Your Opinion on Unlicensed Carry?

[Hayseed_40]

Hello everybody,

Since it is COMPLETELY unregulated in regards to State law, and Federal law also does not consider it a firearm, can you think of any restrictions or problems that I might run into? Places I may NOT carry (Such as private property when asked specificaly not to), etc

Most mental hospitals probably do not allow. If they do, I hear they travel in packs of more than 3 so you but carry two.

oh, and welcome

 

[ruger1800]

I don't see the need to "rock the boat." Indiana has among the most favorable, common-sense gun laws in the nation. Not getting a lifetime carry permit just seems to be looking for a fight. Perhaps a dose of maturity is in order.

The boat needs to be rocked until a permit is not needed for law abiding americans.

We are free today because the boat was rocked

 

[rhart]

I respect what you're doing. In my opinion, requiring us to get a LTCH is unconstitutional. I, like many other sheep on here, just choose to take the easy road.
I would say if you keep your powder dry and shoot a couple hours a month, you can probably out-shoot 98 % of the population including most of the guys on here with their 1200 dollar Kimbers and a Lifetime LTCH. People suck at shooting especially under stress because they dont practice.
Think about it: Most people that attack you dont even have a gun. They rest of them have a gun they dont know how to use or wont even work.

My opinion on OC is the same whether you have a LTCH or not. It draws attention to you. You OC enough and you will get the cops called and you will be required to prove you are innocent. Most cops out there wont know about the laws and your gonna end up with your face in the gravel, a boot in your as* and a free ride to jail before they figure out you're legal. Is it worth it?

Welcome to INGO

 

[96firephoenix]

Rock the boat? Are you kidding me? Since when is following the law, "rocking the boat"? A license to carry a handgun is not a common sense law. It is an unreasonable restriction on citizens that have the right to defend themselves without the government infringing on that right.

"Rocking the boat" would be him carrying a modern firearm, without the license to carry, and hope to get caught so he could challenge the unconstitutional license to carry law in Indiana, and he would still have my full support. Forcing Americans to get their fingerprints put into a State database, that until recently was public record (I have a disc of everyone in IN who has a LTCH up until like a year ago, anyone else could have that list as well and do nefarious things with it) and to get approval by the state to exercise a right sounds like the state was looking for a fight. Maybe they (and anyone else who doesn't understand our Rights) need to mature to the point of learning how to read our Constitution - State and Federal.

Repped!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

anything that makes it a crime to carry (bear) a firearm is infringing on that right.

I think what the OP is doing is kinda stupid simply because it runs the risk of getting arrested by ignorant LEO's, but he has the legal high ground.

My desire to carry without the risk of getting arrested is greater than my desire to make a statement. The OP's is apparently not. More power to you Kurr.

 

[a.bentonab]

http://www.rucklaw.com/PDFs/ANTIQUEHANDGUNS.pdf

"Therefore, regardless of the handgun’s age, if it was designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, then it constitutes a firearm according to Indiana law."

I.E. it does not matter what makes it go boom, or what it launches, it is a firearm according to indiana case law.

To be frank, it probably bodes badly for you iffin you get the wrong LEO. I would love to see you make the challenge, but it likely won't be a cheap process.

IC 35-47-2-19
Application of chapter
Sec. 19. This chapter does not apply to any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

EDIT TO ADD:

I have 5 shots, I carry on an unloaded cylinder, and I carry a copy of the pertinant regs printed from Idiana.gov in place of the LTCH for those that do not know. ISP Said no permit was needed when we called and spoke to them.

It seems that there are two clear contradictory statements. Indiana code specifically says that it isn't illegal, while this judge (who was unnecessarily broad, but nonetheless) said that it is illegal. Again to recap, code=legal, case law=illegal. We all know who we would want to be the final verdict here, but what would really happen? The case would likely go to court, where a judge presides. Judges listen to other judges. There is a very real chance that you would be found guilty here. I would probably say 70% that you would be off the hook, 30% guilty. Is that worth it in order to stay off the states list? Not for me. I can't answer that for you.

I think you've got to think about your priorities. If you want to carry and make a statement (and are willing to accept the possible repercussions), this is a perfect way to do it. If you are trying to protect yourself and your family, then consider the possibility of being found guilty of a gun crime and NEVER owning a firearm again. If you are trying to bring about a change in the law, well accept the fact that one likely change would simply be to eliminate the exclusion of bp firearms as firearms. I think this would be a more likely outcome than changing the licensing practices of the state at this point.

Just to clarify here, if you disregard the judges ruling and conclude that bp firearms aren't firearms (I'm not saying you're wrong) would you also conclude that you can carry them anywhere, such as in schools?

I believe that judge was far too broad in his opinion, but that cat has been let out of the bag. It reminds me of the recent 4th amendment case, in which the judge stated in his opinion that you can't resist unlawful entry by police. Both were very specific cases which could have been settled without applying a much too broad opinion on very dissimilar cases.

So, my opinion of unlicensed carry? Wouldn't recommend it and it may be illegal.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I prefer to carry legally (LTCH).. solves all future problems or interactions with the police.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is a difference between handgun and firearm under Indiana law.

All handguns are firearms, but not all firearms are handguns.

if you disregard the judges ruling and conclude that bp firearms aren't firearms

No one is saying that blackpowder firearms are not firearms under Indiana law. They are firearms (e.g. the SVF statute). However, blackpowder handguns are not handguns for Chapter 2 of Article 47.

 

[Kurr]

Thank you.

I have considered letting my Local county Sheriff Know who I am and my situation and make sure he is aware of the law as well. Then I could refer county units back to him or preferably he would make sure his officers were aware of the specifics.

Same thing with the City Chief. Of course I would consider any advice they offered as well.

I have already inquired to the ISP, so one radio call from them sould clear it up.

Any advice from either elected official would be heavily considered.

I am partially considering OC for both the detterant aspect and conversation starter to be able to converse with others on our rights and being able to defend ones self.

I do not worry about getting arrested, as you said, I have the legal high ground, and I realize I MAY be detained to explain/clear things up.

You folks have brought up some good thoughts, I'm glad I posted, this is shaping up to be a good conversation!

 

[CarmelHP]

It seems that there are two clear contradictory statements. Indiana code specifically says that it isn't illegal, while this judge (who was unnecessarily broad, but nonetheless) said that it is illegal. Again to recap, code=legal, case law=illegal.

The Court of Appeals wasn't making a thorough exegesis of the law, just the State's sufficiency in meeting the offense elements to avoid a motion to dismiss. I thought I had explained it adequately, but must have missed the mark. Even after all the appeals rigmarole, the state eventually dismissed the charges without going to trial.

 

[japartridge]

Rock the boat? Are you kidding me? Since when is following the law, "rocking the boat"? A license to carry a handgun is not a common sense law. It is an unreasonable restriction on citizens that have the right to defend themselves without the government infringing on that right.

"Rocking the boat" would be him carrying a modern firearm, without the license to carry, and hope to get caught so he could challenge the unconstitutional license to carry law in Indiana, and he would still have my full support. Forcing Americans to get their fingerprints put into a State database, that until recently was public record (I have a disc of everyone in IN who has a LTCH up until like a year ago, anyone else could have that list as well and do nefarious things with it) and to get approval by the state to exercise a right sounds like the state was looking for a fight. Maybe they (and anyone else who doesn't understand our Rights) need to mature to the point of learning how to read our Constitution - State and Federal.

I agree, having to get a license/permission slip to exercise my right is I really want to figure out the best way to assist in getting our laws changed to the way they were intended to be!

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I'm not familiar with the type of firearm-thingy the OP carries. OP, if I were to encounter you (hypothetically since I never travel to Scott County) and asked you for your LTCH (hypothetically again), how would you prove to me that your weapon was manufactured prior to 1899?

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm not familiar with the type of firearm-thingy the OP carries. OP, if I were to encounter you (hypothetically since I never travel to Scott County) and asked you for your LTCH (hypothetically again), how would you prove to me that your weapon was manufactured prior to 1899?

It wasn't. It's black powder. It should be obvious to anyone who isn't a completely gun ignorant rube, in which case they shouldn't be poking around in other people's holsters.

 

[Kurr]

Great question Frank_N_Stein, thank you.

The IC again says:


IC 35-47-2-19
Application of chapter
Sec. 19. This chapter does not apply to any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.


The date of manufacture is only 1 of 3 possible qualifiers if I read this correctly.

It is a muzzle loading cap and ball revolver, just like the one pictured earlier, but with a much longer barrel.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It wasn't. It's black powder. It should be obvious to anyone who isn't a completely gun ignorant rube, in which case they shouldn't be poking around in other people's holsters.

I'm not a completely gun ignorant rube. I'm no expert on guns, but I know a little bit. I'm also not a hick, but thanks for assuming. Yes I had to look "rube" up.

I don't poke around in other people's holsters. I asked so that this obviously uneducated,parents were blood relatives, jack-booted thug, wouldn't ever violate the 2nd Amendment rights of someone carrying a black powder firearm.

Great question Frank_N_Stein, thank you.

The IC again says:


IC 35-47-2-19
Application of chapter
Sec. 19. This chapter does not apply to any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.


The date of manufacture is only 1 of 3 possible qualifiers if I read this correctly.

It is a muzzle loading cap and ball revolver, just like the one pictured earlier, but with a much longer barrel.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I misunderstood your original post. Who says you can't (or don't) learn something new every day?

 

[Compatriot G]

I'm not going to jump into the legal issue or the protest issue of this topic. I will offer some advice about your choice of firearm, though. I am a "Civil" War reenactor. I use blackpowder firearms all the time. I have had perfectly reliable muskets misfire for no apparent reason. I have had caps fall off at the most inopportune times. I have had caps fall from the nipple of my 1860 Army and jam it up after just one shot. I have observed revolvers having chain fires(rather impressive to watch). I have used blackpowder firearms enough to know that, while they are fairly reliable, I wouldn't use one over any of my SIG's. To be honest, I would rather carry my Ruger MK III than carry my 1860 Army for defense. This is just my opinion from years of experience. If you insist on carrying your '51 Navy for self defense, make sure you do what Wild Bill Hickok used to do. Load it up fresh every day and make sure it is clean.

 

[EnochRoot43]

Wow. I have an idea for you fellas

Following the letter of the law, a number of moneyed folks could begin moving guns like:

Colt 1898 Single Action Army, SAA 1st Gen, 45LC : Curios and Relics at GunBroker.com

to Indiana, and open carrying them loaded and without a license. Couldn't the case then be made that LTCH unfairly discriminates against citizens who are not wealthy enough to own a pre-1899 Colt SAA?

In any event, Kurr, while I am sure your C&B is lovely, a piece like the one above not only brings the glitz, but also illustrates how ridiculous and arbitrary gun laws are.

Those who commit REAL crimes, especially of violence, should be punished. Not a guy who happens to have the wrong production date on his metallic cartridge revolver.

 

[Jack Ryan]

That is a good point that I have put MUCH thought into youngda9.

I am not an officer, agent, or soldier anymore. My sole purpose is SD, not offensive actins, so I do not feel the need to carry my more modern pieces, that were designed for Law Enforcement/Millitary purposes. The 1911 is for home defense only at this time.

I also do not see a circumstance where I would be confronted with more than 2-3 BGs under normal circumstances and feel that the Fire/Smoke/Boom and their buddy dropping would be sufficint to dissuade the remaining ones.

So I do feel competent with it for SD purposes, under the circumstances that I am likely to encounter.

I live in a rural setting, dislike larger towns and try to avoid when I can do to the "city mentality" of folks there.

And yes, as Wild Bill set the example, every so often (Once a week when I can) I unload for practice, clean and reload fresh for reliability. Quart oil containers and soda cans FEAR me out to about 50 yards, lol.

Thanks for the replies and keep em coming!

Just get a stainless steel gun and shoot one or two cylinders a day. I wouldn't waste time and amo "unloading" other than pulling the trigger. You don't need to do that now with modern, good, powder, primers and loading techniques.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I misunderstood your original post. Who says you can't (or don't) learn something new every day?

I must be a rube too - or since I live north of US40, CarmelHP may not consider me a rube. Either way, I learned the facts about the legality of black powder firearms and that somoeone actually would think it is a good idea for self defense carry.

All the risk and lack of self defense so you do not have to get a LTCH?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

lack of self defense

I wouldn't go so far as to call Kurr's choice of weapon a lack of self-defense. Not one that I would be comfortable with utilizing, but if he has trained with it and trusts his life to it, good enough for me.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Thank you.

I have considered letting my Local county Sheriff Know who I am and my situation and make sure he is aware of the law as well. Then I could refer county units back to him or preferably he would make sure his officers were aware of the specifics.

Same thing with the City Chief. Of course I would consider any advice they offered as well.

I wouldn't do anything close to that.

It's not my job to educate the police and if they want me to train them, they can pay me like they do any one else coming in to give them classes.