-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Video: Man Detained by Police for Legal OC at Valparaiso Rally 9/2/2009
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Dashman010
Plinker
I'm going to have to disagree. The Indiana Supreme Court has determined that you have a 14th Amendment protected property right in receiving a LTCH so long as you meet the statutory requirements. Just because something is qualified, doesn't mean it's not a right.
Second, while not decided, it is very likely that the 2nd Amendment protects open carry, even if you have to have a LTCH to exercise that right. Because it's likely a right, the qualifications couldn't be absurd -- for instance, they couldn't say you must be 6' tall to be able to carry a firearm.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Until we get a case analogous to Prouse, we will have this kind of police harrassment.
Until then, we need to document our encounters and make complaints.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (without individualized suspicion of an unlicensed or suspended driver, police may not stop a vehicle to check driver's license status).
Until then, we need to document our encounters and make complaints.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (without individualized suspicion of an unlicensed or suspended driver, police may not stop a vehicle to check driver's license status).
It's not a right if you have to have government permission to exercise it. Where's my LTT (License to Talk)? My License against illegal search and seizure? Nope. It's a privilege, as long as little pink, state required papers are required.
Dashman010
Plinker
Well, you're making what I refer to as "your" distinction of a privilege and a right, not a legal one. If you want to organize a protest in many places, you have to get a permit. Does that mean you don't have the right to free speech or assembly? Of course not, and the people issuing the permit cannot deny it for arbitrary reasons -- because IT IS a right. You have to undergo a background check before buying a firearm from a dealer. Does that mean you don't have a right to own a gun? No. It just means the right can be qualified or regulatd in a manner that does not seriously infringe that right.
It is a right which has been stolen by the government and turned into a privilege. And, just wait, you probably will have to get a license to talk. And when that happens, there will be some obedient slave saying that talking is a privilege too.
If I want to talk on the airwaves (radio and television) there is a license involved--maybe not mine, but somebody is actually licensed to provide that service*. If I want to "peaceably assemble" on public streets, there is a license involved (not to "assemble" but to use that venue to do so).
(* There are certain limited radio bands and situations where no license is required, or where the "license" is subsumed in buying the equipment and, as such, is generally "invisible" to the end user. Nevertheless, there are plenty of avenues for "talk" that require licenses.)
So we've got two situations:
Either, a "right" is only a right if no one, anywhere can ever have it circumscribed. In which case there are no rights, there never have been, and quite probably never will be, since there will always be someone, somewhere, with the power to say "no" in at least some circumstances for any "right" one cares to name. (Right to life? Take the archetypical "him or me" situation. One of us is going to tell the other "no" and take away his "right to life.")
Rights can exist even in a situation where some people, in some circumstances, can say "no" to it. If this is the latter, then the question really becomes at what point does the ability of someone to say "no" mean that it stops being a right? The mere fact that someone, somewhere, has that ability is no longer sufficient to say that something is not a right.
Going back to the Constitution, the government is given the power to deprive an individual of "life, liberty, or property" so long as it is via "due process of law." Only a few very diehard individuals would claim that this provision means that life (at the least) is a "right" under the Constitution. And yet the government has the power to take it away given sufficient circumstances.
When it comes to the LTCH, you might consider what that piece of paper says. Basically, it's the result of a background check to determine that you are not someone who has lost the exercise of that right via due process. One could argue that either the prior requirement (have to get that document before carrying rather than having the position presumed and having the government prove otherwise) or the need to pay for that document or the combination of both moves it across the line from "right" to "privilege" but that line is neither as sharp nor as clearly placed as some would claim.
Quibbling over exactly where that line is placed is not particularly helpful.
(* There are certain limited radio bands and situations where no license is required, or where the "license" is subsumed in buying the equipment and, as such, is generally "invisible" to the end user. Nevertheless, there are plenty of avenues for "talk" that require licenses.)
So we've got two situations:
Either, a "right" is only a right if no one, anywhere can ever have it circumscribed. In which case there are no rights, there never have been, and quite probably never will be, since there will always be someone, somewhere, with the power to say "no" in at least some circumstances for any "right" one cares to name. (Right to life? Take the archetypical "him or me" situation. One of us is going to tell the other "no" and take away his "right to life.")
Rights can exist even in a situation where some people, in some circumstances, can say "no" to it. If this is the latter, then the question really becomes at what point does the ability of someone to say "no" mean that it stops being a right? The mere fact that someone, somewhere, has that ability is no longer sufficient to say that something is not a right.
Going back to the Constitution, the government is given the power to deprive an individual of "life, liberty, or property" so long as it is via "due process of law." Only a few very diehard individuals would claim that this provision means that life (at the least) is a "right" under the Constitution. And yet the government has the power to take it away given sufficient circumstances.
When it comes to the LTCH, you might consider what that piece of paper says. Basically, it's the result of a background check to determine that you are not someone who has lost the exercise of that right via due process. One could argue that either the prior requirement (have to get that document before carrying rather than having the position presumed and having the government prove otherwise) or the need to pay for that document or the combination of both moves it across the line from "right" to "privilege" but that line is neither as sharp nor as clearly placed as some would claim.
Quibbling over exactly where that line is placed is not particularly helpful.
Michael Brickner - mbrickner@valpopd.com
Awesome letter. I'll be writing one of my own asap.
We all need to.
Awesome letter. I'll be writing one of my own asap.
We all need to.
2ADMNLOVER
Grandmaster
Well written ! 
Good letter, great idea putting the video in. The cop was heavy handed at first and gave a lot of advice he did not need to give.
BloodEclipse
Grandmaster
Are you asking if a Court has ruled it legal?
Have the courts ruled if it legal to carry a tuba?
There has to be a law in place against something before it can be deemed illegal.
Laws make things illegal, not legal.
Laws make things both illegal and legal. The law makes it illegal to have a BAC of .08, which means it is legal to driver a vehicle and have a BAC of under .08.
My main issue is this, Indiana law states:
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.
The law also goes on to state:
IC 35-47-2-2 Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by him in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business;
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in his possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business; or
(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.
The issue I have is this:
A person calls about a "person with a gun." They don't remain anonymous, they give a great description. An LEO sees a person matching the description, sees the gun in plain sight. Does the LEO have a right to detain the person to investigate a violation of IC 35-47-2-1? The issue is that an LEO can't tell by looking at someone if the person with gun has "a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession." Nor can an LEO tell just by looking at someone if the person fits one of those "excepted persons" categories either. So, does an LEO have a right to investigate for a possible violation of IC 35-47-2-1 if they see a person with a gun? Yes, any LEO can go up to any person in public and start a conversation, what I am getting at is that does the mere possession of a handgun in plain view lead to enough reasonable suspicion to stop and detain a person?
I really wish a court would answer this as it responds to Indiana law. I know that officers can't just stop a person driving a car to check to see if they are licensed. I am not sure why this is, as it is against the law to drive without a license and a license isn't something a person is born with and officers can't just tell by looking at someone if they have a license. My assumption here is that decades ago, some court ruled somewhere that, for whatever reason, the mere fact a person is driving upon a public roadway isn't enough to detain that person to see if they are licensed, that the person needs to commit some crime or infraction before they can be legally stopped. If one uses the license example, then LEOs can't stop anyone just carrying a gun, even though the person may be doing so in violation of the law.
That leads me to this: Why should LEOs get more leeway to stop people if they are doing other acts? Say they get a call from a passerby who says a man is taking a baseball bat to a vehicle, busting out all the windows. On the face of that, we may have criminal mischief:
IC 35-43-1-2 Criminal mischief; penalties
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent; or
(2) knowingly or intentionally causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or by an expression of intention to injure another person or to damage the property or to impair the rights of another person;
commits criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(A) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(i) the pecuniary loss is at least two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500);
(ii) the property damaged was a moving motor vehicle;
But look at the language of the law: The vehicle would have to be the property of "another person" _and_ the vehicle owner would have had to not given consent for the man to destroy his vehicle. In cases like this, usually the person doing the damage is doing so because they don't like the vehicle owner. However, how can an officer be justified in stopping someone without:
#1: Not knowing if the man destroying the car is or isn't the owner?
#2: Not knowing if the owner of the vehicle has or hasn't given consent to destroy the car?
Unless the vehicle owner calls the police, and states that the man causing the damage isn't the owner _and_ that they never gave consent, how the cops be justified in stopping someone just hitting a car with a baseball bat?
These are the issues I wish courts would resolve now instead of later, but I guess it takes a court case before they will rule anything. To me, if an officer can't stop someone for merely walking around displaying a handgun, how they can stop someone for merely knocking out windows of a vehicle if that is _all_ the information they have at that time? How can they stop someone who they see crawling out or your home's window if that is all they have? The cops don't know if the person crawling out the window lives or owns that home? Should they just let these people continue on their business and wait for the victims to finally report that in fact a crime has occurred? If numerous people call in a man with a gun and the cops don't/can't do anything, the cops are not liable if the man then pulls the gun and starts shooting people...right? No "failure to protect" lawsuits can arise from that...right?
Indy -
An officer approaches a man, asks to see his LTCH, confirms the information on the LTCH, is acceptable, and within the scope of the law, although a tedious process for both parties.
An officer approaches a man, guides him (through physical or verbal instruction) into custody (aka detainment), treats the man as if he has committed a crime, seizes any item from him as a result of a pat down/weapon un-holstering, and then confirms the information on his LTCH, is unacceptable.
Is it acceptable reason to believe that any given person OC'ing in Indiana does not have a LTCH? Yes, how it stands now. This is what needs to change.
An officer approaches a man, asks to see his LTCH, confirms the information on the LTCH, is acceptable, and within the scope of the law, although a tedious process for both parties.
An officer approaches a man, guides him (through physical or verbal instruction) into custody (aka detainment), treats the man as if he has committed a crime, seizes any item from him as a result of a pat down/weapon un-holstering, and then confirms the information on his LTCH, is unacceptable.
Is it acceptable reason to believe that any given person OC'ing in Indiana does not have a LTCH? Yes, how it stands now. This is what needs to change.
Site Supporter
Members online
- WhitleyStu
- bgarman47
- papa6x
- DoggyDaddy
- ComeJesuscome
- Revolvers&w1966
- EODFXSTI
- BR8818
- Creedmoor
- snorko
- wtfd661
- gassprint1
- Wanderer
- 1775usmarine
- Steve
- Steel and wood
- SEIndSAM
- morve80
- FNparabellum
- mcapo
- Hillbilly
- dboz
- RapidRounds
- 10mm
- JimH
- INPatriot
- HoosierHunter07
- mgdiaz1993
- Michigan Slim
- Demoderb1989
- wesnellans
- snapping turtle
- jbm1521
- pewpew2232
- Tomahawkman
- Benjamin
- indyblue
- jocro
- squeals99
- racr28
- radar8756
- Devilpig