what are my rights when I'm carrying a firearm?

[jbombelli]

Sigh wasn't really necessary. I was looking more for case law than code. Additionally, you'll note that the post I quoted claimed we are automatically in violation of the law until we prove that we are not. That is not how the code reads. It only states the burden of proof falls on us. To claim we are guilty until we show our LTCH is a bit drastic.

Looks like something we need to get changed.

You aren't going to find case law because once you produce the LTCH they will let you go and are required to destroy all the records of the arrest and everything. All you'll find in case law is people convicted for carrying a handgun without a license.

So I'm a criminal until I find a LEO to show my LTCH to? That is not how the code reads.

As it stands, it is a crime to carry a handgun in Indiana. Unless you are exempt from that section of code, and further it is up to YOU to prove you're exempt. That is how the law reads. If a cop doesn't ask you, don't worry about it. If he does, then show it or be prepared to take a ride.

 

[mbills2223]

I think what they mean is, if a leo asked to see your ltch your breaking the law until you show it to them. As if you can't show it your breaking the law, if you can your obeying the law

So we are throwing out the foundation truth that we are "innocent until proven guilty" with this code? The way some are interpreting the code, we are all walking around literally guilty of a crime, we are criminals, until we show a LEO our LTCH. I understand the code much differently. If a LEO sees a weapon, they can make a reasonable assumption (under this code) that we MAY be in violation of the law, and they can legally ask for verification that we are not. That's akin to saying that anyone driving a car is guilty of a crime until they are pulled over and show their license, registration and proof of insurance. Maybe I'm being petty over semantics, but I'd rather not have those carrying guns legally called criminals. With the above interpretations from others, we are carrying illegally while carrying legally.

You aren't going to find case law because once you produce the LTCH they will let you go and are required to destroy all the records of the arrest and everything. All you'll find in case law is people convicted for carrying a handgun without a license.

Exactly. Which means we are NOT guilty of ANYTHING when carrying with an LTCH, even before showing our LTCH to law enforcement.

 

[VUPDblue]

So I'm a criminal until I find a LEO to show my LTCH to? That is not how the code reads.

The fact that you have the license exempts you from the code against carrying. You are subject to arrest under the RAS that you are breaking the law if you refuse to prove that you are exempt.

I think what they mean is, if a leo asked to see your ltch your breaking the law until you show it to them. If you can't show your ltch your breaking the law, if you can your obeying the law

This ^^^^

 

[mbills2223]

The fact that you have the license exempts you from the code against carrying. You are subject to arrest under the RAS that you are breaking the law if you refuse to prove that you are exempt.

This ^^^^

It's not really a facepalm thing. You insinuated that I was in fact guilty of a crime until I produced my LTCH. That is NOT the case. That would mean anyone carrying a handgun with an LTCH that was NOT stopped by law enforcement is guilty of a crime.

It's a distinction worth making. I'm not arguing that we don't have to produce LTCH, I'm only arguing when we become a guilty party in the process.

 

[Bill B]

Ahh, semantics, gotta love'em

 

[public servant]

I'm being petty over semantics

Agreed.

Want to argue "permit" vs "license" now?

 

[mbills2223]

You aren't going to find case law because once you produce the LTCH they will let you go and are required to destroy all the records of the arrest and everything. All you'll find in case law is people convicted for carrying a handgun without a license.



As it stands, it is a crime to carry a handgun in Indiana. Unless you are exempt from that section of code, and further it is up to YOU to prove you're exempt. That is how the law reads. If a cop doesn't ask you, don't worry about it. If he does, then show it or be prepared to take a ride.

I've never once claimed we do not have to show LTCH, but we aren't guilty prior to doing so.

Ahh, semantics, gotta love'em

Indeed, they are very important in law. Ask John Roberts about the ACA "tax."

Agreed.

Want to argue "permit" vs "license" now?

Another important distinction, but we will save that for some n00bs thread calling it a permit.

 

[actaeon277]

I think what they mean is....
If you were innocent till proven guilty, they would have to provide some justification to ask to see your LTCH. But they don't.

 

[mbills2223]

I think what they mean is....
If you were innocent till proven guilty, they would have to provide some justification to ask to see your LTCH. But they don't.

I'm not doubting that they don't need justification, other than seeing a gun, to ask for LTCH, but they implied previously that one is guilty of a crime UNTIL showing an LTCH.

 

[MikeDVB]

So I'm a criminal until I find a LEO to show my LTCH to? That is not how the code reads.

You're only a criminal if you're caught and you have no reasonable defense. The LTCH is a reasonable [and the only, that I am aware of,] defense to the charge of 'carrying without a license' short of being a sworn officer.

 

[mbills2223]

You're only a criminal if you're caught and you have no reasonable defense.

Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

 

[Micah]

Personally I am glad to see officers asking to see your LTCH. My taxs pay them to keep my family safe. If it takes 1 minute for a person to show them a LTCH then I am fine with that. At least they are watching.

Now with that being said, there is a right way and a wrong way of doing everything. That goes for both parties. A cop being an @$$ to a legal gun owner is just as rediculous as a person with a LTCH being an @$$ to a cop for doing his job.

 

[MikeDVB]

I'm not doubting that they don't need justification, other than seeing a gun, to ask for LTCH, but they implied previously that one is guilty of a crime UNTIL showing an LTCH.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[mbills2223]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The implications are not nearly the same.

 

[VUPDblue]

to ask for LTCH, but they implied previously that one is guilty of a crime UNTIL showing an LTCH.

there is RAS that you are guilty of a crime until you show LTCH. you may not actually be guilty but you can still get locked up if you don't cooperate.

 

[public servant]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

No, it makes no noise.

That's why it smashes and kills the bear that was taking a **** in the woods.

Poor bastard never heard it coming.

 

[MikeDVB]

Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

Whether or not you're labeled a criminal has little to do with whether or not you've broken a law, and it has very much so to do with whether been convicted of violating the law. (As I understand it, I'm not a lawyer. The term 'criminal' may or may not be codified - I did not look).

That said, it is illegal to carry a firearm without a license and doing so would, in fact, make you a criminal if an officer stopped you to ask for your license to carry and you were not licensed. Until you're stopped, you're most certainly violating the law, but I wouldn't necessarily say you were a criminal.

I think we're into semantics at this point and whether one considers somebody who's violated the law but not been convicted a criminal or not.

 

[mbills2223]

there is RAS that you are guilty of a crime until you show LTCH. you may not actually be guilty but you can still get locked up if you don't cooperate.

RAS that one is guilty does not make one guilty. I know that when asked we must produce LTCH, certianly not arguing that. I just take issue with labeling people as guilty (as in actually in violation of law) when carrying WITH an LTCH.

Whether or not you're labeled a criminal has little to do with whether or not you've broken a law, and it has very much so to do with whether been convicted of violating the law. (As I understand it, I'm not a lawyer. The term 'criminal' may or may not be codified - I did not look).

That said, it is illegal to carry a firearm without a license and doing so would, in fact, make you a criminal if an officer stopped you to ask for your license to carry and you were not licensed. Until you're stopped, you're most certainly violating the law, but I wouldn't necessarily say you were a criminal.

I think we're into semantics at this point and whether one considers somebody who's violated the law but not been convicted a criminal or not.

I'm speaking to individuals WITH a license. We are not guilty of anything just for carrying WITH a license. I consider anyone carrying without LTCH to be guilty of a crime, so I think we are on the same page there. I assume that the sentence I highlighted in red was referring to individuals without a license, not those WITH a license.

 

[ATM]

Personally I am glad to see officers asking to see your LTCH. My taxs pay them to keep my family safe...

Please don't equate checking a license with keeping people safe.

That is an argument for more restrictive licensing requirements rather than less.

 

[mbills2223]

Please don't equate checking a license with keeping people safe.

That is an argument for more restrictive licensing requirements rather than less.