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

[OWGEM]

Delaware v. Prouse

Thank you. And from that finding...

"382 A.2d 1359, 1362 (1978) (emphasis in original). The court held that
a random stop of a motorist in the absence of specific articulable facts which justify the stop by indicating a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred is constitutionally impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

In effect, no LEO can legally stop a motorist just to check for a drivers license.

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

This does not state that LEO cannot stop an handgun carrier for a LTCH check. So my reasoning remains, the two kinds of stops are not the same.
LEO stopping someone for a LTCH check is not the same as stopping someone for a Drivers license check.

I'm not asking opinions I'm asking the law.

 

[Rookie]

LEO stopping someone for a LTCH check is not the same as stopping someone for a Drivers license check.

Actually, they are. The problem is that SCOTUS has clearly stated that you can't be stopped solely to check drivers license, no one has made a clear statement about LTCH and stops. Until it is addressed, it's legal because Indiana hasn't said it's illegal.

Clear as mud?

 

[OWGEM]

As I said, I'm not asking opinions, I'm asking the law. Apparently they are not the same under current law.

Actually, they are. The problem is that SCOTUS has clearly stated that you can't be stopped solely to check drivers license, no one has made a clear statement about LTCH and stops. Until it is addressed, it's legal because Indiana hasn't said it's illegal.

Clear as mud?

 

[Rookie]

As I said, I'm not asking opinions, I'm asking the law. Apparently they are not the same under current law.

I didn't give you an opinion, I answered your question. Next time I'll make sure to get your approval before I post.

 

[OWGEM]

Did not mean to step on toes. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[KW730]

Did not mean to step on toes. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

It's an identical situation. Both are illegal to do without the proper permission. The only difference is the USSC has ruled that stopping someone to check for a driver's license is illegal.

 

[Jack Burton]

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

Because the scotus said they can't check a driver's license without a reason. But when they check you in Indiana for a LTC they have a reason.

This is not rocket science guys.

 

[Jack Burton]

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

The LTC is identity enough. If they have suspicion that your are not Delmar they can inquire futher... but only with some knid of articulable reason.

 

[Jack Burton]

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

Mostly true. If the police have an articulable reason to continue to question you then can. For example, if one of them knows that you are a felon because he was the one who put you behind bars, and you show them an LTC with your name on it, there can still be reason for the LEOS to investigate further.

That's why the court stuck the word "valid" in there. We have to be careful to use the same criteria.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

LEO are there to dig and incriminate, it's the job.

You obviously don't know dick about the job.

 

[griffin]

You obviously don't know dick about the job.

Maybe they just know a lot about LEOs.

 

[the1kidd03]

There seems to be a LOT of talk here about "knowing" how laws work and assumptions of others knowledge without knowing the first thing about the other....so

I'll just place this here:

Comprehensive Indiana Firearms Law
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nsive_gun_law_seminar_aar_from_june_23rd.html

Tactical Firearms Training LLC - Training


A mere $200 could save you thousands in court and attorney fees. How any gun owner could justify NOT making that investment is beyond me...

 

[Denny347]

Maybe they just know a lot about LEOs.

No...they know dick.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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.

The bolded portion is the important one. If you are referring to any of my posts, and I know we have argued this point in the past, I am not saying they CANNOT, but I am saying what we should be striving towards. Having a law, or ruling tying Indiana LEO's hands in stopping individuals who are merely exercising their rights is a BIG step to true liberty.

There is already federal case law out of Texas (I think therefore I don't owe Kirk a box of .45) that says if OC is legal then it is no reason for detention for a license or ID. In Indiana it is still illegal to carry without a license so that is the basis for the LEO stop in Indiana that right now we must submit to.

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

This is how English and American law works, to quote Kirk: Anything in England is legal if there is no law against it, anything in Germany is illegal unless there is a law allowing it. Ironic then that the subsequent generations after WWII look for affirmation that the law is on their side? Like we expect to have German (Nazi) laws controlling us.

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.

You sure are ignorant of the law and processes to be so argumentative. The federal case for LEOs not stopping you for driving is Delaware v Prouse, just put it in a google bar somewhere and hit enter. Then read.

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?

IMO your reasoning is the only one that is flawed. With your attitude that "the law is the law is the law" you don't take into account that we can change the law to more accurately reflect what we want from our government. Personally I don't want my tax dollars wasted by my public servants (Sorry Frank) stopping otherwise lawabiding citizens merely exercising their rights by carrying a firearm in public. Having a holstered handgun, even -gasp- a slung longarm is not cause for concern, it is a proper way to carry/transport it.

Am I missing something?

Are you now or does that help?

 

[OWGEM]

IMO your reasoning is the only one that is flawed. With your attitude that "the law is the law is the law" you don't take into account that we can change the law to more accurately reflect what we want from our government. Personally I don't want my tax dollars wasted by my public servants (Sorry Frank) stopping otherwise lawabiding citizens merely exercising their rights by carrying a firearm in public. Having a holstered handgun, even -gasp- a slung longarm is not cause for concern, it is a proper way to carry/transport it.



Are you now or does that help?

Let me make myself clear. I do advocate of 2A. I personally do EDC. However I do get tired of people saying LEO stopping carriers is the same as stopping drivers. It is not. There are laws stating so. I never said the laws could not / should not be changed. Repeating something that is not true does not make it true.

I know I will catch flak for the above, so be it.

 

[Tinner666]

They say that it would be the same as a LEO stopping someone driving a vehicle and asking for a drivers license.

It's called a roadside spot check and perfectly legal.

I've been asked about my permit on occasion. I just show it and BS some. No hassle as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It's called a roadside spot check and perfectly legal.

Roadside spot checks to check driving status are not legal, but roadside spot checks to attempt to catch drunk drivers are. I don't know how it is in VA but in IN we have to have reasonable suspicion a driver committed a traffic infraction for us to stop them and check their DL status.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Maybe they just know a lot about LEOs.

So by your way of thinking I know that gun owners go into schools and kill scores of innocent children, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is already federal case law out of Texas (I think therefore I don't owe Kirk a box of .45) that says if OC is legal then it is no reason for detention for a license or ID.

Now you stop that, right now.

It's New Mexico, OC in Tejas of handguns is against the law.

Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com

Stops for opening carrying of handguns are likely valid in Indiana as the way Indiana's statute is written it is a crime to carry a handgun. The license is a defense.

A federal court in Joe-juh upheld the stop of an individual there who took off his jacket on a hot day. The court looked to the statute to see that carrying a pistol was illegal under Joe-juh law thus upheld the stop.

Indiana's statute is very similar to Georgia's.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

However I do get tired of people saying LEO stopping carriers is the same as stopping drivers.

Well, the analogy is there in that it is an offense to operate a motor vehicle without a license so I believe there is a rational argument there.

The simplest way to deal with this is to simply re-write Indiana's carry statute to make the lack of a license an element of the offense.