Crazy people at Taco bell

[Bill of Rights]

I agree with you... but should he of had to show his LTCH? No. He has no obligation to identify himself if he hasn't committed a crime.

I guess I just want to see the idiotic sheeple held accountable for their own actions which end up wasting the time of people like the OP, and the officers that responded.

</rant>

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a crime.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by a person convicted of domestic battery; exceptions
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) the person is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun: (A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.
(c) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun.
(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.326-1987, SEC.1; P.L.195-2003, SEC.6; P.L.98-2004, SEC.155; P.L.118-2007, SEC.35; P.L.164-2011, SEC.1.
IC 35-47-2-2
Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by the commissioner in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business; or
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing,
repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in the person's possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.164-2011, SEC.2.

Being licensed under IC 35-47-2 to carry a handgun is a defense against prosecution. The burden of proof is on you to provide that defense.


I think I might have wanted PD dispatch to call the caller back and make sure to tell him/her that the OP was not committing any unlawful act, that way the officer doesn't have to make contact and identify the caller to anyone watching, but the caller does need a bit of an education.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tonhe]

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a crime.

Being licensed under IC 35-47-2 to carry a handgun is a defense against prosecution. The burden of proof is on you to provide that defense.

I'm sorry, but what happened to being innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the the side of the LEO. Beyond reasonable doubt!

The LEO has no right to detain anyone without suspicion of a crime. If he has no clue if the OP has an LTCH, he has no reason to assume either way. Unless the OP is acting in a harassing or negligent manner that is.

Just my 2p.

 

[Phase2]

I'm sorry, but what happened to being innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the the side of the LEO. Beyond reasonable doubt!

The LEO has no right to detain anyone without suspicion of a crime. If he has no clue if the OP has an LTCH, he has no reason to assume either way. Unless the OP is acting in a harassing or negligent manner that is.

Just my 2p.

The first part is entirely wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are standards used when you are on trial, not when the police are investigating. Hopefully those will never apply to you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is the standard used by police to justify investigating. Unfortunately, that standard is used about any time a MWAG call is received, so much like simple speeding results in them checking that you are properly licensed to drive, you get checked that you have the proper license to carry.

I agree that MWAG should not result in a stop unless there are other suspicious circumstances, but that is the current standard.

IANAL, but just my 2p.

 

[tonhe]

The first part is entirely wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are standards used when you are on trial, not when the police are investigating. Hopefully those will never apply to you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is the standard used by police to justify investigating. Unfortunately, that standard is used about any time a MWAG call is received, so much like simple speeding results in them checking that you are properly licensed to drive, you get checked that you have the proper license to carry.

I agree that MWAG should not result in a stop unless there are other suspicious circumstances, but that is the current standard.

IANAL, but just my 2p.

What I was trying to say was that I'm not commuting a crime by carrying a gun, because I am licensed.... Same as most motorists.... A speeder committed a crime, OP was eating tacos with his legal CCW....

With this standard logic LEOs need to start pulling over every car to see if they're properly licensed... Which I'm sure every rights lawyer would agree violates our fourth amendment rights...

 

[BE Mike]

I try to be very careful to keep my handgun concealed to avoid situations like this. I have been daily carrying for over 30 years without such an incident.

 

[jbombelli]

What I was trying to say was that I'm not commuting a crime by carrying a gun, because I am licensed.... Same as most motorists.... A speeder committed a crime, OP was eating tacos with his legal CCW....

With this standard logic LEOs need to start pulling over every car to see if they're properly licensed... Which I'm sure every rights lawyer would agree violates our fourth amendment rights...

Per my understanding, with the way the law currently is, carrying a handgun in and of itself is a prima facie evidence of a crime being committed - i.e. carrying a handgun. The police right off the bat can use your carrying a handgun as reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, and to investigate and find out if you have a valid license to carry.

They can't do that with driver's licenses because the courts have said so. Otherwise, you can bet some cops would do exactly that.

 

[Hiker1911]

Those uninformed citizens have no idea how many of us have been issued that pink piece of paper by the state police, and it's unlikely that they care to know the actual statistics.

As a point of discussion, they might be further intimidated if they knew how many grandmothers, young mothers, and others are legal in Indiana!

 

[mainjet]

It seems that the OP could have said to the police as soon as they approached him - "If your talking to me because I have a hand gun, I have a valid license to carry which I am happy to show you right here at my table". "I have warm food and I would like to eat it while it is in that state".

Yes, he way have been dragged out by his ears but who cares

But seriously, why should they interrupt your day if you have a valid license? someone called and you are here - I understand that point. But there also should be a point where you are able to just stop the questioning by showing your license and carrying on.

It kind of makes me mad that dispatch never asks if the "perp" is doing anything illegal or suspicious. Why can't they simply say "Okay ma'm you are aware that it is legal to carry a firearm with a valid license correct? So do you see that person doing anything suspicious? Okay, please call us back if they do anything suspicious or illegal and we will send someone right out.

I mean come on - I have called 911 because there was a dually set of semi tires and wheels in the middle of the roadway at night and they could not be seen. The 911 operator treated me like a fool and said they already knew about that. I said "Well, how am I supposed to know that you already know about it. Do I just assume that you know and ignore it? Then someone hits it going 55 MPH?"

 

[jetmechG550]

yeah, makes you wonder if the moron that called thought, oh this guy must want to fill his belly up and chance getting the liquatta before he holds the place up

 

[goinggreyfast]

It seems that the OP could have said to the police as soon as they approached him - "If your talking to me because I have a hand gun, I have a valid license to carry which I am happy to show you right here at my table". "I have warm food and I would like to eat it while it is in that state".

I was discussing this situation with a cop the other day and I said something very close to this. I think that if it were me, I would have informed the LEO that I was reaching for my wallet and not my sidearm, showed him my LTCH, and invited him to join me for lunch. He said something along the lines of "Well, we don't want to embarrass anyone so we have them step outside." My response, "I would have been more embarrassed by HAVING to step outside in front of everyone."

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm sorry, but what happened to being innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the the side of the LEO. Beyond reasonable doubt!

The LEO has no right to detain anyone without suspicion of a crime. If he has no clue if the OP has an LTCH, he has no reason to assume either way. Unless the OP is acting in a harassing or negligent manner that is.

Just my 2p.

As others have said, and as the statute I cited shows, you carrying a handgun in Indiana is evidence of itself, that you are carrying a handgun. To do so without a LTCH is Carrying WithOut a License (CWOL). You show your LTCH or other governmentally-issued permission slip, and there is no evidence with which they can arrest or charge you, but the law is clear that it is on you to prove that you DO have a license, not on the LEO to prove you don't. Fortunately, you can now show your DL and tell the officer to check, and he can immediately see both that you have a license and that you are the person to whom it was issued.

Personally, I agree with you as to how it should be. The law at present does not provide for that situation. If you want to see that change, start writing letters to Representatives and Senators, and start convincing others to do the same. When they return to Indianapolis next legislative session, if the constant and unrelenting outcry has been, for 10 months, "Fix this, get us Constitutional Carry in Indiana!" for a majority of the elected legislators from a majority of their constituents, we will see a bill to that effect. If we keep up that pressure, it will be voted through and it will become law.

The catch is that:

• It has to be a majority of constituents
• It has to be a majority of legislators in both houses
• It has to be constant and unrelenting
• It has to continue for the next 12 months

I'm not sure those four conditions can be met. Even as strongly as I hold that belief, I know I'm not going to write to my elected reps 2-4 times a month, every month for the next year. In addition, I know *I'M* not a majority of even my reps' constituents, let alone able to influence the other 49 senators and the other 99 representatives.



To do so alone is like the quote in someone's sig: "If you're fed up and can't take it anymore, grab your rifle and run outside. If you're the only one there, it's not time yet.": Imagine the sheeple neighbor who looks out his window and sees a guy run out into the street with a rifle... What's he going to think about that sight?


It's a valid cause. It's a good cause. It's how the law should be, but it's not going to "play" right now because they don't see it as the will of the people. Get enough folks together to join in and start writing, and that may change. I'm not sure what the critical mass is, I just know that until those letters start being sent, we're not at it.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[mainjet]

I was discussing this situation with a cop the other day and I said something very close to this. I think that if it were me, I would have informed the LEO that I was reaching for my wallet and not my sidearm, showed him my LTCH, and invited him to join me for lunch. He said something along the lines of "Well, we don't want to embarrass anyone so we have them step outside." My response, "I would have been more embarrassed by HAVING to step outside in front of everyone."

I can understand where they don't want to embarrass people. I also think that it is trying to move that person with a handgun out where it is a little safer. I don't think that is unreasonable. But I feel like you do, it's more embarrassing to have to go outside.

I would rather sit right there and have the people that called see me show my license and see that everything is fine.

 

[yenningcomity]

You know, the right exists even for "low lifes" and in every part of town.

It exists and if the cop sees their LTCH they are on their way no problem. ON THE OTHER HAND if you work in a crappy part of town you deal with low lifes that do not follow the law.

Homeless guy hassling your customers at the drive through? Guess who gets sent out at 2am to deal with them?

Prostitutes working in your restrooms? Who gets to call the cops? Or to confront them?

People so drunk they cannot even order in the drive through (oh, and yes they are behind the wheel).

Have to drive your coworkers home because someone keeps following them?

Drug deals going on in front of your store or at times in it?

Picking up your homeless employee from the abandoned house he lives in so you have someone to help close the store?

Better yet, threatened to be shot by your subordinate when you send them home for not doing their job? Oh and yes she proudly mouthed off about how she was an ltch holder and what she carried in her vehicle both before the incident and after. yes she texted my boss (store manager) about what she was going to do, and no she did not get fired for it.

You guys want to sit there and bash me for profiling or how its a hassle? Try being told you are not allowed to carry and working in that environment. Yeah it isn't fair that in a nicer part of town I am less inclined to call, but it is my butt on the line not yours so get over it. You don't want to be hassled? THEN KEEP IT HIDDEN.

Forgot to add the store had been robbed three times that year at gun point. It is the only thing I was not there to witness though. the other stuff are things I dealt with personally.

 

[jbombelli]

It exists and if the cop sees their LTCH they are on their way no problem. ON THE OTHER HAND if you work in a crappy part of town you deal with low lifes that do not follow the law.

Homeless guy hassling your customers at the drive through? Guess who gets sent out at 2am to deal with them?

Prostitutes working in your restrooms? Who gets to call the cops? Or to confront them?

People so drunk they cannot even order in the drive through (oh, and yes they are behind the wheel).

Have to drive your coworkers home because someone keeps following them?

Drug deals going on in front of your store or at times in it?

Picking up your homeless employee from the abandoned house he lives in so you have someone to help close the store?

Better yet, threatened to be shot by your subordinate when you send them home for not doing their job? Oh and yes she proudly mouthed off about how she was an ltch holder and what she carried in her vehicle both before the incident and after. yes she texted my boss (store manager) about what she was going to do, and no she did not get fired for it.

You guys want to sit there and bash me for profiling or how its a hassle? Try being told you are not allowed to carry and working in that environment. Yeah it isn't fair that in a nicer part of town I am less inclined to call, but it is my butt on the line not yours so get over it. You don't want to be hassled? THEN KEEP IT HIDDEN.

 

[Caleb]

It exists and if the cop sees their LTCH they are on their way no problem. ON THE OTHER HAND if you work in a crappy part of town you deal with low lifes that do not follow the law.

Homeless guy hassling your customers at the drive through? Guess who gets sent out at 2am to deal with them?

Prostitutes working in your restrooms? Who gets to call the cops? Or to confront them?

People so drunk they cannot even order in the drive through (oh, and yes they are behind the wheel).

Have to drive your coworkers home because someone keeps following them?

Drug deals going on in front of your store or at times in it?

Picking up your homeless employee from the abandoned house he lives in so you have someone to help close the store?

Better yet, threatened to be shot by your subordinate when you send them home for not doing their job? Oh and yes she proudly mouthed off about how she was an ltch holder and what she carried in her vehicle both before the incident and after. yes she texted my boss (store manager) about what she was going to do, and no she did not get fired for it.

You guys want to sit there and bash me for profiling or how its a hassle? Try being told you are not allowed to carry and working in that environment. Yeah it isn't fair that in a nicer part of town I am less inclined to call, but it is my butt on the line not yours so get over it. You don't want to be hassled? THEN KEEP IT HIDDEN.

Forgot to add the store had been robbed three times that year at gun point. It is the only thing I was not there to witness though. the other stuff are things I dealt with personally.

Buddy, you got problems

 

[ATM]

...
You don't want to be hassled? THEN KEEP IT HIDDEN.
...

Um... yeah... not likely.

Have you considered moving to a more restrictive state like Florida or Texas?

You could still carry, but calling the police whenever you see someone else with a gun there wouldn't make you seem like such a hypocrite.

Something to consider.

 

[yenningcomity]

Buddy, you got problems

Had problems. I lasted 6 months and at the end just couldn't take it. The list of crap I posted says nothing of the day to day. That job was very much an eye opener. Luckily for me my fiance no longer wants me to work until I finish my graduate degree and has the means to pay the bills.

I don't care if I win friends or not. People on here talk about how they have to carry inside their own house for fear of home invasion, but wonder why I could possibly have a problem with seeing someone carrying when I worked across the street from Don's guns.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The fact that someone is carrying, even across from Don's, is not evidence of being a criminal. Hell, where I used to work, I was in that area just about every week, sometimes twice. Would you have called PD or otherwise tried to jack me up there, just because I was in that area and (possibly) armed?
It's attitudes like that that are our worst enemy. They smack of prejudice and of ignorant fear. They're what the antis love to see, so they can use quotes to maliciously "prove" that "even gun owners think there should be more laws" and other BS. For reference, look up Jim Zumbo sometime (if you don't remember it without looking it up, that is)
Look up the guy on the NRA board of directors, Joaquin (something)- I forget his last name, but he's a former Texas lawman who advocate(d?) for mag size limits and other crap...of course, for everyone but LE.

It's an elitist attitude that only you or people like you (and I'm using "you" in general terms in this sentence, not you personally) should be able to lawfully carry unencumbered or unchallenged. While you may not care about winning friends, you need to understand that making efforts to curtail others' rights will eventually come full-circle and bite you in the a** as well.

Please rethink this. That's all... Just think about it. There are other, better solutions.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsharmon7]

yenningcommity:

All of the people you mentioned having issues with (drunks, drug dealers, hookers, armed robbers, etc.), did they come into the store and order lunch with their OC pistol on their hip before committing any of the acts you mentioned? I think you need to look at behaviors for clues to bad behavior rather than objects.

 

[Caleb]

Buddy, you got problems