Michigan resident in Indiana..

[22rssix]

My brother and a firend both have their Michigan CPL's. When they visit I know they are ok to carry. I know they must follow the Indiana law as to where/where not to carry. Does anyone know if they also need to follow the Michigan laws as well?

For example they cannot carry in a bar or sit in a bar area of a resturant in Michigan.

Now if I take them out to dinner and we choose to site at the bar area, can they have their guns on them?

Thanks,
James

 

[lawrra]

You follow the laws for the state you are in. In Indiana it is ok to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but most people would advise that you not drink while carrying for liability issues if you were forced to use your weapon.

 

[NateIU10]

Actually, the poster above me is incorrect.

You must follow the applicable IN laws, as well as the issuing state's restrictions. So they'd have to not carry in bars here, etc.

 

[22rssix]

Nate,

That is what I thought as well. I do not remember where I seen this.

Where did you find that info?

Thanks,
James

 

[kludge]

IC 35-47-2-21
Recognition of retail dealers' licenses and licenses to carry handguns issued by other states
Sec. 21. (a) Retail dealers' licenses issued by other states or foreign countries will not be recognized in Indiana except for sales at wholesale.
(b) Licenses to carry handguns, issued by other states or foreign countries, will be recognized according to the terms thereof but only while the holders are not residents of Indiana.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

 

[cce1302]

term

   /tɜrm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [turm] Show IPA –noun
1. a word or group of words designating something, esp. in a particular field, as atom in physics, quietism in theology, adze in carpentry, or district leader in politics.

2. any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance.

3. the time or period through which something lasts.

Maybe it just means this. Seriously, do you think that there's any LEO in Indiana that could tell you anything about the 40-some states that have restrictions different from what Indiana has???

Indiana LEOs have no way to enforce another state's laws.

 

[rvb]

IC 35-47-2-21
Recognition of retail dealers' licenses and licenses to carry handguns issued by other states
Sec. 21. (a) Retail dealers' licenses issued by other states or foreign countries will not be recognized in Indiana except for sales at wholesale.
(b) Licenses to carry handguns, issued by other states or foreign countries, will be recognized according to the terms thereof but only while the holders are not residents of Indiana.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

I don't read into this what you all do, seems much simpler to me... so I'm going to agree w/ lawrra...

This is a section on recognition of permits. I would have also made the word "recognized" bold, ie it is recognized as a valid permit based on the terms that the issuing authority sets. This means IN is not going to set those terms (expiration dates, training requirements, etc) nor be involved in determining -if- a person should have the permit, but refer to the issuing state. However, for all IN residents, IN will no longer refer to the issuing terms of another state and sets it's own.

For comparision: other states driver's licenses are valid based on criteria set by those states (minimum age, training, traffic violations, etc), but a person from MI still follows IN's traffic laws.

How would an IN judge react if a prosecutor brought a person before him citing MI legal code???

A point of interest, currently IN would not recognize a federal carry permit if one were created (as many groups are pushing for). It only says states and foreign countries.

When I moved here and was carrying on my FL/UT permits, I followed IN laws. Once I became a resident (lived here x number of days, registered to vote, got my DL), I stopped carrying and immediately applied for my IN carry permit (wife and I went straight from the BMV w/ our still warm-off-the-printer DLs to the police station to apply for the permits).

Like lots of poorly written laws, if their is no case-law, do what you feel is best.

-rvb

 

[CarmelHP]

I take "the terms thereof" to mean such things as "hunting only","target only", "employment only" that are stated on the license as restrictions to unlimited carry. It is idiocy to think an Indiana court would waste their time enforcing the laws of all other states and foreign nations. Not likely.

IAALJNYL (I am a lawyer, just NOT YOUR lawyer).

 

[NateIU10]

I don't read into this what you all do, seems much simpler to me... so I'm going to agree w/ lawrra...

This is a section on recognition of permits. I would have also made the word "recognized" bold, ie it is recognized as a valid permit based on the terms that the issuing authority sets. This means IN is not going to set those terms (expiration dates, training requirements, etc) nor be involved in determining -if- a person should have the permit, but refer to the issuing state. However, for all IN residents, IN will no longer refer to the issuing terms of another state and sets it's own.

For comparision: other states driver's licenses are valid based on criteria set by those states (minimum age, training, traffic violations, etc), but a person from MI still follows IN's traffic laws.

How would an IN judge react if a prosecutor brought a person before him citing MI legal code???

A point of interest, currently IN would not recognize a federal carry permit if one were created (as many groups are pushing for). It only says states and foreign countries.

When I moved here and was carrying on my FL/UT permits, I followed IN laws. Once I became a resident (lived here x number of days, registered to vote, got my DL), I stopped carrying and immediately applied for my IN carry permit (wife and I went straight from the BMV w/ our still warm-off-the-printer DLs to the police station to apply for the permits).

Like lots of poorly written laws, if their is no case-law, do what you feel is best.

-rvb

Like you say, there's no case-law, so it's not a definite thing until a court rules on it.

That being said, I still read it the way Kludge did. To go off of your DL example, if your DL from another state stipulates Learner's permit provisions, provisional license provisions or other restrictions, are you not law-bound to abide by those rules in IN?

Like you said though, do as you think is best. Worst comes to worst, we'll get an answer from a court case

 

[rvb]

Like you say, there's no case-law, so it's not a definite thing until a court rules on it.

That being said, I still read it the way Kludge did. To go off of your DL example, if your DL from another state stipulates Learner's permit provisions, provisional license provisions or other restrictions, are you not law-bound to abide by those rules in IN?

Like you said though, do as you think is best. Worst comes to worst, we'll get an answer from a court case

I think CarmelHP said it much better than me and gave better examples.

btw, you're agreeing w/ me with your DL example....

As I said, the issuing state determines if you are licensed to drive or carry a gun. The state you are in determines if you can do U-turns or carry in a bar.

-rvb

 

[NateIU10]

I think CarmelHP said it much better than me and gave better examples.

btw, you're agreeing w/ me with your DL example....

As I said, the issuing state determines if you are licensed to drive or carry a gun. The state you are in determines if you can do U-turns or carry in a bar.

-rvb

But doing a U-Turn is different that saying "you can't drive these hours". One is a stipulation on your actual license, one is a law of the road. I'm saying that CarmelHPs statement about the restrictions on a license are the same in his case as in mine. A stipulation on a license that physically says "Hunting only" is the same to me as one that says "no carrying in bars".

For comparision: other states driver's licenses are valid based on criteria set by those states (minimum age, training, traffic violations, etc), but a person from MI still follows IN's traffic laws.

I see the stipulations on a DL the same as stipulations on a carry permit or license, not that the stipulations on a carry permit are akin to traffic laws. You can drive on a Provisional MD DL. You must abide by those restrictions while in IN (in my example, IDK if this is true) on your license, ie no people under 21 as passengers, no driving past midnight,etc. It's not the same thing as traffic law IMO.

YMMV

 

[kludge]

That being said, I still read it the way Kludge did.

I didn't actually say anything about it, I just highlighted a phrase.

An Indiana court is not going to/can not enforce a Michigan law (I'll agree with CarmelHP on that)...

But, if they arrest a drug dealer from MI, who for whatever reason has a CCL and was caught in a church in Indiana (Michigan bans carry in churches, yes I had to disarm at my uncles funeral), the prosecutor could feasibly (not probably, just feasibly) go after an additional violation of carry w/o license...

But for some everyday Joe who just happens to have a gun on him in a bar minding his own business... and a cop sees his the grip printing through the t-shirt and says, "Hey, man, you got a license for that thing."

"Yes, sir, officer; here you go"

"Thank you, sir, just checking."

I think that's reasonable... again, as others have already said, I don't know of any case law.

There is a DNR range (IIRC) in NE that had to tell IL residents coming over to shoot thir guns in matches that a FOID is not a carry license, and they can't bring their handguns to the matches, but I don't think there were any arrests.

 

[cce1302]

If "according to the terms thereof" means "according to the laws of the state of issue" then I'd like to see someone with a license from a state that allows carry at, say, the state fair, carry at the state fair. then, by your definition, there's nothing that IN LE could do about it.