Open carry in Anderson, 2 good encounters and then not so good.

[88GT]

Ugh. I've been considering the idea of open carry for myself eventually as I am a single female but man, these stories about jerk cops really make me nervous.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

It is my opinion that females are hassled less, if at all.

... a pocket-sized version of the Constitution, and all the amendments. Stuck right in at the 2d Amendment site is my pink, lifetime "LICENSE." My "PERMIT / PERMISSION" is the Constitution as amended. I show both of these if asked, and HAVE never been hassled when doing it this way. Indiana does NOT issue "permits" to carry a weapon, no matter whether it uses clips or speed-loaders. <===purple

This is getting as bad as the OC/CC debate.

It's all a permission slip, m'kay. The word the state chose to imprint on the pink paper is irrelevant.

Just making sure he isn't walking in to get his kid OC'n.

Welcome to INGO.

But he could be perfectly fine doing so too.

IC 35-41-1-24.7
"School property" defined
Sec. 24.7. "School property" means the following:
(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by:
(A) a school corporation;
(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;
(C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or
(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:
(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.
(ii) A special education preschool program.
(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.
(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision (1).

This is the only section that would apply and if the daycare is not licensed, it doesn't seem like it does apply.

Besides, we're leaving out the part where permission can be obtained. If we had to stick to the letter of the law, I'd be violating this on a daily basis.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It is my opinion that females are hassled less, if at all.

OH! If only that were true.

 

[Roadie]

Wonder why you were asked if the address was correct on the LTCH? Your address is only legally required to be correct in the ISP system, not on the LTCH itself..

 

[88GT]

OH! If only that were true.

It has been for me and at least one other INGO member. Perhaps it's a matter of location. Must be smarter people where I live. /purple for that last part....sort of.

 

[Bung]

It is my opinion that females are hassled less, if at all.



This is getting as bad as the OC/CC debate.

It's all a permission slip, m'kay. The word the state chose to imprint on the pink paper is irrelevant.





But he could be perfectly fine doing so too.



This is the only section that would apply and if the daycare is not licensed, it doesn't seem like it does apply.

Besides, we're leaving out the part where permission can be obtained. If we had to stick to the letter of the law, I'd be violating this on a daily basis.

They are licensed, I wouldn't trust my child to them otherwise. It took us 10 years of trying to make him (we were told we were more likely to win the lottery) and I'm sure not going to just let anyone watch him. You know, I bet I could get their permission but I don't want to fight it out in court because some ignorant parent calls an ignorant cop out there.

 

[ATM]

...It's all a permission slip, m'kay. The word the state chose to imprint on the pink paper is irrelevant...

You should just call it whatever you want to. I call mine Larry.

 

[Tydeeh22]

we arent even required to have a copy of the LTCH on us anymore am i correct?

i can understand keeping those handy dandy ic codes on standby for those oh so diligent individuals that dont know the rules.

I call mine Larry.

a crazy larry?

 

[Bung]

Maybe not required, but you can and likely will be detained until you can provide the LTCH. I remember reading in the code that you could be charged but once proof was provided charges would be dropped and erased from the record. But, I'm sure you would still have to pay court fees and bail so why not just carry it with you?

What gets me is that we aren't required to even get a state ID, let alone carry it, but these two fine gentlemen told me I had to have ID with me so they would know I didn't steal it (the LTCH). I don't think me explaining that unless I gave them cause to believe I stole the LTCH that my ID should never come into question but they wouldn't understand, I'm sure. Of course it goes without saying that anyone that is carrying a gun with a stolen LTCH would likely not open carry it, but who ever accused LEO's of following logic?

Part of me wanted to point at a passing car and ask them how they don't know if that person stole that car, but I'm sure that wouldn't go over well and I just wanted to stop talking to them because they make my head hurt.

 

[Tydeeh22]

Maybe not required, but you can and likely will be detained until you can provide the LTCH. I remember reading in the code that you could be charged but once proof was provided charges would be dropped and erased from the record. But, I'm sure you would still have to pay court fees and bail so why not just carry it with you?

What gets me is that we aren't required to even get a state ID, let alone carry it, but these two fine gentlemen told me I had to have ID with me so they would know I didn't steal it (the LTCH). I don't think me explaining that unless I gave them cause to believe I stole the LTCH that my ID should never come into question but they wouldn't understand, I'm sure. Of course it goes without saying that anyone that is carrying a gun with a stolen LTCH would likely not open carry it, but who ever accused LEO's of following logic?

Part of me wanted to point at a passing car and ask them how they don't know if that person stole that car, but I'm sure that wouldn't go over well and I just wanted to stop talking to them because they make my head hurt.

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.

that is for when charged, yet any search from a police officers computer will show that we are licensed. hmm.. moar research times.

 

[Bung]

They aren't required to do a search of records and likely won't so they can have something to do by arresting you. It is much easier to just carry the pink paper with you and present it when asked. Having ID on you is a different story, sure we know we aren't required to have it, they might know that too, but they are still going to harass you and/or arrest you for not giving it. Who knows what other charges they'll make up just because you challenged their authority? One of those moments when you must pick your battles.

 

[88GT]

They are licensed, I wouldn't trust my child to them otherwise. It took us 10 years of trying to make him (we were told we were more likely to win the lottery) and I'm sure not going to just let anyone watch him.

The license is no guarantee of anything. Except the institution paid the government for special recognition.

 

[Bung]

You are right, but better someone that would get a license (which takes more effort than making a post on Craigslist) than someone that would not. They at least have something to lose if they violate regulation. This place is very big on following regulation. They won't even allow us to bring in opened diaper bags or wipe containers because it would violate the terms of their license.

I didn't just find a licensed daycare and hand my child over. The first place we took him (Apple Critters) turned out to be horrible. We kept a close eye on him after we picked him up and on them when we went there and determined they weren't doing the things they should be doing. This new place is awesome. Not only licensed, but national accredited. They are teaching him sign language, social skills, and when the time comes, they'll help us potty train him. He has learned so much since he has started there. We noticed an improvement after the first week. What I'm getting at is the license is only one of many reasons I would trust them with my son.

 

[jgreiner]

LOL...that is ONE WAY to interpret the sign.

 

[88GT]

You are right, but better someone that would get a license (which takes more effort than making a post on Craigslist) than someone that would not. They at least have something to lose if they violate regulation. This place is very big on following regulation. They won't even allow us to bring in opened diaper bags or wipe containers because it would violate the terms of their license.

I didn't just find a licensed daycare and hand my child over. The first place we took him (Apple Critters) turned out to be horrible. We kept a close eye on him after we picked him up and on them when we went there and determined they weren't doing the things they should be doing. This new place is awesome. Not only licensed, but national accredited. They are teaching him sign language, social skills, and when the time comes, they'll help us potty train him. He has learned so much since he has started there. We noticed an improvement after the first week. What I'm getting at is the license is only one of many reasons I would trust them with my son.

But you said you wouldn't consider a center that wasn't licensed, which I find hilarious because I found all of that for my son in an unlicensed in-home day care. On craigslist, no less.

I'm not knocking your choice, just your logic.

 

[Bung]

Good for you, now if they slack off, the only thing they can lose is your patronage. What is flawed in my logic, exactly? Is there some reason I should consider an unlicensed daycare over a properly licensed daycare? Is there some reason I shouldn't want people to be licensed over those that are not? What is illogical about that?

From the best I can find, unlicensed daycare's are illegal in Indiana unless they are faith-based or have less than 6 children (not including the providers children or relatives), even at that the faith-based centers only have to register and follow 20 something regulations whereas licensed daycare's have to follow some 170+ regulations, so you put your child where you want with your logic and I'll use my flawed and laughable logic to put my child where I want to.

http://www.in.gov/fssa/files/Definitions.pdf

 

[Hoosier8]

Some states in the US (including Indiana) are stop-and-identify states, which means any LEO can stop you for any reason and ask for your ID. You can't refuse to show your ID but you don't have to do anything more than that, including answer questions.

 

[KG1]

Some states in the US (including Indiana) are stop-and-identify states, which means any LEO can stop you for any reason and ask for your ID. You can't refuse to show your ID but you don't have to do anything more than that, including answer questions.

That's a new one to me. The way I alway's understood it is the only time you are required to show an ID is when you are suspected of an infraction or an ordinance violation.

 

[CathyInBlue]

@ Hoosier8:
Cite IC, or it didn't happen.

I know KG1 can ultimately cite the IC that says you have to ID (not SHOW documentation, but just identify yourself) if you are suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation. I want to know if you can backup your own argument similarly.

 

[KG1]

@ Hoosier8:
Cite IC, or it didn't happen.

I know KG1 can ultimately cite the IC that says you have to ID (not SHOW documentation, but just identify yourself) if you are suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation. I want to know if you can backup your own argument similarly.

Here you go and you are correct that you only have to ID yourself, not show ID.

IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24

 

[remauto1187]

Here you go and you are correct that you only have to ID yourself, not show ID.

IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24

You might want to read that again.