Not wanting to hijack other threads, I will start one and ask...

[OWGEM]

Many times on this forum I see members state that if LEO sees someone carrying (CC or OC) they should not be allowed to stop that person just to ask for a LTCH. They say that it would be the same as a LEO stopping someone driving a vehicle and asking for a drivers license.

I have also seen it repeated that if there is no law against something then it is legal.

I don't know the particular IN codes, don't even know how to look them up. However I am pretty sure there are laws on the books preventing LEO from stopping a driver without reason. That said, I have never heard of a law preventing a LEO stopping someone who has been observed carrying a handgun, to check for a LTCH.

It seems to me this reasoning, stopping a handgun carrier to check for a LTCH is the same as stopping a driver for a license check, is a flawed line of thought. Or is there IN law saying LEO can't stop a handgun carrier to check for LTCH?

Am I missing something?

 

[Mosinguy]

An officer of the law can stop a carrier to check for their LTCH. Since it is illegal to carry without one they kinda have to. However after the pink slip is flashed the encounter is supposed to end.

 

[Double T]

LEO have no business asking for anything other than an identification and a LTCH. If LTCH is provided, it is my opinion that civil rights are being tossed about if a firearm is unholstered and a person disarmed by an officer.

Rights are there to protect you. LEO are there to dig and incriminate, it's the job. If you refuse any search or seizure after providing ID, then it is my opinion that 4th amendment rights are violated if disarmed. Whether it be a full on seizure, or them meaning to give it back. Seizure is seizure when the gun is no longer on your person.

For codes, google Indiana firearm IC

 

[Rookie]

Supreme court ruling stops random checks for drivers license.

 

[Delmar]

It seems to me this reasoning, stopping a handgun carrier to check for a LTCH is the same as stopping a driver for a license check, is a flawed line of thought.

I don't know why. It seems exactly the same to me.

 

[Mosinguy]

LEO have no business asking for anything other than an identification and a LTCH. If LTCH is provided, it is my opinion that civil rights are being tossed about if a firearm is unholstered and a person disarmed by an officer.

Rights are there to protect you. LEO are there to dig and incriminate, it's the job. If you refuse any search or seizure after providing ID, then it is my opinion that 4th amendment rights are violated if disarmed. Whether it be a full on seizure, or them meaning to give it back. Seizure is seizure when the gun is no longer on your person.

For codes, google Indiana firearm IC

You don't need to show ID only the LTCH. Once they see that they know you are not doing anything illegal.

 

[Delmar]

An officer of the law can stop a carrier to check for their LTCH. Since it is illegal to carry without one they kinda have to. However after the pink slip is flashed the encounter is supposed to end.

It is also illegal to drive without a license.

 

[Hogwylde]

An officer of the law can stop a carrier to check for their LTCH. Since it is illegal to carry without one they kinda have to. However after the pink slip is flashed the encounter is supposed to end.

It's also illegal to drive a car without a license. They aren't "kinda supposed to" stop you and check for your license. So, how does your statement hold water?

 

[the1kidd03]

You don't need to show ID only the LTCH. Once they see that they know you are not doing anything illegal.

Because, in order to get that you have to have been found that you are of sound mind with no serious criminal record....basically

 

[Double T]

You don't need to show ID only the LTCH. Once they see that they know you are not doing anything illegal.

Yes, which is why I said identify yourself: Name, DOB, and address....unless you are operating a motor vehicle

 

[Rookie]

It's also illegal to drive a car without a license. They aren't "kinda supposed to" stop you and check for your license. So, how does your statement hold water?

It is also illegal to drive without a license.

Supreme court ruling stops random checks for drivers license.

Here.

 

[Delmar]

You don't need to show ID only the LTCH. Once they see that they know you are not doing anything illegal.

They don't know I am not carrying a pink copy of my brother's LTCH, unless they also identify who I am.

 

[eldirector]

Dang it, I can't find the link here on INGO right now.

There is case law on this. Basically, the courts rules it is a legal stop, and the presentation of the LTCH halts further inquiry (assuming that was the only reason for the stop).

State v. Richards, or Richardson, or something like that. I'll look again in a bit....

 

[Rookie]

Delaware v. Prouse

 

[Rookie]

They don't know I am not carrying a pink copy of my brother's LTCH, unless they also identify who I am.

Carrying your brothers LTCH, and not being licensed to carry would, at a minimum, be a misdemeanor. That being the case, you are not obligated to identify yourself since it's not an infraction or an ordinance violation.

 

[KW730]

They don't know I am not carrying a pink copy of my brother's LTCH, unless they also identify who I am.

According to the law, it doesn't matter. After a LTCH is presented all questioning about the firearm is to cease.

 

[OWGEM]

These are issues I did not raise or inquire.

LEO have no business asking for anything other than an identification and a LTCH. If LTCH is provided, it is my opinion that civil rights are being tossed about if a firearm is unholstered and a person disarmed by an officer.

Rights are there to protect you. LEO are there to dig and incriminate, it's the job. If you refuse any search or seizure after providing ID, then it is my opinion that 4th amendment rights are violated if disarmed. Whether it be a full on seizure, or them meaning to give it back. Seizure is seizure when the gun is no longer on your person.

For codes, google Indiana firearm IC

 

[eldirector]

Delaware v. Prouse

Yeah, that's the motorist/license one.

What on earth was the LTCH one here in Indiana? I've got it in my "subscribed threads" somewhere, but it was months ago.....

 

[Rookie]

Indiana v Richardson.

 

[eldirector]

FOUND IT:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ardson+seatbelt+enforcement&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15

the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

And thanks, Rookie.