Open Carry Incident - Vincennes

[Old_grunt]

Been shooting em for years.... I thought when I intentionally said clips you'd pick up on my lefty speak.

Sorry guess its it's still too early...

After seeing MSM, members of congress, et al, screw up terminology referring to firearm components, etc., I'm just tired of it all. Especially since I carried M16A1 & A2 for 22 years. Bit irritating, you understand

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well my good friend it is safe in there. No nut jobs attacking you.

Not safe in there, I visit sometimes and Sylvain is always there. I didn't get most of my post over there either.

 

[87iroc]

You missed some good info in the middle 10 pages, but the last 3-4 have been fun for me.

I guess I do recall a reference to how this post is like a episode of Springer....as I watched Springer in college when I was in Vincennes....it really brought a sense of nostalgia to me.

We never carried AR's back then. I was too busy going to Blazerette car washes. My buddy with the car with T-tops was handy! Reason I bought my Camaro.

 

[knot4reel]

This thread is like being stuck in a mud hole with your 56 Chevy two wheel drive souped up pickup. Makes a lot of noise, slings a lot of mud, but still not going anywhere.

 

[Exodus]

Ok sorry I don't get on here alot from a computer anymore but I've been wanting to ask this question for some time. Just like in this case where the officers seized his weapon then gave it back shortly after. Isn't this what should have really happened?

IC 35-47-14
Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.


I understand that he wouldn't get his weapon back probably for a while. But if the officers were pressed with "if your about to take my firearm then be prepared to file as per above." I'm assuming they thought the individual was dangerous as per what went down.

 

[churchmouse]

Not safe in there, I visit sometimes and Sylvain is always there. I didn't get most of my post over there either.

I only post a few times a day in there. I was well over 13,000 when I ventured in to that place.

 

[Old_grunt]

Thanks, but I was looking for verification that McD's is antigun. This link only passes along their policy for customers carrying guns.

It's part of IC 35-47, if I remember right. I know I've read it, but couldn't locate it, on in.gov. No employer can forbid you to keep a firearm, ammo, etc., in your locked vehicle, out of sight, while you are at work and your vehicle is on the lot. Guy Relford's the one you should direct this to. Think his forum name is Tactical Firearms Training, not quite certain of that, though.

 

[stephen87]

Ok sorry I don't get on here alot from a computer anymore but I've been wanting to ask this question for some time. Just like in this case where the officers seized his weapon then gave it back shortly after. Isn't this what should have really happened?

IC 35-47-14
Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.


I understand that he wouldn't get his weapon back probably for a while. But if the officers were pressed with "if your about to take my firearm then be prepared to file as per above." I'm assuming they thought the individual was dangerous as per what went down.

We've had that discussion before. It seems to go nowhere. Most people do not even KNOW those two ICs. I for one, know them, and am not willing to walk away without my firearm.

 

[stephen87]

It's part of IC 35-47, if I remember right. I know I've read it, but couldn't locate it, on in.gov. No employer can forbid you to keep a firearm, ammo, etc., in your locked vehicle, out of sight, while you are at work and your vehicle is on the lot. Guy Relford's the one you should direct this to. Think his forum name is Tactical Firearms Training, not quite certain of that, though.

That IC makes no mention of McDonald's.

 

[singlesix]

Personal weapon, as has been stated. Unless you think soldiers carry AR-15s on the battlefield.

Your post was unclear. I've been on the battlefield so I know what soldiers carry.

 

[Old_grunt]

That IC makes no mention of McDonald's.

Nor of any other specific employer, just reads employer. Contact Guy. Best place to get the correct answer to your question.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/tactical+firearms+training.html

 

[Destro]

Ok sorry I don't get on here alot from a computer anymore but I've been wanting to ask this question for some time. Just like in this case where the officers seized his weapon then gave it back shortly after. Isn't this what should have really happened?

IC 35-47-14
Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.


I understand that he wouldn't get his weapon back probably for a while. But if the officers were pressed with "if your about to take my firearm then be prepared to file as per above." I'm assuming they thought the individual was dangerous as per what went down.

Taking temp. custody of a firearm by law enforcement while conducting an investigation is not a seizure, as such not subject to what you quoted. The firearm was returned at the conclusion of the investigation.

 

[stephen87]

Nor of any other specific employer, just reads employer. Contact Guy. Best place to get the correct answer to your question.

View Profile: Tactical Firearms Training - INGunOwners

I know who you speak of. I have talked to him before, but how does the IC that you quoted prove that McDonald's is antigun?

The IC states that employers may not prohibit the possession of firearms in a private vehicle on company property by employees, provided it is out of sight, unless the company fits certain criteria, read business type.

By the way, it's IC 34-28-7 that you're looking for. Still doesn't mention where McDonald's is antigun. I have looked for the past few minutes and have not found much to prove one way or the other that they have contributed money to the antigun agenda. Everything that pops up are threads from firearms forums that mention it, but don't give any real proof.

 

[stephen87]

Taking temp. custody of a firearm by law enforcement while conducting an investigation is not a seizure, as such not subject to what you quoted. The firearm was returned at the conclusion of the investigation.

Semantics says it is. But I will agree that temporary custody does not equate to full blown seizure.

 

[bwframe]

It's part of IC 35-47, if I remember right. I know I've read it, but couldn't locate it, on in.gov. No employer can forbid you to keep a firearm, ammo, etc., in your locked vehicle, out of sight, while you are at work and your vehicle is on the lot. Guy Relford's the one you should direct this to. Think his forum name is Tactical Firearms Training, not quite certain of that, though.

Thank you. I'm sorry that I have not been clear enough.
I'm looking for a link to a verification of Warthog's statement, preferably from him:

McDonald's is antigun. Has been for a long while. They give a lot of money to those who would disarm us yet many firearms owners insist on eating there...
...why pay them to help others disarm us like so many firearms owners do?...

 

[SteveM4A1]

We've had that discussion before. It seems to go nowhere. Most people do not even KNOW those two ICs. I for one, know them, and am not willing to walk away without my firearm.

Since this thread is a bit off topic now anyway, and this is kind of relevant, how is taking a firearm from a law abiding citizen not a seizure? If I wear my pink slip on my shirt in plain view, there should be no reason to take my handgun from my person, and the same holds true for long gun carry without LTCH. I guess officer safety is cited, even though I think we can all agree that unnecessary handling of a loaded firearm by anyone can be dangerous?

 

[Dirtebiker]

I believe he was using the military background just to show that he was familiar with the weapon platform, not as an example of his character.

This^^^^^^!
Of course, I'm sure Maj. Hassan Had shot a rifle at some point before he went all Ayayayayayayayayaya, so yeah, I guess we can use him as an example!

 

[KW730]

Taking temp. custody of a firearm by law enforcement while conducting an investigation is not a seizure, as such not subject to what you quoted. The firearm was returned at the conclusion of the investigation.

What is there to investigate when it's very clear that no laws are being broken? Just curious.

 

[Old_grunt]

Thank you. I'm sorry that I have not been clear enough.
I'm looking for a link to a verification of Warthog's statement, preferably from him:

His info is incorrect. Gun Policies At McDonald's And Dunkin' - Business Insider

 

[Old_grunt]

I know who you speak of. I have talked to him before, but how does the IC that you quoted prove that McDonald's is antigun?

The IC states that employers may not prohibit the possession of firearms in a private vehicle on company property by employees, provided it is out of sight, unless the company fits certain criteria, read business type.

By the way, it's IC 34-28-7 that you're looking for. Still doesn't mention where McDonald's is antigun. I have looked for the past few minutes and have not found much to prove one way or the other that they have contributed money to the antigun agenda. Everything that pops up are threads from firearms forums that mention it, but don't give any real proof.

I just searched for links to prove the claim that McDonald's has an anti-gun stance and have come up empty, with the exceptions of archived threads, that are years old. I would surmise the OP of these threads could well have been the same individual and had an axe to grind. All current websites have links to Business Insider website which has the press releases from McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts.