Asserting Your Right To Open Carry.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mergatroid

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 30, 2018
    202
    18
    INDIANAPOLIS
    I'm posting this question here because it has more to do with individual rights than the act of carrying a hand gun. Move the thread if you disagree.

    You have a License to Carry a Handgun granted by the State of Indiana, based upon the 2nd Amendment.

    You are open carrying at the local grocery. A LEO sees your gun and stops you and asks you for ID and your Permit.

    What are your legally required to do?

    Thanks in advance for your well reasoned, non-snarky reply.
     

    Virch

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 26, 2018
    69
    18
    Greenville
    My understanding under Indiana law is that an officer needs a reason other than you openly carrying a firearm to stop you and ask for ID and permit.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    Indiana law is bad in this regard. The burden to prove exception (to the prohibited act of carrying a handgun) is still placed upon the carrier.

    No need to provide ID beyond the carry license, though.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    I'm posting this question here because it has more to do with individual rights than the act of carrying a hand gun. Move the thread if you disagree.

    You have a License to Carry a Handgun granted by the State of Indiana, based upon the 2nd Amendment.

    You are open carrying at the local grocery. A LEO sees your gun and stops you and asks you for ID and your Permit.

    What are your legally required to do?

    Thanks in advance for your well reasoned, non-snarky reply.
    A reply that's well reasoned AND non-snarky? Well reasoned OR non-snarky is hit and miss at best here, this is the Internet after all.

    With that said, there are several ways to handle this. First of all Pinner v State of Indiana 2017 affirmed that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. US v Black 2013 also stated this to be true (convicted felon with a firearm is not the default setting). More to follow..
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    You do realize, legally, you don't have to have your licence to carry on your person when you carry, don't you?
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    I guess I will author the first dissent opinion. Yes it’s your right to carry, open or concealed, IN law is silent on how. Is there really a reason to OC, aside from thumbing your nose at .gov, liberals, panty waste’s? It isn’t that hard to cover a worn weapon. NO, you aren’t making the carry of a gun more mainstream, you’re scaring the hell outta the sheeple. You are also tieing up needed services when the po-po get called to your “man with gun” 911. Why bother, blouse your shirt over it and keep on keeping on, no drama, no harm, no foul. I’m also basing the dissent on the only folks I’ve seen OC, the Beech Grove WalMart crowd with their pistols stuffed into a “sausage sack”. I’ve yet to meet an OC’er with a quality weapon in an even better quality holster. Maybe if I meet one one day my opinion may change. But until then, Uncle Maine, and Mr. Fobus aren’t your friends.
     

    Goodcat

    From a place you cannot see…
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    151   0   0
    Jan 13, 2009
    3,381
    83
    New Pal
    Pinner Case changed everything. You may not be stopped for the mere reason you are carrying a firearm. Period.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    Pinner Case changed everything. You may not be stopped for the mere reason you are carrying a firearm. Period.
    In theory, yes, in practice, not so much. Many departments haven’t “caught on” IMPD issued a memo for all its officers some time ago, but I’ve yet to see any other departments follow suit?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Pinner Case changed everything. You may not be stopped for the mere reason you are carrying a firearm. Period.

    In theory, yes, in practice, not so much. Many departments haven’t “caught on” IMPD issued a memo for all its officers some time ago, but I’ve yet to see any other departments follow suit?

    Not to be snarky or anything but Vigilant has a point. What they're not supposed to do doesn't answer the OP's question about what you're required to do when the cops do it anyway.

    (It's good to point the case out though for those that don't know about it or have forgotten).
     

    mergatroid

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 30, 2018
    202
    18
    INDIANAPOLIS

    That is what I needed to know. Thanks.

    [FONT=&amp]Gun Guy: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License



    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp]New Indiana Supreme Court decision strongly supports adoption of Constitutional Carry in Indiana

    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp]Guy Relford


    May. 10, 2017


    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]SHARE[/FONT]


    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp]
    526406-357746.jpg


    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&amp]On Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun. In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals' decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.
    Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, "that criminal activity is afoot"). If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person "may be armed and dangerous," the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person's outer clothing to check for weapons. Together, this process is called "stop and frisk" or a "Terry stop."
    Before the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana. On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun - or an officer's own observation that the person has a handgun - because the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license. On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate - much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that motorists have drivers' licenses.
    In theopinion handed down last August by the Indiana Court of Appeals (and written by highly-regarded Judge Melissa May), Indiana resolved that issue for the time being by holding that "the mere possession of a handgun, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry Stop." The court went on to state that "the State has not directed us to a reason why the police believed when they stopped Pinner that his possession of the gun was illegal, nor has the State asserted any other criminal activity was ‘afoot.’ Accordingly, we are constrained to hold the stop of Pinner was not supported by reasonable suspicion." Thus, without a basis to believe that Pinner was carrying a handgun without a license - or engaged in some other illegal activity - detaining Pinner to investigate his possession of a gun violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
    In Tuesday's opinion, the Supreme Court wholly agreed with Judge May's analysis. Specifically, the court ruled that a police officer, acting only on a tip that a person possesses a handgun, may not detain that person to confirm that he has a license to carry:
    "The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 ('hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment'). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws."
    In holding that police officers may not detain a person to determine if he possesses a handgun license, the Supreme Court not only ended a long-standing debate, it completely destroyed one of the central arguments against Constitutional Carry in Indiana. Proponents of Constitutional Carry, which would end the requirement that law-abiding citizens obtain a License to Carry Handgun in order to possess a handgun in public or in a vehicle in Indiana, argue that both the U.S. Constitution (through the Second Amendment) and the Indiana Constitution (through Article 1, Section 32) guarantee the right to bear arms. As a result, law-abiding Indiana residents should not have to pay a fee to the State and undergo a separate background check to prove that they are eligible to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right. Constitutional Carry recognizes that no additional license or permit should be required if it is otherwise lawful for a person to possess a firearm under both Indiana and federal law.
    In their opposition to Constitutional Carry, some law enforcement officials (including the Indiana Sheriff's Association) have argued that the removal of Indiana's handgun licensing requirement would inhibit police officers' ability to investigate the legality of a person's possession of a gun. In the words of the ISA, Constitutional Carry "would negatively impact efforts to investigate individuals and determine if they are armed or not." However, this argument has now totally evaporated, as the Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that police officers may not "investigate individuals" by detaining them for questioning or conducting a "stop and frisk" based only on a report that the person is in possession of a firearm. As a result, it is hard to imagine a situation where Indiana's current licensing requirement would empower officers "to investigate individuals to determine if they are armed or not" - absent a separate basis to believe a person is engaged in criminal activity, which would then justify a Terry stop in any event.
    The Supreme Court's ruling should also greatly reduce - or eliminate altogether - a practice advocated by gun control groups often called "swatting."As recommended by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "if you see someone carrying a firearm in public - openly or concealed - and you have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene." Although police officers may still likely respond to investigate a "man with a gun" call after the Supreme Court's ruling in Pinner, absent a reasonable basis to believe a person is engaged in criminal activity, those officers are now prevented by the Fourth Amendment from detaining the armed citizen to investigate.
    In sum, the Supreme Court's ruling constitutes a clear victory for the Constitutional rights of Indiana gun owners and provides needed clarity on the subject of law enforcement personnel's interactions with armed Hoosiers. The decision also greatly enhances the arguments in favor of Constitutional Carry - by completely eradicating one of the most vigorously asserted arguments against it.

    Guy A. RelfordGuy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author of “Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies” (Wiley & Sons Publications, 2012). He hosts “The Gun Guy with Guy Relford” on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.

    [/FONT]
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    See Pinner v State. Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/49s02-1611-cr-610.html

    Basically, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the carrying of a firearm (open or concealed) is not alone justification for a stop. The LEO therefore has no reason to ask for ID or [STRIKE]permit[/STRIKE] LTCH, given the parameters of your scenario.

    I would politely refuse AND explain why. Always be polite. Always be nice.
    Then respectfully decline to answer any questions without your attorney being present. (See Prof James Duane for a long monologue, or ask Kirk what to do when questioned.)

    NOTE that by asserting your rights with someone on a power trip may result in your inappropriate arrest. If it looks like it is coming to that ask for a supervisor, but be prepared to wear metal bracelets. A good LEO (ie. most of them) will accept your polite, courteous and lawful refusal and move on. Naturally, all variables not being equal the results may vary significantly.

    But again, by the grace of Pinner carrying alone is no longer a reason to stop someone.

    Regards,

    Doug

    PS - Post the link to your YouTube video when it comes out!:)
     
    Last edited:

    mergatroid

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 30, 2018
    202
    18
    INDIANAPOLIS
    I guess I will author the first dissent opinion. Yes it’s your right to carry, open or concealed, IN law is silent on how. Is there really a reason to OC, aside from thumbing your nose at .gov, liberals, panty waste’s? It isn’t that hard to cover a worn weapon. NO, you aren’t making the carry of a gun more mainstream, you’re scaring the hell outta the sheeple. You are also tieing up needed services when the po-po get called to your “man with gun” 911. Why bother, blouse your shirt over it and keep on keeping on, no drama, no harm, no foul. I’m also basing the dissent on the only folks I’ve seen OC, the Beech Grove WalMart crowd with their pistols stuffed into a “sausage sack”. I’ve yet to meet an OC’er with a quality weapon in an even better quality holster. Maybe if I meet one one day my opinion may change. But until then, Uncle Maine, and Mr. Fobus aren’t your friends.

    There is a really great thread started by ATM in the "Carry" heading that runs down some pretty solid argument for OC. Major amount of content can also be found here https://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

    Be warned, big words ahead!

    CZ 75 in Bianchi Basketweave or my 6" Colt Trooper in same, but mostly my 642 smith J frame in a Triple K belt slide. If you care.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,003
    77
    Porter County
    I guess I will author the first dissent opinion. Yes it’s your right to carry, open or concealed, IN law is silent on how. Is there really a reason to OC, aside from thumbing your nose at .gov, liberals, panty waste’s? It isn’t that hard to cover a worn weapon. NO, you aren’t making the carry of a gun more mainstream, you’re scaring the hell outta the sheeple. You are also tieing up needed services when the po-po get called to your “man with gun” 911. Why bother, blouse your shirt over it and keep on keeping on, no drama, no harm, no foul. I’m also basing the dissent on the only folks I’ve seen OC, the Beech Grove WalMart crowd with their pistols stuffed into a “sausage sack”. I’ve yet to meet an OC’er with a quality weapon in an even better quality holster. Maybe if I meet one one day my opinion may change. But until then, Uncle Maine, and Mr. Fobus aren’t your friends.
    Why do you think your opinion of whether to OC is an answer to the OP's question? You can always go back to the OC thread if you would like to debate it more.
     

    mergatroid

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 30, 2018
    202
    18
    INDIANAPOLIS
    See Pinner v State. Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/49s02-1611-cr-610.html

    Basically, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the carrying of a firearm (open or concealed) is not alone justification for a stop. The LEO therefore has no reason to ask for ID or [STRIKE]permit[/STRIKE] LTCH, given the parameters of your scenario.

    I would politely refuse AND explain why. Always be polite. Always be nice.
    Then respectfully decline to answer any questions without your attorney being present. (See Prof James Duane for a long monologue, or ask Kirk what to do when questioned.)

    NOTE that by asserting your rights with someone on a power trip may result in your inappropriate arrest. If it looks like it is coming to that ask for a supervisor, but be prepared to wear metal bracelets. A good LEO (ie. most of them) will accept your polite, courteous and lawful refusal and move on. Naturally, all variables not being equal the results may vary significantly.

    But again, by the grace of Pinner carrying alone is no longer a reason to stop someone.

    Regards,

    Doug

    PS - Post the link to your YouTube video when it comes out!:)

    Funny. No YouTube video in my future. I just like to OC sometimes. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    Why do you think your opinion of whether to OC is an answer to the OP's question? You can always go back to the OC thread if you would like to debate it more.
    Because I like my opinion. I also answered the OPs question in another post to the best of actual reality in Indiana.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    There is a really great thread started by ATM in the "Carry" heading that runs down some pretty solid argument for OC. Major amount of content can also be found here https://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

    Be warned, big words ahead!

    CZ 75 in Bianchi Basketweave or my 6" Colt Trooper in same, but mostly my 642 smith J frame in a Triple K belt slide. If you care.
    Right, I’ve been there, still doesn’t change MY opinion of OC, but to each his own. ATM also believes that explosives brought down the twin towers...
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Funny. No YouTube video in my future. I just like to OC sometimes. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

    I'm not a big OC guy. I do it sometimes and in my limited experience it hasn't been a big deal. The few people that said anything to me were most friendly. Most of the folks on this site that have commented on their OC experiences I'd say have a 98% positive experience.
     
    Top Bottom