Stopped by Terre Haute PD for OC'ing -- On a Date!

[Hawkeye]

MK2JA, Sir, I salute you, I have been carrying, longer than you have been alive, and I'm not sure, how I would have handled it. I think you did just fine... There is nothing wrong with answering questions, remember,
LEO, can charge you with disorderly conduct, for almost any reason...
You, did not get a ticket, or a free ride, to jail... you came out ok... good
luck on the second date.....

+1 on the post and good luck on #2.

Hmm, maybe you could take her to the range and teach her to shoot? (Hey, we could have another debate about whether she can use your handgun at the range with you present and instructing her if she doesn't have a LTCH!)

 

[E5RANGER375]

this whole time you were being detained, did they ever notice the full size 1911 in the small of your back? LMAO

 

[jsharmon7]

I think you guys were too hard on Unit308. I mean he managed to rally everyone involved in this thread around a single cause: jumping his . It's good to see everyone working together on something around here.

 

[IndyMonkey]

It may be an endless conversation but with ingo having new members all the time it is a great learning post what is and isn't our right.

Sort of, anyway.

Just an observation here, but it does seem that the question of OC vs CC smacks of Bigendians vs. Littlleendians.

Look, we're all (for the most part, anyway) True Believers in RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, right? So why do we waste our energy in trying to antagonize each other instead of spreading the Gospel to the unwashed Heathens who would deny us any Right to Carry?

Let me relay a story to you. When I first got my Indiana handgun license, back in '90 or '91 and read through it and the law, I was kind of confused (and I'm a lawyer, new to Indiana and not admitted to the Indiana Bar). I had kind of presumed that what i was getting was a CC permit, but I didn't get that from the wording on the license, I think it came more from the distinction between the limited carry Hunting/target shooting permit and the "unlimited" carry or personal protection permit. I had gone for the latter on the sage advice of a retired IPD sergeant who was the head of our corporate security team.

So after much deliberation back in the pre-internet days, I called the ISP to ask about the OC vs CC question. The sergeant that I spoke with had a slightly exasperated, but very polite tone to her voice when she told me that, yes, indeed, my "PPP" would allow me to OC or CC anywhere in Indiana that it was legal to carry. She did add, that I would be less likely to be "hassled" if I CC'd. I understood her point and when I carry, unless its while hunting, 90+% of the time its CC. (I just don't carry often enough!)

It seems that Masaad Ayoob also takes this position in his writings on CC aas well.

Seems to me the whole OC vs CC debate smacks of divisiveness and antagonism that we, as INGO members should try to avoid.

Its kind of like the endless "debates" or "rants" over 9mm vs .45ACP (I'm in the latter camp) or .223 vs 7.62 (again in the latter camp). We can debate it endlessly, and probably will, but lets not lose solidarity or focus with internecine warfare!

 

[henktermaat]

I'll rep MK2JA when I can, and neg reps to the (cough) who thinks Indiana has a CCW.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have a tendency to agree with the THPD on this one and to disagree with Mr. Youngblood.
I have dealt with very similar situations over the years, so I speak from experience.
While carrying openly is legal (with a CCW Permit) it is not advisable.
Since Mr. Youngblood was at a venue where there were crowds all around, and since I doubt that he has been trained in weapons retention, I can see the possibility of someone coming up from behind him and "snatching" his handgun.
This young man probably has no inkling that there are prisoners in our institutions who compare notes and even rehearse how to snatch a handgun from a police officer's holster. He would be "easy pickings" for some of these types.
It has also been my experience that it is often the newly licensed who carry openly. Why? In my opinion it is because they like to "show off" and in many cases rather enjoy the attention/intimidation factor that carrying openly results in.
Mister Youngblood could have saved himself (and his date) a lot of time and embarrassment by simply concealing his handgun, but, judging from his numerous posts, I stand by my statement that he is enjoying the attention. It further sounds as if he was not embarrassed at all.
Oh, and for the record, officers can check for valid CCW permits. It is not unheard of that a CCW license has been revoked at the State level, so the mere possession of that little piece of pink paper is not indicative of the fact that the carrier of same has a clean and clear record.

And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?
Had that been myself who responded to this situation, and had I the City Ordinance to issue a citation, and had this young man argued with me at length, I would have.
The responding officers handled this situation very well and exercised what we refer to as "officer discretion".
And yes, the officers had every lawful right to ask this young man to unload and temporarily surrender his weapon. They had no idea of whom they were confronting.
Again, had that been myself, I would have not trusted this young man to even touch his weapon, much less remove the magazine. I would have asked him to raise his arms while I removed it and made it safe. You know...officer safety?

Hi and welcome to INGO.

Others have parsed your post and replied (most of them) with decorum and candor. All, however, have missed the near-final point on which you are so horribly mistaken: Those officers had the authority and the power to ask him to unload and surrender his pistol. They had no *right* to do anything of the sort. Authority and power come from the people, the source of government. Rights come from our Creator. Read your Declaration of Independence. (Linked here for your convenience)

After reading this post I paced around the kitchen for several minutes thinking of going through and debunking it sentence by sentence but on further reflection I decline to waste that much of my time on you.

You claim to be an officer of the law yet you misstate the law in referring to a CCW. You go on to insult someone that you don't know by referring to him repeatedly as "Mr. Youngblood". Why is that Barney? Do you feel threatened by Americans exercising their rights? Do you hate minorities and secretely desire to torture criminals? Are you against free speech? It doesn't feel good to have somebody make a bunch of unfair assumptions about you does it Barney?

"Do you feel threatened by Americans exercising their rights? Do you hate minorities and secretely desire to torture criminals?"

Garsh...you obviously did not pace around your kitchen floor long before deciding to jump to your daft conclusions.
Try cutting back on the caffeine..get some rest.
Take two aspirin and call it a night.

Are you now dispensing medical advice? Are you also a holder of an unlimited license to practice medicine in the state of Indiana? Forgive my sarcasm, please. Eddie was making some assumptions about you in a sarcastic tone as well, just as you did about the original poster (OP)

Yawn. As is all to frequent these days, there are those who will construe personal observations as being "attacks" when the comments fail to suit their fancy or line of thought.
I was merely looking at this much ballyhooed incident from the standpoint of a police officer who has been trained to hope for the best, while at the same time being prepared for the unexpected.
I stand by my observation that this young man was purposely calling attention to himself by openly carrying his weapon.
How many of you posters go to your local 7-Eleven with an openly carried handgun?
How many of you go to music fests with same?

My bottom line was, and IS, about officer safety. And the safety of the populace we are sworn to protect.

Curiosity: Why is "officer safety" any more important than anyone else's? You are no better nor worse person solely because of that shield (or star) on your chest, nor any more nor less deserving of safety, and the bottom line is that that pistol will ABSOLUTELY not have a negligent discharge by remaining in its holster. I recognize that officer safety is important to the officer, but speaking as objectively as possible, please explain why it should be more important than any other member of the general public who employ you. (and yes, I'm including you in the "taxpayers who employ you")

Do you really place officer security above the Constitution? Just as the police have no legal requirement to help the general public, the general public has no right to make police security their #1 priority. I will NEVER understand why police officers continue to disarm, handle and unload firearms from people NOT committing a crime in the name of "safety"!!!! It will always be safest in a holster.

ps... no one likes a troll

The converse of my first point, the general public has every right to make police security their #1 priority... they just do not have a responsibility nor a duty to do so.

Open carry seems to attract trouble. My fear is having weapon taken from me and ultimately used on me. I walk our pet with the grip of my 38 showing from my waistline due to the fact my shirt is tucked in and the looks I get are uncomfortable to say the least. my wife was attacked, bit and our pet on a leash died from the savage beating it took from a larger dog. I have two rounds of bird shot and 3 rounds of business in the 38 only to be used in dire straights as a swift kick a loud whistle are considered attempts in my book. rather keep the element of suprise on my side.

It sounds like you've given this a great deal of thought and concern, and rightfully so. I'm saddened by the loss of your pet and I agree with having more tools in your toolbox. Good choices. Open carry may not be for you, but it's good to have the option in your hands rather than taken from you by some politician in Indy or DC.

Exactly ! "Safety" (whether for the cop or for the public) is all too often the excuse of the "Gun Grabbers". My right to carry will make me safe.
And does local (city, town or county) ordnances overrule state law in regard to our gun rights. ?

Can you give me a reference for this ? I'm not doubting you but I have never read this and would like to.

Sure. Good on you for asking and double-checking facts! The IC on local regulation of firearms is here: Indiana Code 35-47-11 and if you click here: Indiana Code TITLE 35, Article 47 Table of Contents, you'll see much of the rest of the code on handguns as well.

Good discussion so far for the most part, folks. Job well done for those who've kept it civil.

And OP, we need of the young lady. This is non-negotiable.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rockhopper46038]

You know, in Terre Haute back in the day, after filling out the paper work for my first LTCH the sergeant told me the police chief wanted to talk to me. I thought I was going to get badgered about getting the license, since I was about 19 or so, but he asked me what I planned to carry, told me to get a box of Black Talons because that is what they used, and went through the Castle Doctrine with me. He was the guy who a few years later put a shot in the back of the head of a guy who had taken a woman hostage in his car. I never had any problems with OC in The Haute back then. Times change.

'Course there weren't any girls at Rose when I went, either, so not ALL change is bad!

Congrats on your encounter, congrats on graduating from Rose, and congrats on getting a second date!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can't believe the OP didn't give THE answer... the one with the absolute perfect opening.. I mean, this one is right up there with the joke about the rectum stretcher!

Cop: "Why are you carrying that? (indicating pistol)"

OP: "Because you guys're too heavy and tend to get upset when I try to pick you up on my shoulders!"

 

[Eddie]

In my mind I draw a parallel between the OC/CC debates and the old Loitering statutes.

A lot of the old Loitering laws had definitions like "to linger without a purpose". These laws were sometimes used as a means of selectively targeting an individual for some special attention by LEOs.

There was a man, I think a professor of law, (I've tried searching for the guy's name but I can't find it or remember it.) He would dress up like a "street person" and hang out in affluent neighborhoods and wait for the police to show up. He would carry a recorder and question them as to what he was doing wrong and why he was being arrested. He would later file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the stop.

I see being hassled while OCing as a very similar situation. The individual is doing nothing overtly wrong and is in fact exercising a right that is quaranteed to all Americans. The right is not supposed to be infringed on in any way, yet we hear tale after tale of people having their private property taken away, placed in handcuffs, detained, forced to lay down on the ground, all in the name of "officer safety".

It may be that OCers need to need to "push back" by challenging LEO's who exceed their authority. I often hear some form of "the police don't know if you are a good guy or a bad guy" to justify extreme forms of controlling people. I have no problem with officer safety when there is some kind of evidence that a crime is occuring but the simple action of being armed in a country that guarantees our right to be armed should never on its own be a reason to disarm someone.

 

[Colt556]

Wow this thing has taken off since I signed off at 3am this morning! First off I commend the OP for handling himself in a calm and mature manner. I'm not sure how I would have reacted after the cop tapped my weapon with his flashlight. Could that be considered an assault? I'm sure if I were to tap his weapon with a flashlight I'd have been tased, beaten, possibly shot and hauled to jail with a number of charges pending against me. Officer Safety is so much more important than my own safety you know. As for Unit308, well I have met LEOs like him and it has never been a very good experience. I try to do my best to stay away from those types but you never really know until you are talking with them. There are many fine officers on this board who seem to care about their profession and the rights of citizens. Unfortunately Unit308 doesn't seem to be one of them. I wonder where he patrols so I can stay away from that area.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In my mind I draw a parallel between the OC/CC debates and the old Loitering statutes.

A lot of the old Loitering laws had definitions like "to linger without a purpose". These laws were sometimes used as a means of selectively targeting an individual for some special attention by LEOs.

There was a man, I think a professor of law, (I've tried searching for the guy's name but I can't find it or remember it.) He would dress up like a "street person" and hang out in affluent neighborhoods and wait for the police to show up. He would carry a recorder and question them as to what he was doing wrong and why he was being arrested. He would later file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the stop.

I see being hassled while OCing as a very similar situation. The individual is doing nothing overtly wrong and is in fact exercising a right that is quaranteed to all Americans. The right is not supposed to be infringed on in any way, yet we hear tale after tale of people having their private property taken away, placed in handcuffs, detained, forced to lay down on the ground, all in the name of "officer safety".

It may be that OCers need to need to "push back" by challenging LEO's who exceed their authority. I often hear some form of "the police don't know if you are a good guy or a bad guy" to justify extreme forms of controlling people. I have no problem with officer safety when there is some kind of evidence that a crime is occuring but the simple action of being armed in a country that guarantees our right to be armed should never on its own be a reason to disarm someone.

^^ This ^^

However, the time to challenge it is not when you are standing in front of an LEO. The way to challenge it is not to become disorderly to the extent that they can then justify their actions by your bad behavior. And it's definately not to come commiserate on LEO bad behavior where nothing can be done about it.

The way to challange these types of intrusions is to record the event, then get an attorney to file an intent to sue letter with the city / county attorney, and push for either a consent decree that the city will stop thier LEOs from doing this, or a judgment against the city for the violation of your rights. You get enough judgments and the city will have to make a change.

The other thing that ought to happen is that LEOs that misbehave should lose their absolute immunity. If there are no consequences why should I modify my behavior?

In the end the only way this changes is if the local leadership tells LE to stop violating people's rights. The only way that is going to happen is if the electorate puts rights friendly leadership into position. And the only way that the electorate will do that is if voters feel more pain by allowing LE to run roughshod over individual rights than if they take on the entrenched mindset that one person's safety is more imporant than another's.

 

[cornfused]

I can't believe the OP didn't give THE answer... the one with the absolute perfect opening.. I mean, this one is right up there with the joke about the rectum stretcher!

Cop: "Why are you carrying that? (indicating pistol)"

OP: "Because you guys're too heavy and tend to get upset when I try to pick you up on my shoulders!"

Oh I would love to see an officer's face after being told this LOL!

I bet even he would have to chuckle...

 

[Demo]

Nope, I'm waiting for the "element of surprise."

You are killing me! LOL!!!

 

[johnb62]

I commend the way you handled this. No need to get smart or belligerent with the cops. It would just have gotten worse.

 

[RichardR]

I would hate to think what could have happened had the OP been trained in weapon retention & had reacted instinctively when he felt "someone" touch his weapon.

If he had, I am guessing that this incident would have ended very differently (ie tragically).

 

[downzero]

I wish these threads would stop.

 

[VUPDblue]

I wish these threads would stop.

why?

 

[Roadie]

(snip)
Since Mr. Youngblood was at a venue where there were crowds all around, and since I doubt that he has been trained in weapons retention, I can see the possibility of someone coming up from behind him and "snatching" his handgun.
(snip)

Since you disparaged the OPs amount of training...

How many hours of firearm training have YOU had this year?

 

[downzero]

why?

Because I really wish cops had even the slightest bit of respect for the fourth amendment. I really wish courts would interpret it more broadly, as well. That these threads are nearly a daily occurrence on this forum just makes me a little bit sick inside.

 

[VUPDblue]

Because I really wish cops had even the slightest bit of respect for the fourth amendment. I really wish courts would interpret it more broadly, as well. That these threads are nearly a daily occurrence on this forum just makes me a little bit sick inside.

First on, don't believe every single one of these threads. While I'm sure some are genuine, I'm equally sure that there are a couple fish stories in there as well.

Second, it has been shown that some (a lot probably) officers are not as brushed-up on Indiana's LTCH statutes as they should be. That is really a shame, and likely the biggest point of contention.

The fact that it is such an emotional issue doesn't do the conversations here a lot of good sometimes either