Show ID?

[Beau]

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.

I had a big long response to your OP but it got lost when I tried to post becase I was logged out. Oh well.

The act of driving on public roadways without a license is a crime.
The act of carrying a firearm in public without an LTCH is a crime.
With a license both are legal. Neither acts should be grounds for detainment unless and actual crime was observed.
ie. turning without out signaling for driving or brandishing a firearm.

 

[Beau]

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 reference to the code you posted this applies if you have allready been arrested and charged. Hence the burden of proof falls to the Defendant.
Defendant being someone charged with a crime.

 

[cce1302]

Hi Beau. Saw your link to this thread on OCDO and got kind of involved, so thanks.

I don't think we're going to get a straight answer on that though. We've asked 3-4 times already.

 

[Beau]

Hi Beau. Saw your link to this thread on OCDO and got kind of involved, so thanks.

I don't think we're going to get a straight answer on that though. We've asked 3-4 times already.

Thank you and welcome to the discussion.

 

[INRanger]

I personally have no issue with presenting my permit if asked, though it has only come up once but the LEO was very polite and professional. I even hand it over with my license, registration and proof of insurance when I get pulled over. Ive never had a negative experience doing this usually the LEO just ask's where it is and thats the end of it. I see no good reason to turn a simple request into something more.

 

[Beau]

I personally have no issue with presenting my permit if asked, though it has only come up once but the LEO was very polite and professional. I even hand it over with my license, registration and proof of insurance when I get pulled over. Ive never had a negative experience doing this usually the LEO just ask's where it is and thats the end of it. I see no good reason to turn a simple request into something more.

As with many rights violations the are commonly done in the name of politeness.
Is it not our duty to make government fight for every infringement they wish to make on our rights.

 

[Agent 007]

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?

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?

Police cannot, by law, assume that a car being driven in public is being operated illegally. There are statutes and case law that spell out the circumstances in which a vehicle can be pulled over. Only after a vehicle is legally stopped can it be discovered that a driver is unlicensed.

By statute, carrying a handgun in public is against the law. The law enumerates certain exceptions to this. As it is today, no judge or court in the land is going to side with the person who fails to produce a valid LTCH during an investigation into what is codified as a crime. If you can find case law to the contrary, I'll happily admit that I am wrong. Actually, I couldn't find case law anywhere for Indiana, but I'm a bit busy today and couldn't make a concerted effort.

Perhaps someone on this board would like to be the test case?

By the way, resisting law enforcement IS illegal, whether the actual arrest or stop is legal or not. The remedy for rights violations is through the courts, not an argument between armed police and citizens on the side of the road or the food court at the mall.

 

[Beau]

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? .

PREAMBLE. ​

TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

ARTICLE 1.​

Bill of Rights.​

Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
I don't agree with the requirement of and LTCH but that is another topic.

The point is we have a right to bear arms. We pay money to confirm that right in the from of an LTCH. How can you say that the carrying of a firearm in itself is a crime and that we must provide papers when asked to do so.

It is up to me to make sure I am in compliance with the law. Not LE.

 

[Agent 007]

I had a big long response to your OP but it got lost when I tried to post becase I was logged out. Oh well.

The act of driving on public roadways without a license is a crime.
The act of carrying a firearm in public without an LTCH is a crime.
With a license both are legal. Neither acts should be grounds for detainment unless and actual crime was observed.
ie. turning without out signaling for driving or brandishing a firearm.

The effect of the law lies in the enforcement, codified by statute in the case of traffic law, but clear as mud with regards to handgun law. However, the statute IS clear that carrying a handgun in public IS a crime, unless you are specifically exempted by statute. I'd like to see some specific case law on this, but couldn't find it so far.

The legislature needs to address this. Apparently, common sense is not enough for some people to realize that the state wouldn't go through the bother of creating a license system for a given activity, if they weren't going to regulate it.

Can you be stopped in the woods and asked for your hunting license if you are carrying a shotgun? (Not on your own property) I bet the answer is "yes."

 

[INRanger]

I completely agree with you. Our rights will not be infringed in an outright assault but by sneaky legislation put together and voted on by small men in big positions. I just don't see presenting my permit as a violation. Aside from traffic stops where I present it unasked the one time it was asked of me was due entirely to my own lack of attention to detail. When I got out of my car my shirt had ridden up and I neglected to notice. The LEO saw it while we were standing in line at the counter and asked very politely to see my permit. I have no problem with that. If he wasn't so polite or his request extended any further than a verification of my legality then thats a completely different bag of cats. If they came to take them then they would get them. In the situation described in my post the officer had every right to ensure his safety as well as the safety of the patrons. If I were not a law abiding citizen picking up some milk but was there to do harm he would have been greatly remiss to wait for me to start shooting.

 

[Agent 007]

PREAMBLE. ​

TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

ARTICLE 1.​

Bill of Rights.​

Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
I don't agree with the requirement of and LTCH but that is another topic.

The point is we have a right to bear arms. We pay money to confirm that right in the from of an LTCH. How can you say that the carrying of a firearm in itself is a crime and that we must provide papers when asked to do so.

It is up to me to make sure I am in compliance with the law. Not LE.

Handguns are specifically regulated in Indiana, hence the statute forbidding the carry of handguns without a license. It is not an absolute right if you have to buy a license for it. Seems like common sense to me.

I'm done, until someone finds some case law. Everything else is just a sword fight of opinions. Of course, everyone is free to get themselves arrested and get an answer for real. I'm thinking that they won't like the interpretation of the law by the courts. I can't imagine the courts coming to a decision that police do not have a bona fide public safety interest in investigating reports of armed individuals in public places, but I'm not a judge.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Police cannot, by law, assume that a car being driven in public is being operated illegally. There are statutes and case law that spell out the circumstances in which a vehicle can be pulled over. Only after a vehicle is legally stopped can it be discovered that a driver is unlicensed.

By statute, carrying a handgun in public is against the law. The law enumerates certain exceptions to this. As it is today, no judge or court in the land is going to side with the person who fails to produce a valid LTCH during an investigation into what is codified as a crime. If you can find case law to the contrary, I'll happily admit that I am wrong. Actually, I couldn't find case law anywhere for Indiana, but I'm a bit busy today and couldn't make a concerted effort.

And by statute driving without a license is against the law. The law also enumerates certain exceptions to this. But the police cannot just stop people they see driving to find out if they have one. How is carrying a handgun any different? If they can't assume that a person is operating a vehicle unlawfully how can they assume that a person is carrying unlawfully?

Perhaps someone on this board would like to be the test case?

Once I receive my ltch I might be willing to be a test case on this. I get arrested, bond out, contact my attorney have him file a civil rights lawsuit for unlawful arrest and or search and seizure.
Then when I go to court on the charge show them my ltch. And have the charges dismissed, and all records destroyed. Which is why I would make sure to have my atty. file before I went to court on it so he could supeona the arrest and any proceedings before they are destroyed.

IC 35-47-2-24
(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.

 

[Rookie]

So, exactly what right is being violated if a police officer asks you to proove that you have a permit?

 

[bigg cheese]

perhaps the "illegal search and seizure" clause? Not sure.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, exactly what right is being violated if a police officer asks you to proove that you have a permit?

4th amendment?

 

[Denny347]

Once I receive my ltch I might be willing to be a test case on this. I get arrested, bond out, contact my attorney have him file a civil rights lawsuit for unlawful arrest and or search and seizure.
Then when I go to court on the charge show them my ltch. And have the charges dismissed, and all records destroyed. Which is why I would make sure to have my atty. file before I went to court on it so he could supeona the arrest and any proceedings before they are destroyed.

IC 35-47-2-24
(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.

Actually there is more to the statute:

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.

Asking for your LTCH is VERY situational. However, in many many years on the street, I have NEVER hear a run come out for a person armed shopping in a store, mowing the yard, scratching their butt...you get the idea. There was always a disturbance involved where one person way armed, that is a different ball of wax. I speak for Indy when I say that asking for ID just because you are OCing is VERY rare.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

perhaps the "illegal search and seizure" clause? Not sure.

Would this count as a Jinx?
Just in case..
Jinx, Jinx, Double Jinx you owe me a COLT

 

[Denny347]

perhaps the "illegal search and seizure" clause? Not sure.

A consensual encounter is not a seizure according to the USSC.

 

[Denny347]

4th amendment?

Totally depends on the "totality of the circumstances". It could be if A and B but not C happen but it would be legal if A and C happen but not B. See what I'm getting at? There is not a blanket right/wrong here, legality is based on the circumstances. You happen to be standing outside the VP that gets robbed 3x's a week. I walk up to go inside and see your pistol (either you are OC or shirt rode up). Based on the history of the business, I asked to see your LTCH and ID. You get angry because you have done nothing wrong (and I understand) however, I would be negligent in not checking it out based on the history.

 

[Rookie]

That's what I was thinking...

"Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

Being that it is illegal to carry a handgun without a permit (unless you are on your own property, etc.), an officer would have the right to demand proof that you are in possession of a permit.


"The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations”. The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers)."