Show ID?

[Frank_N_Stein]

Thank You. This was the answer I wanted. It only took four pages to get it. I will research this section of code further.
Going off of this snip alone a person does not have to present ID to LE unless an infraction has been committed.

Scenario:
Your seen carrying by LE, be it CC or OC they notice either way.

LE: I need to see your ID/LTCH.

You: Do you have reason to believe that I am or about to commit a crime?
ME: If you don't have a LTCH on your person that is valid you are committing a crime. So by you OC'ing you are putting it out there for all the world to see and we (the KGB) have to make sure that you aren't breaking the law.
LE: Just show me your ID or you'll go to jail.

You: Unless you have reason to believe I have committed an infraction or ordinance violation you do not have the right to demand my ID.
ME: I'm not asking for your ID, I'm asking for your LTCH.
This could go on. And could have many different outcomes.

Peaceably carrying a firearm is not grounds to suspect a crime.

If you don't present a LTCH when asked, how do we know you have one? If you don't, you are committing a crime. And in Indiana you can be arrested for carrying a handgun without a license if your permit is expired or not on your person.

I don't personally have a problem with OC. I don't do it myself, simply because I don't want anyone to know whether or not I'm carrying a gun. I don't want the attention that it brings. They try to do something to me or in my presence, they will probably find out. Like another poster put, maybe if there was more OC it wouldn't be such a big deal.

As far as presenting the LTCH to an LEO when asked, like Denny317 said if you are OC'ing and I ask for it and you refuse to present it the handcuffs will go on until I verify that you do have one and that it is valid. Why make the situation worse by not presenting it when asked? Both you and the LEO know that there are at least 2 guns involved in the situation, and things could go to **** very quickly.

 

[toffmann427]

All good points!

 

[bigg cheese]

*(Please take this in context, as I'm only playing Devil's Advocate)

How do you know that the hundreds of people you drive near every day aren't driving with a suspended license, no insurance, under age, no license on their person, etc.?

If you're going to use that as an argument, you should pull over everyone operating a motor vehicle as well.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

*(Please take this in context, as I'm only playing Devil's Advocate)

How do you know that the hundreds of people you drive near every day aren't driving with a suspended license, no insurance, under age, no license on their person, etc.?

If you're going to use that as an argument, you should pull over everyone operating a motor vehicle as well.

When I pull someone over for a traffic/equipment infraction, it is because I saw that infraction being committed in my presence. I have the right to stop you and enforce the violation of that infraction. Since you are driving a car I have the right to ask for your DL. I don't know that everyone driving past/around me is doing so legally, and I really don't have the time to check. I'd be spending my entire 8.5 hour day running traffic and the citizens of my beat wouldn't be getting any police service.

I cannot stop every car I see just to see if they are 100% law-abiding. I have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver is violating the traffic code. The same goes for carrying without a license. If I see you carrying, it is reasonable for me to assume that you don't have a LTCH. I have the right to detain you and confirm you do or don't have a LTCH.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If you don't present a LTCH when asked, how do we know you have one? If you don't, you are committing a crime. And in Indiana you can be arrested for carrying a handgun without a license if your permit is expired or not on your person.

How do you know that the hundreds of people you drive near every day aren't driving with a suspended license, no insurance, under age, no license on their person, etc.?

As the OP asked do you have the right to demand it? If so do you have the right to pull over random people to check and see if their dl is suspended or they have one? Some one is OC and the officer sees it, someone is driving and the officer sees it. Whats the difference between the two? Just because they have a visible handgun is not reasonable belief that they may be breaking the law, same as a person driving is not reasonable belief that they are breaking the law.

 

[bigg cheese]

I think I may not have articulated my point very well.

From what I can understand of your statements, it seems that if you see someone OC'ing, that you feel an obligation to see that it is legal.

Why do you not feel the same obligation for people driving cars? They can easily as destructive as a firearm.

I would wager that the number of people who drive in an illegal manner (suspended license, no license, no insurance, etc.) greatly exceeds the number of people who openly carry their firearm without a permit.

 

[Beau]

As the OP asked do you have the right to demand it? If so do you have the right to pull over random people to check and see if their dl is suspended or they have one? Some one is OC and the officer sees it, someone is driving and the officer sees it. Whats the difference between the two? Just because they have a visible handgun is not reasonable belief that they may be breaking the law, same as a person driving is not reasonable belief that they are breaking the law.

This is exactly the point I'm driving at. Simply driving a vehicle does not mean a crime is being committed and the person should not be stopped just so LE can go fishing for possible infractions that may or may not exist.

Peaceably carrying a firearm is not evidence that a crime is being committed. A person should not be stopped for carrying a firearm just to see if they are carrying it legally.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I explained what needs to happen for me to enforce the traffic code. I'll explain it again. I have to see an infraction being committed in order to pull you over. That's not fishing, thats seeing something and enforcing it. If I was fishing, I would profile you and decide to stop you based on the way that you look or the car you are driving. I don't play that way, but it has been done by other officers/departments (resulting in a lot of litigation and monetary settlements).

I don't see what is so unreasonable about asking for a LTCH if someone is OC'ing. If you aren't violating the law you won't be arrested.

I appreciate the civil discussion we are having on this topic. We may disagree, but at least we are doing so respectfully. I hope it continues that way.

 

[bigg cheese]

I explained what needs to happen for me to enforce the traffic code. I'll explain it again. I have to see an infraction being committed in order to pull you over. That's not fishing, thats seeing something and enforcing it. If I was fishing, I would profile you and decide to stop you based on the way that you look or the car you are driving. I don't play that way, but it has been done by other officers/departments (resulting in a lot of litigation and monetary settlements).

I don't see what is so unreasonable about asking for a LTCH if someone is OC'ing. If you aren't violating the law you won't be arrested.

I appreciate the civil discussion we are having on this topic. We may disagree, but at least we are doing so respectfully. I hope it continues that way.

Honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to ask to see it, and I would admittedly be proud to show it (if it ever comes ).

However, I think the legal ramifications are worth weighing. Why do you not "have to see an infraction being committed" to pull me aside and ask for it?

Is traffic code a whole different animal that it makes it incomparable with gun permits?

 

[Beau]

I explained what needs to happen for me to enforce the traffic code. I'll explain it again. I have to see an infraction being committed in order to pull you over. That's not fishing, thats seeing something and enforcing it. If I was fishing, I would profile you and decide to stop you based on the way that you look or the car you are driving. I don't play that way, but it has been done by other officers/departments (resulting in a lot of litigation and monetary settlements).

I don't see what is so unreasonable about asking for a LTCH if someone is OC'ing. If you aren't violating the law you won't be arrested.

I appreciate the civil discussion we are having on this topic. We may disagree, but at least we are doing so respectfully. I hope it continues that way.

In your own words " I have to see an infraction being committed in order to pull you over".

So explain why peacably carrying a firearm is different. Seeing someone carrying a firearm is not reason to suspect that a crime is being commited. Would not you stopping that person be constituted as profiling and unlawful detainment.

You also wrote:"I don't see what is so unreasonable about asking for a LTCH if someone is OC'ing. If you aren't violating the law you won't be arrested."

Let's follow that line of thinking..
I don't see why I shouldn't be able to search a car. If you are not violating the law you won't be arrested.

I don't see why I can't enter your home and look around. If you are not violating the law you won't be arrested.

 

[IUGradStudent]

I don't see what is so unreasonable about asking for a LTCH if someone is OC'ing. If you aren't violating the law you won't be arrested.

I appreciate the civil discussion we are having on this topic. We may disagree, but at least we are doing so respectfully. I hope it continues that way.

I think the idea is that unlike the driving infraction case you did not see any violation of the law in the OC case. OCing a gun is just as legal as driving a car down the road. Both require licenses, but both are lawful activities with those licenses. You wouldn't stop a random person driving a car, so why stop a random person OCing a gun? Why is there a presumption that the OCer can be stopped and required to show a license, but clealy no similar presumption in the case of the car driver?

If the OCer does something suspicious, then by all means stop him and require ID, etc. -- but use the same standard for the gun as the car.

My guess is that the practical difference is that police just don't see very many OCed guns. If OC was as common as driving a car, there's no way the police could stop even a fraction of the OCers and ask for ID. Because police only see OC once in a while, it is much easier to check up on a higher percentage of them. That's my guess, anyway. Guns in the open "seem weird" and thus all by themselves garner police attention.

EDIT: Simul-post with Beau

 

[Agent 007]

Peaceably carrying a firearm is not evidence that a crime is being committed.

Yes it is.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

You are walking down the street with your pistol openly carried. That is a crime, unless you have a license issued by the state. It's a class A misdemeanor. In order to lawfully carry a handgun on your person in public, you must have a state issued license. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you are exempt from 35-47-2-1.

IC 35-47-2-24
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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.This differs from traffic law, in that operating a vehicle on the roadway is NOT a crime in itself. Carrying a handgun on your person IS a crime, unless you are exempted by law. See the difference?

It is specifically enumerated in statute that the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to show that he or she is exempt from the law prohibiting the carrying of handguns in public. In other words, if a police officer sees a person carrying a handgun, reasonable suspicion exists that a crime is being committed. The only way to dispel this reasonable suspicion is to present a valid LTCH. If you refuse to do so, you are subject to arrest. Now, if during the search of your person, incident to arrest, your LTCH is found, the police may let you go. Or, you could be arrested for resisting law enforcement, depending on just how big a "dick" you were being, and the particular county prosecutor's threshold for a "resisting" charge.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial standard. It does not apply to initial encounters with law enforcement where the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You are considered innocent by the courts, but the police have no requirement to consider you innocent. In fact, considering someone innocent after developing probable cause that a crime has been committed defies common sense. It is the court's role to remain neutral, not the police department's.

It's probably fairly good advice not to be a "dick" while walking around armed and dealing with anybody, let alone the police. The law is not what you THINK it should be, based on your interpretation. The law is what the courts have interpreted it to be. That is the system of government set up by the Constitution. You may vehemently disagree with the law, but until the law is changed through legislation or judicial interpretation, it is the law of the land.

Bottom line? You do NOT have the right to carry a handgun on your person or in your vehicle in public. It is a crime, unless you are exempted by statute. (ie: LTCH) If it wasn't inherently prohibited, why would you need a state issued license to do it?

Yeah, I know. 2nd Amendment and all that. But you didn't ask for the way it should be. You asked for the way it is. There it is, from my point of view. YMMV, and IANAL.

 

[cce1302]

When I pull someone over for a traffic/equipment infraction, it is because I saw that infraction being committed in my presence. I have the right to stop you and enforce the violation of that infraction. Since you are driving a car I have the right to ask for your DL. I don't know that everyone driving past/around me is doing so legally, and I really don't have the time to check. I'd be spending my entire 8.5 hour day running traffic and the citizens of my beat wouldn't be getting any police service.

I cannot stop every car I see just to see if they are 100% law-abiding. I have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver is violating the traffic code. The same goes for carrying without a license. If I see you carrying, it is reasonable for me to assume that you don't have a LTCH. I have the right to detain you and confirm you do or don't have a LTCH.

Why is it reasonable to assume that everyone who is open carrying does not have a LTCH? Do most of the individuals that you question for OCing not have a LTCH?

 

[cce1302]

Yes it is.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

You are walking down the street with your pistol openly carried. That is a crime, unless you have a license issued by the state. It's a class A misdemeanor. In order to lawfully carry a handgun on your person in public, you must have a state issued license. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you are exempt from 35-47-2-1.

IC 35-47-2-24
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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.This differs from traffic law, in that operating a vehicle on the roadway is NOT a crime in itself. Carrying a handgun on your person IS a crime, unless you are exempted by law. See the difference?

It is specifically enumerated in statute that the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to show that he or she is exempt from the law prohibiting the carrying of handguns in public. In other words, if a police officer sees a person carrying a handgun, reasonable suspicion exists that a crime is being committed. The only way to dispel this reasonable suspicion is to present a valid LTCH. If you refuse to do so, you are subject to arrest. Now, if during the search of your person, incident to arrest, your LTCH is found, the police may let you go. Or, you could be arrested for resisting law enforcement, depending on just how big a "dick" you were being, and the particular county prosecutor's threshold for a "resisting" charge.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial standard. It does not apply to initial encounters with law enforcement where the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You are considered innocent by the courts, but the police have no requirement to consider you innocent. In fact, considering someone innocent after developing probable cause that a crime has been committed defies common sense. It is the court's role to remain neutral, not the police department's.

It's probably fairly good advice not to be a "dick" while walking around armed and dealing with anybody, let alone the police. The law is not what you THINK it should be, based on your interpretation. The law is what the courts have interpreted it to be. That is the system of government set up by the Constitution. You may vehemently disagree with the law, but until the law is changed through legislation or judicial interpretation, it is the law of the land.

Bottom line? You do NOT have the right to carry a handgun on your person or in your vehicle in public. It is a crime, unless you are exempted by statute. (ie: LTCH) If it wasn't inherently prohibited, why would you need a state issued license to do it?

Yeah, I know. 2nd Amendment and all that. But you didn't ask for the way it should be. You asked for the way it is. There it is, from my point of view. YMMV, and IANAL.

Sorry that's wrong. From the IC 9-24, requirements for drivers license:
IC 9-24-1-1
License required
Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid Indiana:
(1) operator's license;
(2) chauffeur's license;
(3) public passenger chauffeur's license;
(4) commercial driver's license;
(5) driver's license listed in subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) with a motorcycle operator's license or endorsement; or
(6) learner's permit;
issued to the individual by the bureau under this article to drive upon an Indiana highway the type of motor vehicle for which the license or permit was issued.

You are driving down the street in your car. That is a crime, unless you have a license issued by the state. It's a class C misdemeanor. In order to lawfully drive your car on an Indiana highway, you must have a state issued license. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you are exempt from 9-24.

IC 9-24-1-8
Violations
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who violates this chapter commits a Class C infraction.
(b) A person who violates section 6 of this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Bottom line? You do NOT have the right to drive a vehicle in public. It is a crime, unless you are exempted by statute. (ie: driver's license) If it wasn't inherently prohibited, why would you need a state issued license to do it?

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[bigg cheese]

@ Frank_N_Stein

According to the statutes posted, and in keeping with the OP, my Devil's Advocate position has been defeated.

From what I see here, you have a right to ask to see a permit without having witnessed a crime. I am curious though, how many people have you personally, or someone you know, carded an individual and they didn't have proper "papers."

I find it hard to believe that a criminal would choose to openly carry a firearm that they weren't licensed to have.

 

[Agent 007]

Sorry that's wrong. From the IC 9-24, requirements for drivers license:
IC 9-24-1-1
License required
Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid Indiana:
(1) operator's license;
(2) chauffeur's license;
(3) public passenger chauffeur's license;
(4) commercial driver's license;
(5) driver's license listed in subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) with a motorcycle operator's license or endorsement; or
(6) learner's permit;
issued to the individual by the bureau under this article to drive upon an Indiana highway the type of motor vehicle for which the license or permit was issued.

You are driving down the street in your car. That is a crime, unless you have a license issued by the state. It's a class C misdemeanor. In order to lawfully drive your car on an Indiana highway, you must have a state issued license. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you are exempt from 9-24.

IC 9-24-1-8
Violations
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who violates this chapter commits a Class C infraction.
(b) A person who violates section 6 of this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Bottom line? You do NOT have the right to drive a vehicle in public. It is a crime, unless you are exempted by statute. (ie: driver's license) If it wasn't inherently prohibited, why would you need a state issued license to do it?

The act of driving down the street in itself is not codified as a crime, unless you do not have a valid license. The act of carrying a handgun in public IS codified as a crime, unless you have a LTCH. Besides, you cannot argue about firearms laws by jumping up and down and pointing at traffic law. Most traffic law is infractions and ordinances, and trials are more civil in nature than criminal. Apples and oranges. Both fruits, but quite a bit of difference.

 

[Agent 007]

I find it hard to believe that a criminal would choose to openly carry a firearm that they weren't licensed to have.

How can you watch the news and NOT believe in the ignorance and sheer stupidity of the criminal mind? They do not think like normal people.

 

[cce1302]

double post because of a spelling correction in my next post.

 

[cce1302]

The act of driving down the street in itself is not codified as a crime, unless you do not have a valid license. The act of carrying a handgun in public IS codified as a crime, unless you have a LTCH.

I'm sure there's a difference here somewhere, but I fail to see it. Semantical? Possibly. Splitting hairs? What's the difference between a skunk and a polecat?

Besides, you cannot argue about firearms laws by jumping up and down and pointing at traffic law. Most traffic law is infractions and ordinances, and trials are more civil in nature than criminal. Apples and oranges. Both fruits, but quite a bit of difference.

We're not arguing about the laws, we're arguing about the enforcement of them. What makes you assume that a law is being broken by someone who is carrying a firearm openly, when you don't assume that a law is being broken by someone who is driving a car on a public highway?