Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[88GT]

Crap, this is going to look like I'm attack you. You just happened to have all the posts with points I'd like to address.

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

What about the people who haven't been diagnosed with a mental illness?

What about the people who don't have an official history of violence?

Why is there some magic line in the sand that says this arbitrary designation allows you folks to have firearms and this arbitrary designation disallows you fine folks from doing so?

To approach it from a different angle: are those with mental disorders and violent histories somehow not valuable enough as people that we say they have no legitimate right to self defense?

Yes I am aware of that. And what would you do with these people?

Wrong question.

Why should anything be done? If you aren't incarcerated, why should anything be stopping you from having a firearm?

My main point in my original statement was that some people are for lack of a better word, crazy. My opinion has always been that if you're talking to dogs, or hearing voices in your head, and have been deemed seriously mentally ill by a healthcare professional, than you shouldn't own a gun.

Why?

We can't prevent bad things from happening just because we pass laws. Laws are the means to dispense consequences for bad behavior. And it is those consequences, not the laws, that act as the deterrence to bad behavior. There is no deterrence in a law that says "improper" people can't have firearms. Moreover, if the consequences are not sufficient to dissuade the individual from performing the bad behavior, why would a law with no consequence be expected to stop him?

Whether it's a conscious disregard for the law by sane folks or an inability to construct a rational cause-and-effect series of the bad behavior wherein the individual can't get to the consequence in his own mind, no law telling him he can't do it is going to be sufficient.

I understand your concern, but it ignores reality and attempts to do what can't be done. If we in this country stopped pretending laws could control behavior and realized instead that punishments and physical prevention of that behavior were far better at controlling it, we'd all be a lot happier.

If someone can't be trusted with a firearm for whatever reason, said someone can't be trusted to be free in society at all. If you argue they should be denied their RKBA, then you are arguing that they need to be institutionalized. For the firearm is not the source of the risk. THEY are. Don't take away the firearm. Take away the individual. Then, and only then, is society safe from that person.

On a side note: The use of "improper" is not a slur. It is the antonym of the legal term "proper" that is used to describe someone who has been vetted by the keepsers and deemed safe enough to carry a firearm. "Proper" persons are issued LTCHs. "Improper" persons are not.

 

[Ted]

......On a side note: The use of "improper" is not a slur. It is the antonym of the legal term "proper" that is used to describe someone who has been vetted by the keepsers and deemed safe enough to carry a firearm. "Proper" persons are issued LTCHs. "Improper" persons are not.

Only if there is some record of (a) disqualifying factor(s), otherwise ISP is required to issue. I'm sure that there have been people that have been issued a LTCH, should have otherwise been denied.

Mistakes happen, some people slip through. Its the nature of the process.

 

[Ragenarok007]

Hey man, forget all that nonsense. It was just a rookie cop with his field training officer. You didn't hear the other side of it where the FTO reamed him for not using common sense. He's not gonna yell at the kid in front of you though.

You think you had it bad? I got way worse than that on my way to see my dying grandmother in the hospital and all I had was my Glock. And I had more felony arrests as a state licensed fugitive recovery agent than the officer did. I'm not gonna get into that story here though. Someone from Greenwood PD might start trolling me for it.

 

[Rookie]

Oh excuse me, there must not any difference. After all, Indiana Code and U.S. Supreme Court opinion are one in the same.

Ok, enlighten us. How does a Terry stop ( A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense.) come into a normal traffic stop for an INFRACTION, especially when the OP admitted he was armed and licensed?

Also, explain how a Terry stop would allow an officer to seize a rifle out of a vehicle.

Take your time.

 

[Jack Burton]

The mental illnesses that immediately pop into my mind are things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, granted that not everyone who has these illnesses is dangerous. One of my good friends is a diagnosed schizophrenic and as far as I know has never had a history of violence and probably never will.

My main point in my original statement was that some people are for lack of a better word, crazy. My opinion has always been that if you're talking to dogs, or hearing voices in your head, and have been deemed seriously mentally ill by a healthcare professional, than you shouldn't own a gun.

But it's okay to own a butcher knife, sword, axe and a gallon can of gasoline?

Not ot mention a 3,000 lb weapon called a car?

 

[88GT]

Only if there is some record of (a) disqualifying factor(s), otherwise ISP is required to issue. I'm sure that there have been people that have been issued a LTCH, should have otherwise been denied.

Mistakes happen, some people slip through. Its the nature of the process.

Right. That's what I said. An individual with disqualifying factor(s) would be an improper person. It's a legal definition (loosely), not a moral judgment.

 

[CX1]

If we in this country stopped pretending laws could control behavior and realized instead that punishments and physical prevention of that behavior were far better at controlling it, we'd all be a lot happier.

Isn't that the same concept some people use for wanting to seize and eliminate all firearms in this country? The laws don't work so we need to physically take the guns away then 'we'd all be a lot happier'.

 

[rugertoter]

Well, personally, that encounter would not have bothered me too much. I don't know why they did not hand you back your handgun, but then again I would not have sweated it that much.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where some clown just might come out shooting and if I were one of the cops, I just would have handed your stuff back and said have a good day. I'm sure someone will jump all over me on this, but I would want to first make sure I was safe - if I were the cop.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Isn't that the same concept some people use for wanting to seize and eliminate all firearms in this country? The laws don't work so we need to physically take the guns away then 'we'd all be a lot happier'.

If it weren't for that pesky ole Constitution...

 

[Denny347]

Yes, by law if you are disarmed the police must keep your gun and then go before a judge to explain, in excruciating, specific detail, why he had reason to believe that you were a threat to him at that time.

That is the only, legal reason he can remove a firearm from an otherwise legal carrier. If the court doesn't agree then the gun comes back to us.

If he cannot justify it, then the court will look very unkindly on his actions. If he perjures himself with lies, then even worse will happen.

There are a number of us here who will refuse to accept our gun back if a police officer removes it from us. If the word gets out about the bind that officers are willingly putting themselves into then I think the incidents such as this will quickly come to a stop.

Playing devil's advocate here. If I were the officer that took custody of said pistol during a traffic stop, it is handled differently than you may think. Now I am NOT saying I would do this nor would I be the one who asked for the pistol during the stop...just giving you an insite of what would actually happen. So, I take Mr X's pistol during a traffic stop, I run him, gun, and both come back negative, traffic stop is over. I approach driver with his pistol, driver's license, and registration. Driver takes license and registration but tells me "I refuse to take my pistol back." Ok, I then pull a case number and do a "property to property room" report. The report would document the traffic stop and that driver refused to take pistol back, forcing me to transport pistol to property room for safe keeping. That is it. No court, no judge. Sadly, here in Indy, the driver would be forced to jump through many hoops to retrieve their pistol, it is a weeks if not months long process. Only recourse is to file civil lawsuit or file formal complaint.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sadly, here in Indy, the driver would be forced to jump through many hoops to retrieve their pistol, it is a weeks if not months long process. Only recourse is to file civil lawsuit or file formal complaint.

Last gun I had to get back in Marion County only took two phone calls (but I had a court order). It is much better now IME.

 

[Bunnykid68]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to carry firearms but it needs to be done in a way that does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly. A simple age or education limit won't work. It needs to be some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left.

Not sure how we do it but many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that we need a better answer. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so.

Speak for yourself.

 

[long coat]

Playing devil's advocate here. If I were the officer that took custody of said pistol during a traffic stop, it is handled differently than you may think. Now I am NOT saying I would do this nor would I be the one who asked for the pistol during the stop...just giving you an insite of what would actually happen. So, I take Mr X's pistol during a traffic stop, I run him, gun, and both come back negative, traffic stop is over. I approach driver with his pistol, driver's license, and registration. Driver takes license and registration but tells me "I refuse to take my pistol back." Ok, I then pull a case number and do a "property to property room" report. The report would document the traffic stop and that driver refused to take pistol back, forcing me to transport pistol to property room for safe keeping. That is it. No court, no judge. Sadly, here in Indy, the driver would be forced to jump through many hoops to retrieve their pistol, it is a weeks if not months long process. Only recourse is to file civil lawsuit or file formal complaint.

By IC 35-47-14 you would have to goto court / written statement.

Indiana Code 35-47-14

 

[Ted]

.......Take your time.

While not authoritative, it certainly reinforces the argument. Though there are footnotes to verify.

Wiki: Traffic stops

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] Under federal law, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer, although such practices might not be authorized under state law depending on the jurisdiction. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.[16][17]

Without a warrant, probable cause, or the driver’s consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the “plain view” doctrine may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.[18]

Writing for a unanimous Court in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), Justice Ginsburg gives a comprehensive summary of most of the above-cited jurisprudence relating to traffic stops.

 

[Jack Burton]

Playing devil's advocate here. If I were the officer that took custody of said pistol during a traffic stop, it is handled differently than you may think. Now I am NOT saying I would do this nor would I be the one who asked for the pistol during the stop...just giving you an insite of what would actually happen. So, I take Mr X's pistol during a traffic stop, I run him, gun, and both come back negative, traffic stop is over. I approach driver with his pistol, driver's license, and registration. Driver takes license and registration but tells me "I refuse to take my pistol back." Ok, I then pull a case number and do a "property to property room" report. The report would document the traffic stop and that driver refused to take pistol back, forcing me to transport pistol to property room for safe keeping. That is it. No court, no judge. Sadly, here in Indy, the driver would be forced to jump through many hoops to retrieve their pistol, it is a weeks if not months long process. Only recourse is to file civil lawsuit or file formal complaint.

Unfortunately, that is not the law. That's akin to stating that a cop can cite you for doing 40 miles per hour over the speed limit in your dining room. You can say it... but it's not going to happen that way.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Playing devil's advocate here. If I were the officer that took custody of said pistol during a traffic stop, it is handled differently than you may think. Now I am NOT saying I would do this nor would I be the one who asked for the pistol during the stop...just giving you an insite of what would actually happen. So, I take Mr X's pistol during a traffic stop, I run him, gun, and both come back negative, traffic stop is over. I approach driver with his pistol, driver's license, and registration. Driver takes license and registration but tells me "I refuse to take my pistol back." Ok, I then pull a case number and do a "property to property room" report. The report would document the traffic stop and that driver refused to take pistol back, forcing me to transport pistol to property room for safe keeping. That is it. No court, no judge. Sadly, here in Indy, the driver would be forced to jump through many hoops to retrieve their pistol, it is a weeks if not months long process. Only recourse is to file civil lawsuit or file formal complaint.

Denny, I read many posts on here espousing this strategy...have you ever seen or heard about any gun owner refusing to accept the return of their firearm as has been described previously? If so, is what you describe above what has actually happened?

Thanks

 

[Rookie]

It doesn't reinforce your argument. Armed AND dangerous. Not just armed.

 

[iChokePeople]

It doesn't reinforce your argument. Armed AND dangerous. Not just armed.

...and the legal bar for "dangerous" seems to be set pretty high in IC 35-47-14.

 

[Ted]

It doesn't reinforce your argument. Armed AND dangerous. Not just armed.

...and the legal bar for "dangerous" seems to be set pretty high in IC 35-47-14.

"Reasonable suspicion" of being "dangerous" is the standard for the officer, not probable cause. So yes, it does apply.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"Reasonable suspicion" of being "dangerous" is the standard for the officer, not probable cause. So yes, it does apply.

The officer would be completely wrong then