Local LEO won't sign Form 4

[Destro]

I always laugh when I see the tv cops argue "this is MY case, this is MY jurisdiction". In real life, when you've got a dozen open cases (detective) or 5 pending runs (uniformed car) and someone says that, you usually say "cool, its yours, see ya".

If ISP is 10-41, many like to hand off DUI's to them. They have "performance standards" that others don't so it can help troopers that have a harder time making contacts

 

[funeralweb]

Wow. My local LEO laughed when he read my Form. He can't wait for my stamp to come back on my Guardian so he can take a few shots.. I hope you get what you want.

 

[DRob]

Sort of agree

..................
Also: Police officers are civilians. Your response should have been to ask him to give up all of his department's NFA weapons.

Throughout my LE career, I always considered myself a civilian. As for the rest of this, in 26 years with IPD I only saw one department owned "NFA weapon", an old Thompson stored away in the arsenal.

 

[CampingJosh]

As for the rest of this, in 26 years with IPD I only saw one department owned "NFA weapon", an old Thompson stored away in the arsenal.

Really? The city of New Castle has them for all the guys on SWAT and one or two others. And then the county has at least one more. I don't know if this is normal for small cities, but I know for sure it's not unheard of.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

Then there is of course this gem...

Daily Journal - Greenwood police looking for ways to unload guns

 

[Hotdoger]

At the very least he sounds pretty rude.

He is.

He caused a public scene with my wife. Accusing her of illegal activity and went off in public on her about it.

What she was doing was COMPLETLTY legal and he was being a total jerk.

He is not to be trusted.

 

[shootersix]

Throughout my LE career, I always considered myself a civilian. As for the rest of this, in 26 years with IPD I only saw one department owned "NFA weapon", an old Thompson stored away in the arsenal.

wow if you have a department issued ar (in evansville) you have a military m16 (with the full auto goodies removed)
chris pugh (now assistant chief) came to my xwifes criminology class (back when he was on the swat team) and he had a hk ump
vanderburgh county sheriffs used to have s&w 76's i know a person who bought one from the dealer the dept traded them to (2 mp5's for one model 76), i've shot it they are cool plus his is stamped vanderburg co sheriff and since he used to be a reserve deputy that makes it even cooler

and you people think we are backwards!
and by you people, i mean up north in the big city!

 

[stephen87]

Would this issue fall under IC 35-47-11.1? By them not signing, and the firearm being legal in the state, it seems that they are regulating the possession of a firearm.

IC 35-47-11.1-2
Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories.

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Not prohibited by chapter
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion or order on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other type of commercial property or of school property or other educational property.
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.
(7) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours a day.
(8) The imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1).
(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm.
(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.
(11) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting
or restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23.
(12) A unit from using the unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a school before April 1, 1994.
(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a building owned or administered by the unit if the person who possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry the handgun under IC 35-47-2.

I don't see anywhere in there that would allow them to not sign, I believe that would become a conflict with IC 35-47-11.1.

 

[KG1]

Would this issue fall under IC 35-47-11.1? By them not signing, and the firearm being legal in the state, it seems that they are regulating the possession of a firearm.



I don't see anywhere in there that would allow them to not sign, I believe that would become a conflict with IC 35-47-11.1.

Good point. It seems to me that any firearm related item that is legal to own per State law is covered under this IC and therefore cannot be regulated by any political subdivision.

Which means in laymen's terms that if there are no outstanding legal issues that would deny a person owning an NFA item then IMO I don't think a CLEO, according to the IC you presented could deny based on a personal whim.

Interesting angle.

 

[stephen87]

That's what I found interesting is that he will not sign it, however there are no provisions in the law that allows a CLEO to regulate any NFA items.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

wow if you have a department issued ar (in evansville) you have a military m16 (with the full auto goodies removed)

We've got those, but since they only have semi-auto capability they wouldn't be NFA items any longer, per my understanding.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

We've got those, but since they only have semi-auto capability they wouldn't be NFA items any longer, per my understanding.

Technically it would still be machine gun until the receiver is destroyed per ATF spec.

Good point. It seems to me that any firearm related item that is legal to own per State law is covered under this IC and therefore cannot be regulated by any political subdivision.

Which means in laymen's terms that if there are no outstanding legal issues that would deny a person owning an NFA item then IMO I don't think a CLEO, according to the IC you presented could deny based on a personal whim.

Interesting angle.

That is interesting, but there is a difference. The sheriff isn't prohibiting you from doing anything. He is just refusing to assist you in coming in compliance with federal laws. His refusing to sign the paper is not technically his department prohibiting you from owning the firearm. As far as the state is concerned, he is just refusing to sign a piece of paper. If the state of Indiana required the registration of the firearm for it to be legal, you might have a leg to stand on, but as it is I don't think the courts would compel the signature as the feds are the ones with the regulation on the books. I realize that seems like splitting hairs, but when it comes to this stuff it always does.

 

[j706]

Really? The city of New Castle has them for all the guys on SWAT and one or two others. And then the county has at least one more. I don't know if this is normal for small cities, but I know for sure it's not unheard of.

Same with me. With my employment as a FT LEO at one agency and PT at another, I have NFA guns issued at both. I just attended ILEA's rifle intructor school in December, at least better than 1/2 of the attended had NFA guns in either SBR's, select fire, suppressed or all three. The main instructor commented that that class was the most NFA type weapons he had ever seen at his classes.

FWIW I know of one agency around my part that has a pretty nice inventory of Thompson (Colt made) SMG's, M3 Grease guns and two BAR's, A Reising SMG and a few Colt 9mm SMG's. Relitivly sure these are all transferable guns. I have mentioned to the head LEO there that he is sitting on a gold mine. All of these weapons minus the 9mm Colts have been in their inventory since the 1950's.

 

[j706]

We've got those, but since they only have semi-auto capability they wouldn't be NFA items any longer, per my understanding.

Once a MG always a MG according to the feds. Silly ain't it?

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

Same with me. With my employment as a FT LEO at one agency and PT at another, I have NFA guns issued at both. I just attended ILEA's rifle intructor school in December, at least better than 1/2 of the attended had NFA guns in either SBR's, select fire, suppressed or all three. The main instructor commented that that class was the most NFA type weapons he had ever seen at his classes.

FWIW I know of one agency around my part that has a pretty nice inventory of Thompson (Colt made) SMG's, M3 Grease guns and two BAR's, A Reising SMG and a few Colt 9mm SMG's. Relitivly sure these are all transferable guns. I have mentioned to the head LEO there that he is sitting on a gold mine. All of these weapons minus the 9mm Colts have been in their inventory since the 1950's.

They really ought to swap those out for some post samples so us mere mortals will have a shot at having one.

 

[cartmanfan15]

I know of no other sheriff in Indiana more pro 2A then Ken Campbell.

I agree. I am from Lebanon originally and know the family well. He is a good man and I am glad that he was able to point you in the right direction to get it resolved. Best of luck on the rest of it.

 

[stephen87]

Technically it would still be machine gun until the receiver is destroyed per ATF spec.



That is interesting, but there is a difference. The sheriff isn't prohibiting you from doing anything. He is just refusing to assist you in coming in compliance with federal laws. His refusing to sign the paper is not technically his department prohibiting you from owning the firearm. As far as the state is concerned, he is just refusing to sign a piece of paper. If the state of Indiana required the registration of the firearm for it to be legal, you might have a leg to stand on, but as it is I don't think the courts would compel the signature as the feds are the ones with the regulation on the books. I realize that seems like splitting hairs, but when it comes to this stuff it always does.

How is it different? By refusing to sign, an agent of a political subdivision is regulating that particular firearm and/or accessory.

 

[j706]

They really ought to swap those out for some post samples so us mere mortals will have a shot at having one.

I have mentioned it to the chief of that agency. Small agency with 10 guys. They were at one time much larger but their town kinda died.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Once a MG always a MG according to the feds. Silly ain't it?

Huh, that seems dumb. Funcitionally they are no different than an AR-15 that was never capable of full auto.

Well, in that case we have a bunch of NFA rifles. Learnt me something.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Throughout my LE career, I always considered myself a civilian. As for the rest of this, in 26 years with IPD I only saw one department owned "NFA weapon", an old Thompson stored away in the arsenal.

That's funny. I spent some time around the IPD arms room in 1996, and I'd swear they had a rack of M16A1s. They also had short-barreled shotguns (14" IIRC). Both of those qualify as NFA weapons, don't they? In fact, aren't short-barreled shotguns unlawful for anyone except police agencies to possess in Indiana?