Video: Man Detained by Police for Legal OC at Valparaiso Rally 9/2/2009

[Indy317]

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.

I am not talking about just approaching and asking and everyone getting along. My question is, using your example, what if the person says "No." Is it then acceptable, to the courts, not personal opinions here, that an LEO then has the right to detain the person to start an investigation into the violation of state law dealing with the possession of handguns?

I know, some folks are wondering "Who would say "No."" Well, there have been threads/posts by OCers who claim LEOs shouldn't even engage the person, as they are doing nothing wrong and OCing is legal with the permit. Well, again, LEOs can't tell by looking at someone if they have a permit or not. So should LEOs just ignore people carrying handguns altogether, and when citizens call 911 should they be told there is nothing an LEO can do until the person commits a crime?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

. So should LEOs just ignore people carrying handguns altogether, and when citizens call 911 should they be told there is nothing an LEO can do until the person commits a crime?

Absolutely. Carrying a gun isn't a crime, nor an automatic ticket for cops to treat us as criminals absent RAS that a crime has been committed, and we committed it. So say the courts, and anybody committed to the ideals of freedom and our Constitution.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Not to jump on anyone here.

Would you pull someone over because they are driving? Well within the law, however it does require the license.

"I pulled you over because you were legally driving on the road. Can I see your license and registration?"

 

[melensdad]

"I pulled you over because you were legally driving on the road. Can I see your license and registration?"

Excellent analogy.

There seems to be ample evidence in many other facets of law that require some form of probable cause. Logically they should apply equally to gun rights.

 

[dburkhead]

So should LEOs just ignore people carrying handguns altogether, and when citizens call 911 should they be told there is nothing an LEO can do until the person commits a crime?

I keep hearing from police officers that they just enforce the law, they don't make it. So why in the world would that not work both ways?

How likely is it, really, that a person who is open carrying doesn't have a license? If people are going to illegally carry, they're generally going to hide it. I suspect that a person OC'ing in Indiana is no more likely to not have a license than a person driving is to not have a drivers' license. The only difference is that people are more used to seeing people driving than people OC'ing.

What would your response be if people started calling in about "man with car" on the grounds that the person might not have a license? I suspect you'd give such calls pretty short shrift.

I have no problem with a LEO asking me for my license if he happens to see my OC'ing (or even sees me printing when cc'ing--more so in the latter actually), but do you really want to be used as a tool to harass law abiding citizens who are simply exercising their right to carry openly?

How about this:
"Officer, there's a man carrying a gun here!"
"Is he threatening anyone, or otherwise breaking the law?"
"He's carrying a gun!"
"Sir, if he has a license, then unless he's pointing it at people or threatening them, it's perfectly legal to have a gun."
"Um . . . ah! maybe he doesn't have a license."
"Sir, in Indiana about one adult in ten has a license to carry handgun."
"But, ah . . . ."
"Sir, I can have an officer swing by to ask him to present his license, but unless he commits a crime, that's all I can do. If he's on your property, you can ask him to leave and if he doesn't, that's trespass and he can be charged with that. Will there be anything else?"
"Uh . . . no, I don't think so."
"Thank you very much for calling."

 

[Ness2k]

I am not talking about just approaching and asking and everyone getting along. My question is, using your example, what if the person says "No." Is it then acceptable, to the courts, not personal opinions here, that an LEO then has the right to detain the person to start an investigation into the violation of state law dealing with the possession of handguns?

Yes, it's acceptable to the courts to to arrest someone who cannot or refuse to produce proof of their LTCH.

I can't think of any "just checking your LTCH" situation where an officer would be required by law to seize your weapon, which is what some of the OC'ers are saying "No" to. I would say "Sorry, my firearm is safer in my holster, and I don't consent to your seizure of my property. Am I free to go, now that you have checked my LTCH?"

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.

 

[Roadie]

Not to jump on anyone here.

Would you pull someone over because they are driving? Well within the law, however it does require the license.

"I pulled you over because you were legally driving on the road. Can I see your license and registration?"

EXACTLY what I was going to post.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'd love to know how many people that OC with a holstered weapon have been arrested for not having a LTCH .

Maybe I'm naive but I'm thinking if a guy's OCing then he's got a LTCH or he's just stupid . Ok , he might not know what the law says about it .

 

[Newbomb92]

You had the perfect opportunity to twist your arm while you held the camera and fall to the ground, EXCESSIVE FORCE!

I guess be glad it didn't escalate, however it should have NEVER happened in the first place!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

"So should LEOs just ignore people carrying handguns altogether, and when citizens call 911 should they be told there is nothing an LEO can do until the person commits a crime?"

Speaking as a retired law enforcement command officer, yes, that is EXACTLY what a citizen should be told.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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?

No. At least, I would argue no as such a stop is analogous to Delaware v. Prouse (police officer may not stop a motorist to check to see if they are licensed or whether license was valid unless infraction transpiring or individualized suspicion). However, I have not had my chance yet (I let the Broad Ripple fracas go with admin procedures). I'll keep at it.

The solution is obvious, we need to start carrying long guns, thus there can be no basis for police involvement.

 

[BloodEclipse]

No. At least, I would argue no as such a stop is analogous to Delaware v. Prouse (police officer may not stop a motorist to check to see if they are licensed or whether license was valid unless infraction transpiring or individualized suspicion). However, I have not had my chance yet (I let the Broad Ripple fracas go with admin procedures). I'll keep at it.

The solution is obvious, we need to start carrying long guns, thus there can be no basis for police involvement.

I like the way you think

 

[Indy317]

Absolutely. Carrying a gun isn't a crime, nor an automatic ticket for cops to treat us as criminals absent RAS that a crime has been committed, and we committed it. So say the courts, and anybody committed to the ideals of freedom and our Constitution.

Ugh, carrying a handgun is a crime in Indiana, unless you meet specific criteria. There are plenty of people that have been, and are now, in jail for carrying a handgun without a license. So since carrying a handgun can be a crime in certain circumstances, is more needed for reasonable suspicion? Also, what court cases say this? I want to read the rulings.

How likely is it, really, that a person who is open carrying doesn't have a license? If people are going to illegally carry, they're generally going to hide it. I suspect that a person OC'ing in Indiana is no more likely to not have a license than a person driving is to not have a drivers' license. The only difference is that people are more used to seeing people driving than people OC'ing.

I have no problem with a LEO asking me for my license if he happens to see my OC'ing (or even sees me printing when cc'ing--more so in the latter actually), but do you really want to be used as a tool to harass law abiding citizens who are simply exercising their right to carry openly?

I totally agree on the driving comparison, but I also believe that at some time in the past, a court made a ruling which is why cops just can't pull people open to check to make sure they are not violating the Indiana law that states one must have a license. This is pretty much how things work. A law is written, vague or otherwise, and once it is enforced, courts rule on if there was reasonable suspicion, if the law is unconstitutional, etc..

While you may want to assume everyone with a holstered gun on display has a permit, what if the person doesn't? I am not worried about the person walking around with a visible gun personally, the only issues/questions to me are:
#1: If citizens complain, and I do nothing, will I get sued if that person then pulls that gun and starts blasting away people five minutes from now?
#2: If citizens complain and I do engage the person, if they refuse to answer any questions or show me a permit, then what? If I let them go on their way, will I be sued for not arresting them for carrying w/o a permit if they go down the street, shoot people, and it is discovered they didnt' have a permit?

I know, not likely to happen and I agree. To me, there seems to be this big push for people to OC. It is legal, which is fine by me, but I want to be covered and protected by court rulings that specifically say what officers can and can't do when citizens and/or officers see someone in public displaying a handgun. I don't "want to be used as a tool to harass law abiding citizens who are simply exercising their right to carry openly," but on Earth can an LEO tell if a person walking around with a gun is legal?

Now lets throw something else into the mix. What a person with a permit decides they are just going to hold their hand in their gun, barrel pointed down, while they go for a walk, or maybe go and return a DVD or pick-up a small item that was delivered to a store. Do you folks think that changes anything? I mean all we have here is a person with a gun in their hand, barrel pointed down, not at someone, with a license.

Yes, it's acceptable to the courts to to arrest someone who cannot or refuse to produce proof of their LTCH.

I am going to use Google to try to find these cases, but if you have them I would like to know the names. Thanks.

No. At least, I would argue no as such a stop is analogous to Delaware v. Prouse (police officer may not stop a motorist to check to see if they are licensed or whether license was valid unless infraction transpiring or individualized suspicion). However, I have not had my chance yet (I let the Broad Ripple fracas go with admin procedures). I'll keep at it.

The solution is obvious, we need to start carrying long guns, thus there can be no basis for police involvement.

Thanks for that Delaware case Kirk. Just for information, this case was from 1979. This is why most newer LEOs just _know_ that you can't spot check folks to see if they are complying with the driver's license law, it is now ingrained in the psyche of LE. It is just _known_ law. I am telling you all that it is not well known law to LEOs if they can legally detain someone to check for a license to carry (or if the person is an off-duty LEO, or a member of the national guard on-duty, etc.). Hell, some LEOs still think it is a license to carry a _concealed_ weapon. I have to them correct them on that and show them mine!

 

[Jack Ryan]

Not to jump on anyone here.

Would you pull someone over because they are driving? Well within the law, however it does require the license.

"I pulled you over because you were legally driving on the road. Can I see your license and registration?"

That's what warning tickets are for.

They give you a warning for the license plate light, cracked tail light, noise violation, what ever, then they get the chance to nose through everything in sight, run your plates and ask to search what they can't see.

Any refusal is a sure sign in cop land you have something to hide they should know about, even if they need a warrant to search inside your bladder for it.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'd love to know how many people that OC with a holstered weapon have been arrested for not having a LTCH .

Maybe I'm naive but I'm thinking if a guy's OCing then he's got a LTCH or he's just stupid . Ok , he might not know what the law says about it .

You should say that didn't have one period. Disclude those who HAD a license but didn't know it was expired. Probably can't do that, but I can guarantee it's happened like that before.

No. At least, I would argue no as such a stop is analogous to Delaware v. Prouse (police officer may not stop a motorist to check to see if they are licensed or whether license was valid unless infraction transpiring or individualized suspicion). However, I have not had my chance yet (I let the Broad Ripple fracas go with admin procedures). I'll keep at it.

The solution is obvious, we need to start carrying long guns, thus there can be no basis for police involvement.

The problem is there are so many traffic laws there's no way to drive down the road to my local Walmart without breaking at least one. Thank God it's not the same with firearms. Yet.

That's what warning tickets are for.

They give you a warning for the license plate light, cracked tail light, noise violation, what ever, then they get the chance to nose through everything in sight, run your plates and ask to search what they can't see.

Any refusal is a sure sign in cop land you have something to hide they should know about, even if they need a warrant to search inside your bladder for it.

Just because you commit an infraction or ordinance violation doesn't give them rights to search you or your car. Unless it's an arrestable offense they have no right to search you or your car. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand the law.

 

[55spartan]

a few good lawsuits on this would get the police educated very quick!!!!!

 

[sporter]

I can understand asking for his permit, his id etc.

After those 2 requests have been satisfied they should have let him go.
Anymore than that is pure harassment and intimidation.

+1 Meddigo for handling it well and keeping your cool.

We need a big OC demonstration in this state.

 

[SavageEagle]

I can understand asking for his permit, his id etc.

After those 2 requests have been satisfied they should have let him go.
Anymore than that is pure harassment and intimidation.

+1 Meddigo for handling it well and keeping your cool.

We need a big OC demonstration in this state.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...c_event_in_indy_stand_up_for_your_rights.html

Plus one in Valpo was thought to be in the works too.

 

[Joe Williams]

a few good lawsuits on this would get the police educated very quick!!!!!

That tactic has produced VERY positive results in PA!

 

[AFA1CY]

I can understand asking for his permit, his id etc.

After those 2 requests have been satisfied they should have let him go.
Anymore than that is pure harassment and intimidation.

+1 Meddigo for handling it well and keeping your cool.

We need a big OC demonstration in this state.

I vood like to zee your papers pleeaz....

So are the police going to stop people to see if they have a driver's license. After all more people are killed by car accidents then by guns.