be carrying.

That's part of the appeal of having the option to not inform so it doesn't become an issue and just get on with the business of dealing with the reason for the original stop.