Saint John Indiana, NOT gun friendly

[jedi]

Some clarification:
1. It was indeed, a "man with a gun" call to 911. How do I know? The first words out of the little corporals mouth were "Ok, where's the gun."
2. I was charged with residential entry (aka, breaking and entering) and intimidation.
3. Although my wife was wearing hers OWB, she had a jacket on and it was't visible.
What would I have done different?
1.) I would have called the cops from the street before we ever pulled into the driveway.
2.) I would have remembered my jacket, which would have rendered my gun invisible.
3.) After the incident that night, I would have immediately contacted the baddest lawyer the ACLU could recommend in Indianapolis, and then called fox news and all the local stations.

ssshhhhh Bill B! You are spoling all the fun we are having playing internet armchair mall ninja quaterbacking here and pondering such important questions on how it went down, what you should have done, what the law says you should have done, etc. etc.

Don't make me have to call a MWGOI on you.


MWGOI = Man With Gun On Internet!

 

[mainjet]

What would I have done different?
1.) I would have called the cops from the street before we ever pulled into the driveway.
2.) I would have remembered my jacket, which would have rendered my gun invisible.
3.) After the incident that night, I would have immediately contacted the baddest lawyer the ACLU could recommend in Indianapolis, and then called fox news and all the local stations.

Bill B, these are good constructive steps looking back to see what you would have changed. Obviously you would still have been armed but you would just take a few steps to be sure that to the best of your ability you would not spend several months fighting in court. But if you did have to fight in court then you would have an even stronger case and been able to buy two Bushmasters. One for you and one for your wife. LOL

Even if you would have said "I would not have changed a thing". Fine enough... That's your choice and only you have to live with it. Good job hanging in there.

CLgustavson - I am not an officer and was not the officer. So appearently I AM telepathic. Who would have thunk it? LOL

 

[mainjet]

I said Criminal tresspass and you were charged with residential Entry - MY BAD.

(he softly whispers to himself - "how can this be? I am telepathic, I should have known that".)

 

[clgustaveson]

Some clarification:
1. It was indeed, a "man with a gun" call to 911. How do I know? The first words out of the little corporals mouth were "Ok, where's the gun."
2. I was charged with residential entry (aka, breaking and entering) and intimidation.
3. Although my wife was wearing hers OWB, she had a jacket on and it was't visible.
What would I have done different?
1.) I would have called the cops from the street before we ever pulled into the driveway.
2.) I would have remembered my jacket, which would have rendered my gun invisible.
3.) After the incident that night, I would have immediately contacted the baddest lawyer the ACLU could recommend in Indianapolis, and then called fox news and all the local stations.

His comment still IMO doesn't prove anything as in your story you state you had both your ID and Permit and held them up as the officer arrived. I think maybe the pink permit gave him a hint.

CLEARLY I am not stating fact, I am simply stating from the story you gave there are plenty of reasons other than "man with gun" that are possible.

 

[clgustaveson]

Bill B, these are good constructive steps looking back to see what you would have changed. Obviously you would still have been armed but you would just take a few steps to be sure that to the best of your ability you would not spend several months fighting in court. But if you did have to fight in court then you would have an even stronger case and been able to buy two Bushmasters. One for you and one for your wife. LOL

Even if you would have said "I would not have changed a thing". Fine enough... That's your choice and only you have to live with it. Good job hanging in there.

CLgustavson - I am not an officer and was not the officer. So appearently I AM telepathic. Who would have thunk it? LOL

Well, you see I have extensive training in listening to stories and picking out details that are not the only rational explanation.

Bill's story stated he held his permit and ID up as the officer arrived on the scene... the officer stated "ok where's the gun?" I am not saying that is the only answer but it makes enough sense to assume he may have been tipped off by that.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think unless you Bill was told "we were called because somebody feared for their lives when they saw the weapon" I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from the story given-- THUS you have had to be telepathic to know absolutely (as you keep stating it as fact) that is why the police we summoned to the scene.

A few minutes later two police cars arrived within seconds of each other. I raised my hands, showing my LTCH and my drivers’ license. The officer exited his vehicle and said “who has the gun” I replied “Officer, my wife and I are both licensed to carry firearms, and we both have firearms.” The office asked where my gun was. I told him it was in a holster in the middle of my back. He then asked my wife where hers was, to which she replied “on my right hip, in a holster.”

No other information has been given to us indicating anything other than it MIGHT have been a "man with gun" call...... . . ... .. .

 

[clgustaveson]

He had the license in his hand. If Bill did not have that license then he would have been in the back of that car in 2 seconds. His license showed he had the right just as your drives license shows you have the "right " to drive a car. But if your speeding in that car then your going to get a ticket.

The cop may not think that you should drive a car because he just personally doesn't like you but that does not mean that he can keep you from driving.

I know what you are trying to say in regards to the "killing someone" thing but it is completely rediculous. You have to look at the context of what was going on to understand what the officer was saying. If he didn't think that Bill was allowed to carry the gun then why was he going to let Bill leave with the gun but not the license? He gave the license back, let Bill keep his gun and did not arrest him for carrying a weapon. I think that this shows that he believes that Bill has the legal right to carry a weapon due to the fact that he posses the license even if he personally does not agree with it.

The cop was trying to say that he should not have been carrying it in this situation and tried to tie that to a charge of intimidation. they further tried to place a criminal tresspass charge against him for entering the home without permission. Not because he had a gun.

It is a fact that the presence of the guns made this situation a huge deal and made this blow up into a much bigger deal. If the guns were not there then the cops would have said that you have no right to enter the premisses unless you are asked to do so. Then they probably would have let it drop right there. But they got ticked that he had the guns on him at that time. I am not suggesting that everyone put away their guns. I carry one too. But What I am saying is that everyone needs to know that this is the position that carrying a gun can put you in. So as someone that carries you need to go into this with your eyes wide open. Because your going to get resistance from the public and police and you need to be prepared for that. Sometimes that means reading the situation and deciding how best to carry in that situation. Some carry openely at all times and that is completetly fine and it's thier choice. It just may have different outcomes.

Everything highlighted in red is either wrong or pointless... or both wrong and pointless.

You do not have to under any circumstances show your permit to an officer unless they ask (and that is debatable). When you carry you don't have to walk around with a permit taped to your forehead.

Whether the officer agrees or not is completely irrelevant, an officer is paid to enforce the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. If HIS opinion is A and his authorities explain the law states B, he needs to enforce B. The officer and/or the dep't EXPLICITLY stated that it is illegal to open carry- therefore he is stating that Bill had no right - END OF STORY. A right is not something that can taken away or granted. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, this basic principle the officer did not violate, he let Bill keep his weapon (also while making a threatening innuendo).

Unfortunately the "situation" has no predication on whether or not you can carry a gun. The "place" is the only limiting factor.

Bill B had every right and ability to do what he did, you do not have to "asked" to enter into someones house, if a door is held open then one can imply there is permission granted. If the person is asked to leave, that implied permission has been revoked.

NO laws were broken based on the details of the story.... except by the young copper.

 

[mainjet]

Everything highlighted in red is either wrong or pointless... or both wrong and pointless.

You do not have to under any circumstances show your permit to an officer unless they ask (and that is debatable). When you carry you don't have to walk around with a permit taped to your forehead.

Whether the officer agrees or not is completely irrelevant, an officer is paid to enforce the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. If HIS opinion is A and his authorities explain the law states B, he needs to enforce B. The officer and/or the dep't EXPLICITLY stated that it is illegal to open carry- therefore he is stating that Bill had no right - END OF STORY. A right is not something that can taken away or granted. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, this basic principle the officer did not violate, he let Bill keep his weapon (also while making a threatening innuendo).

Unfortunately the "situation" has no predication on whether or not you can carry a gun. The "place" is the only limiting factor.

Bill B had every right and ability to do what he did, you do not have to "asked" to enter into someones house, if a door is held open then one can imply there is permission granted. If the person is asked to leave, that implied permission has been revoked.

NO laws were broken based on the details of the story.... except by the young copper.

Could you please put everything that is both wrong and pointless in green? This would render my opinion useless.

If you want to argue that the cop did not know that they had guns before he got there fine.

If an officer asks to see your permit and you say no, I don't have to show you", fine, more power to you.

I am not saying that Bill B did a single thing illegal. Not one.

If you think that you have proven to me by the typing of a few sentences on the internet and your statement indicating fact that you are highly trained in anything - you are incorrect.

 

[clgustaveson]

Could you please put everything that is both wrong and pointless in green? This would render my opinion useless.

If you want to argue that the cop did not know that they had guns before he got there fine.

If an officer asks to see your permit and you say no, I don't have to show you", fine, more power to you.

I am not saying that Bill B did a single thing illegal. Not one.

If you think that you have proven to me by the typing of a few sentences on the internet and your statement indicating fact that you are highly trained in anything - you are incorrect.

The officer did not ask for Bill Bs permit, Bill showed the permit prior to any discussion with the officer, only then did the officer ask where the gun was. The true answer to this quam may never be known....

But you just made a very valid point... A situation described on the Internet, with information posted on the Internet, and linked to laws on the Internet, BUT you only care about what is said in person... you are an intelligent character.

P.S. The statements highlighted in red weren't opinions, you were stating them as fact. If your opinion is that you will get arrested if you don't hold your permit up when a cop approaches, you are weird because most people internalize the law and KNOW that is not true.

:-) enjoy your dinner, don't think too hard.

 

[serpicostraight]

Everything highlighted in red is either wrong or pointless... or both wrong and pointless.

You do not have to under any circumstances show your permit to an officer unless they ask (and that is debatable). When you carry you don't have to walk around with a permit taped to your forehead.

Whether the officer agrees or not is completely irrelevant, an officer is paid to enforce the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. If HIS opinion is A and his authorities explain the law states B, he needs to enforce B. The officer and/or the dep't EXPLICITLY stated that it is illegal to open carry- therefore he is stating that Bill had no right - END OF STORY. A right is not something that can taken away or granted. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, this basic principle the officer did not violate, he let Bill keep his weapon (also while making a threatening innuendo).

Unfortunately the "situation" has no predication on whether or not you can carry a gun. The "place" is the only limiting factor.

Bill B had every right and ability to do what he did, you do not have to "asked" to enter into someones house, if a door is held open then one can imply there is permission granted. If the person is asked to leave, that implied permission has been revoked.

NO laws were broken based on the details of the story.... except by the young copper.

this is a major problem with some leo they dont want to enforce the law as it is written they want to enforce thier opinion. they are public servants when they are on the clock thier opinion means nothing.

 

[jedi]

Bill B moving our small talk back to the "correct thread" so I don't hi-jack the other one.

My LTCH is suspended because of the arrest. Because of the high-speed communication between Lake County and Indy I was not suspended until Nov. after the town settled.
Had I known about the suspension I would not have settled with the town, we would be going forward with the lawsuit, my attorney agrees with the sentiment.
The hearing is before an administrative law judge in Indy. The justification for the suspension is the "propensity for violence" part of the I.C.
It's all BS and is costing money I really don't have, but has to be dealt with .

Never been arrest so have no clue how the process goes. Did SJPD not tell you that they were going to have yuor LTCH suspended due to the arrest? Your ATTY did not know that either? Is that the SOP that once you are arrested the PD sends the info to ISP so that your LTCH is suspended/stopped.

Is this for any type of arrest be it if your are guilty or not?
Why the long delay? How did you find out about the suspension? Did ISP send you a letter?

Ah so many questions now. =P

 

[Bill B]

Bill B moving our small talk back to the "correct thread" so I don't hi-jack the other one.



Never been arrest so have no clue how the process goes. Did SJPD not tell you that they were going to have yuor LTCH suspended due to the arrest? Your ATTY did not know that either? Is that the SOP that once you are arrested the PD sends the info to ISP so that your LTCH is suspended/stopped.

Is this for any type of arrest be it if your are guilty or not?
Why the long delay? How did you find out about the suspension? Did ISP send you a letter?

Ah so many questions now. =P

Here's what I got from the ISP. The header with personal info has been removed.

 

[jedi]

what a load of BS the "proper person" clause is! In essence it tosses the whole "innocent until proven guilty" because even if you are innocent (as in this case) you are still being punished.

 

[darkkevin]

been wondering about this for a while now, knew the hearing was coming up, good luck tomorrow!! i drive thru st john everyday and my mom lives there, been watching with much interest

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sorry to hear that your rights may be trampled on, please let us know how this all turns out. It is such horse **** that we are guilty until proven innocent. Just like if someone filed a restraining order against me.

 

[mainjet]

Good luck tomorrow.

I personally believe that you need to show that your NORMAL behaviour is to carry a handgun for personal protection (which is the main reason for having the license). I say this because they need to understand that it was not this particular situation that you decided to carry a handgun.

In other words - you did not carry because you specifically thought that you may have trouble at this house. Rather, you carry at all times that are legally allowable in order to provide yourself with "personal protection" at all times legally allowable.

You never did anything out of your normal behaviour in this situation any different from what you would do at any other time - which by the way the law says all those other times are legal. You never displayed your weapon (outside your normal legal right to carry openly), you never drew your weapon, you never threatened, you left when asked, carried your license and presented it when asked.

Bottom line - if your license gives you the right to open carry and to carry it for your personal protection, how can you not be a proper person when you do so within the law? You did not do anything illegal so why would you not be a proper person? You commited no crime of violence or intimidation. How could you intimidate someone if they ask you to leave and you do so immediately and without argument.

You carried onto private property but you left when asked by the owner to leave. Must you stand on the sidewalk before going onto private property and yell out that you have a gun and you would like permission to enter the property? :-)

Your not tresspassing when you enter private property that is not posted "no tresspassing" and you leave when told to. So why is it wrong to legally carry when you go onto private property and leave when asked?

I hope that you are dealing with reasonable thinking rational individuals tomorrow.

 

[EnochRoot43]

Biting my nails waiting for the update here!. BTW, how was it navigating that area with all the pro-union demonstrating today?

 

[Bill B]

Ok, I'm home now.
So, first we left for Indy y early because the weather was supposed to be iffy and the demonstrators were supposed to teeming in their herd of thousands.
We got to Indy about 1250 and parked in a garage on Ohio Street, walked the five blocks to the Gov't center. There were between 500 and 1000 people there for the protest. I've seen bigger crowds at high school football games.
We got inside and found the conference room, then went downstairs to get something to drink.
We went back upstairs and the hearing started about 10 minutes early, mine was the last case for the day.
The prosecutor presented his evidence, the police report, and the printout of the disposition of the criminal case. We then took a reccess to allow time for the state's witness to show up. She showed up promptly at 1400 and we continued.
The state's witness testified that I made no agressive actions or statements, was not upset, and did exactly what she asked me to do. She testified that she did not specifically give me permission to enter, but that I was with the ex daughter in law when the x was given permission to enter. She testified that she saw my "black" handgun, and that was the only thing that made her scared. Under cross-examination by my attorney she admitted that a reasonable person would assume the permission to enter was blanket permission.
The prosecutor then rested.
My attorney presented the motion to dismiss the criminal case as our evidence. I testified to what I've been saying all along, she stopped me, and when she asked me to leave I left.
My attorney asked me what color my gun is, I told them it was duo-tone, a silver slide and OD green handle.
I also testified that I almost always carry, 90+% of the time.
My attorney asked if I had ever been arrested, other than for this incident, I told him no. He asked if I had every been in an altercation with a firearm, I told him not as a civilian. He asked what I meant, I told him I was in the Army for 8 years and that sometimes things happen. He then said "so you been trained in the use of firearms" and I said yes. I was hoping that he was going to ask me what firearms, but he didn't.
The prosecutor asked why I didn't carry all the time, and I told him that if I am leaving and going somewhere where I know it is illegal to carry I leave it at home as I do not have a lockbox for it in the car.
It took about an hour all told, at the end the judge said that she would take it under advisement and give her reccomendation to the Superintendent (of State Police) and that I would be notified by certified mail.
Obviously this isn't everything, but it is the high points of the hearing. Absolutely no evidence was provided showing that I had a "propensity for violence" or "emotionally unstable" conduct. My attorney meade that very clear in his closing statement and he also made it clear that I didn't violate any laws whatsoever
If you ever have to do this, make damn sure you have a lawyer! There is a prosecutor, there is a judge, there are rules of evidence. The only difference between this and a trial is that here you are guilty and the judge doesn't make the decision.
Nap time.

 

[jedi]

Christ! Thanks for the up-date. Any idea what the time frame for a decision is?
After reading this I think I'll head my grandma's advise even more and NEVER step into St. John period!

 

[Bill B]

No idea on a time frame. Hopefully before it expires.
your grandma is a wise woman, listen to her.

 

[jedi]

No idea on a time frame. Hopefully before it expires.
your grandma is a wise woman, listen to her.

u don't have a life-time one???