Reloading during a defensive encounter

[nelsomas]

Now I know the need to actually reload during a defensive encounter is extremely rare, so I’m not here to debate that fact. I am curious if there is some law in Indiana regarding reloading a firearm during a defensive encounter.

i have had 2 different people tell me that it is against the law to reload after discharging your firearm defensively. These people haven’t been able to provide me any proof in writing, but they swear by it. I’ve been unable to find anything relating to reloading, but they must have heard it someplace. Has anyone heard of such a thing?

Cheers!

 

[VUPDblue]

Whomever told you that apparently got booted out of Facebook Law School, and you have to be beyond ignorant to get booted out of there.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Now I know the need to actually reload during a defensive encounter is extremely rare, so I’m not here to debate that fact. I am curious if there is some law in Indiana regarding reloading a firearm during a defensive encounter.

i have had 2 different people tell me that it is against the law to reload after discharging your firearm defensively. These people haven’t been able to provide me any proof in writing, but they swear by it. I’ve been unable to find anything relating to reloading, but they must have heard it someplace. Has anyone heard of such a thing?

Cheers!

bad info

 

[nelsomas]

Figures, thanks!

 

[cedartop]

That's actually funny.

 

[GIJEW]

They must have got that idea from an anti-gun lobby memorandum. Something like "Magazine capacity limits, phase 2"

 

[CitizenX]

Sounds like typical Liberal logic... what next? You have to reholster after each shot?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Sounds like typical Liberal logic... what next? You have to reholster after each shot?

And only one shot per bad guy. If you miss, you have to wait for them to shoot back at you. Take turns until one of you is hit and stops returning fire. Its only fair!

 

[Bucky623]

 

[Denny347]

You are all incorrect. Here is the law regarding OP's question. See red text.

Indiana “Stand Your Ground” Law (IC 35-41-3-2, 3)
Section 2(a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy
of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels
secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public
servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against
unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the
other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the
general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right
to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this
section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC
35-31.5-2-185 .
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person
or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to
the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall
be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by
reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other
person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor
vehicle.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a
person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably
believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's
trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in
possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose
property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other
person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is
necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise
2
seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this
subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to
the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the
person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so
and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other
person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and
communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise
seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(4) has to reload their firearm after being used in self defense.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person
reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the
imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling,
curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with
property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's
immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Interesting, Denny.

So technically speaking, if I'm just a REALLY bad shot and I burn through all 13 rounds and take cover/reload, and the guy then pops out from his cover and rushes me with a deadly weapon, if I take him down using that second mag I've TECHNICALLY broken the law?

Not that a prosecutor would use that, but I'm sure a sharp defense attorney will.

I'm sure it was written to counter an incident(s) of people taking down a perp, reloading, and finishing them off. (gut feeling) But talk about sloppy language.

 

[Denny347]

Interesting, Denny.

So technically speaking, if I'm just a REALLY bad shot and I burn through all 13 rounds and take cover/reload, and the guy then pops out from his cover and rushes me with a deadly weapon, if I take him down using that second mag I've TECHNICALLY broken the law?

Not that a prosecutor would use that, but I'm sure a sharp defense attorney will.

I'm sure it was written to counter an incident(s) of people taking down a perp, reloading, and finishing them off. (gut feeling) But talk about sloppy language.

 

[Rookie]

So...

100 round drum mags for everyone?

 

[88E30M50]

Interesting, Denny.

So technically speaking, if I'm just a REALLY bad shot and I burn through all 13 rounds and take cover/reload, and the guy then pops out from his cover and rushes me with a deadly weapon, if I take him down using that second mag I've TECHNICALLY broken the law?

Not that a prosecutor would use that, but I'm sure a sharp defense attorney will.

I'm sure it was written to counter an incident(s) of people taking down a perp, reloading, and finishing them off. (gut feeling) But talk about sloppy language.

That really is badly worded. ‘Has to’? What if you don’t have to but just want to? How would a tactical reload to top a gun off fit in with that? I agree with the most likely intent but can’t imagine who came up with that language.

 

[cedartop]

Thanks for the education. That is crazy.

 

[Brad69]

Denny with all his “laws” and facts what a nerd!

 

[Vigilant]

Whoa, Denny himmed another thread!

 

[Coach]

Looks like an insert or addition to me.

My hard copy of the code does not have a number 4 in that location. The online look up shows different as well. I must ​be missing something.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Looks like and insert or addition to me.

My hard copy of the code does not have a number 4 in that location. The online look up shows different as well. I must ​be missing something.

Or Denny is messing with us. Note his winky gif.

 

[Coach]

Or Denny is messing with us. Note his winky gif.

That would be my guess.