Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[Hammerhead]

All this quoting is defeating my ignore feature.

Jake is one of those that is either a LEO of the same ilk that give other LEOs a bad name, a wannabe LEO or a holster sniffer that hangs on the line that LEOs is right even when they're wrong.

Even when refuted with facts and laws and proof that LEOs don't do their jobs properly at times, Jake sticks to his guns, so to speak.

Bless his heart.

 

[CX1]

Even when refuted with facts and laws and proof that LEOs don't do their jobs properly at times, Jake sticks to his guns, so to speak.

Bless his heart.

Maybe he does it as a parody on those that that insist that LEO's never do their jobs properly even when refuted with facts laws and proof.

 

[ATM]

A riddle;
What looks like a puppet and smells like a sock?

Well, this should be good...

 

[bigus_D]

If the story went down exactly as described, the cops were clearly in the wrong. Trouble is, the story stinks of BS. Who keeps an AR in an open jeep, locked in a rack, but also unlocks it and moves it to the seat each time he jumps in? SERIOUSLY!?! All the while en route to work. Unless you live/work in a war zone, this behavior smells like crazy pants.

If he actually transports his ar like this (in and out of a gun rack at each stop) he probably exhibits some other esoteric behaviors that would probably be enough to make anybody uncomfortable with his possession of firearms. maybe his behavior is strange enough to warrant the "reach in and grab". In that case +1 cops.

More likely than not this either never happened or the AR stayed unlocked in the open jeep whilst the OP went to buy some smokes. In the second case, old boy shouldn't have guns anyhow.

I can't believe nobody else is asking this question???

 

[JetGirl]

Well, this should be good...

No, no, no... that's a sock MONKEY. Totally different.
Sock monkeys are not puppets. They are...well... SOCKS.

Sock PUPPETS are a whole different animal;

Learn the difference. Live the difference.
BE the difference.

 

[Mustang380gal]

Okay, I have read more than half of this thread and am seriously confused.

In Ohio, police are allowed to take a firearm for the duration of the stop and return it in the same condition as it was removed. There had been some LEO field stripping firearms, and returning them in baggies. It's not supposed to happen that way now.

We also are required to notify that we are carrying when we are "stopped for a law enforcement purpose".

By Ohio standards, what the LEO did, while not perfectly done perhaps, was legal.

So are LEO in IN allowed to take firearms for the duration? What about the 3 week thing? Do I have to notify or not?

I'll be in IN next week, and will have the info from handgunlaw.us dutifully printed up so I do not run afoul of your laws, but now I am concerned and confused. I'd hate for a first stop in 20 years to be muddled up by my carrying a firearm or two.

 

[jeremy]

Okay, I have read more than half of this thread and am seriously confused.

In Ohio, police are allowed to take a firearm for the duration of the stop and return it in the same condition as it was removed. There had been some LEO field stripping firearms, and returning them in baggies. It's not supposed to happen that way now.

We also are required to notify that we are carrying when we are "stopped for a law enforcement purpose".

By Ohio standards, what the LEO did, while not perfectly done perhaps, was legal.

So are LEO in IN allowed to take firearms for the duration? What about the 3 week thing? Do I have to notify or not?

I'll be in IN next week, and will have the info from handgunlaw.us dutifully printed up so I do not run afoul of your laws, but now I am concerned and confused. I'd hate for a first stop in 20 years to be muddled up by my carrying a firearm or two.

Indiana...

NO Duty to Inform, you may if you want to. But, it is not a requirement.

3 week thing?!
-Not sure what you are referring to...

LEO Allowed to take you weapon during a stop!?
No they are not allowed to legally/Lawfully to take your weapon during a stop. Without RAS or PC anyway...

 

[Mustang380gal]

Early in the thread, someone said that LEO couldn't return a firearm on the spot, that they had to issue a receipt and the firearm could be picked up in three weeks after they explained why they took it.

 

[jeremy]

Early in the thread, someone said that LEO couldn't return a firearm on the spot, that they had to issue a receipt and the firearm could be picked up in three weeks after they explained why they took it.

If you are wanting to be an Ass to the LEO, if he seizes your weapon during the stop, you can refuse to have him return it to you. By doing this, he must go before a Judge in Court and articulate why he believed you to be a Dangerous Person requiring Seizure of your weapons for his safety...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Okay, I have read more than half of this thread and am seriously confused.

In Ohio, police are allowed to take a firearm for the duration of the stop and return it in the same condition as it was removed. There had been some LEO field stripping firearms, and returning them in baggies. It's not supposed to happen that way now.

We also are required to notify that we are carrying when we are "stopped for a law enforcement purpose".

By Ohio standards, what the LEO did, while not perfectly done perhaps, was legal.

So are LEO in IN allowed to take firearms for the duration? What about the 3 week thing? Do I have to notify or not?

I'll be in IN next week, and will have the info from handgunlaw.us dutifully printed up so I do not run afoul of your laws, but now I am concerned and confused. I'd hate for a first stop in 20 years to be muddled up by my carrying a firearm or two.

I may very well be wrong, but I thought that if you were from out of state and in Indiana you had to abide by the rules of your States Permit/License

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I may very well be wrong, but I thought that if you were from out of state and in Indiana you had to abide by the rules of your States Permit/License

You are quoting a misconception the state police have in the issuance of CONCEALED carry permits not allowing Open Carry here.

Someone carrying under reciprocity has to abide by Indiana laws only.

 

[Mustang380gal]

If you are wanting to be an Ass to the LEO, if he seizes your weapon during the stop, you can refuse to have him return it to you. By doing this, he must go before a Judge in Court and articulate why he believed you to be a Dangerous Person requiring Seizure of your weapons for his safety...

Oh, okay. Since I have no intention to be an ass, then I have no worries. (I hope!)

 

[Bunnykid68]

You are quoting a misconception the state police have in the issuance of CONCEALED carry permits not allowing Open Carry here.

Someone carrying under reciprocity has to abide by Indiana laws only.

Thanks buddy, I never followed up on that rumor so I wanted to throw it out there.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Thanks buddy, I never followed up on that rumor so I wanted to throw it out there.

No problem, just your personal Encyclopedia Botanical hard at work

 

[KG1]

I know that when I travel to Ohio I have to follow their laws concerning firearm carry and I have a duty to inform immediately among other things.

It's works the same way for someone traveling to Indiana.

 

[JetGirl]

Who keeps an AR in an open jeep, locked in a rack, but also unlocks it and moves it to the seat each time he jumps in? SERIOUSLY!?!

I'm one of those woefully misguided people still waiting on the non-existent (probably) photos of the rig.

 

[Jack Burton]

Go have another drink of Kool Aid with your buddy, Jack.

really is the best ted can do, eh

 

[88GT]

No problem, just your personal Encyclopedia Botanical hard at work

Plants?

 

[KG1]

Plants?

He's a garden of knowledge.

 

[Jack Burton]

My...my.... here's a decision just handed down by an appeals court in New York that overturned a conviction on a teen illegally carrying a firearm...

“The arresting officer’s own testimony clearly established that he did not have any reasonable suspicion that appellant was involved in a crime before he searched appellant,” Judge Tom wrote. That means, he wrote, that “the subsequent search lacks a lawful foundation...Vague concerns about age and gender, presence in a bad neighborhood and nervousness upon being confronted, all fall short of a reasonable suspicion that appellant personally presented ‘an actual and specific danger to the officer’s safety.’”

Court Tosses Teen

So much for "totality" of circumstances, eh...