OC at NRA convention with Illinois CCW

[brotherbill3]

Carrying a handgun on school grounds is very plainly worded as a felony. There's not a bit of discretion there. This is an issue of a poorly worded phrase.

You are absolutely correct ... the statement I had above about "just carrying at schools" was made by Representative Battles (D Vincennes) during his argument NOT to pass SB 229 on the final day of the state legislature, referring to parents just locking guns in the car now and that revision of the current law was a waste of time ... (pause, see furhter reasoning below)

Now that's I've cited the code, I contend that the "terms thereof" apply to such things as expiration dates, residency (you can't live in OH and have a TX CHL), status on "proper citizen" (if I get charge with a felony my LTCH is null and void), etc.

How I carry, where I carry and when I carry are not a term of my license. They are set by state law.

Another hypothetical: Must holders of MI permits inform an officer? Must holders of MI permits refrain for alcoholic beverages? Must they avoid stadiums? These are all restriction in MI.

We (IMAGC) based on information on a question directly from someone from TX, who specifically does not wish to be a test case, and who will likely, be in the 'sites' of the Anti's due to her prominence at our event - outside - of the actual convention. She is still waiting on her CHL from Texas, but has OC's a BP pistol there (and will here). The point for her and others is to keep them squarely LEGAL w/o question; NOT to somehow risk to become a test case for which ATM, or any others on INGO, no matter how generous, are willing to pay and contribute legal fees, if you were even aware of it happening. (also leaves me wondering, are you all generously chipping in lost wages, travel to come and return for court dates etc?). We posted the locations where our facts came from (Code, ISP FAQ) so if others with a "more determined" to OC mindset {that several of you admirably stand up for (I agree with and when I'm down there I too will OC)} can decide for themselves to do so. The opinion we put up is our best understanding of the law, code and way this will be enforced by "officer eyenolykeeguns" ... who is button controlled by Mrs.SWattshestupidname - who is planning to have people here to protest the NRA and anyone with guns on or about them.

I have heard there may be plans to remove of the confusing cob-webs of current indiana gun related IC's. There is a great deal of duplication, and wording that leaves much to be desired and it is impeading further improvements (i.e. BABY STEPS) to our current carry laws.
Clearly IC35-47-2-21(b) - needs to be part of this.

Can someone show me where this requires ONLY concealed carry? No. It allows concealed carry. In Texas, licensed or not, open carry is prohibited. It's not prohibited as a T&C of the license, but it's prohibited of everyone as a result of law.

What I do see is an expiration date. That's something that is a T&C. We don't have expiration dates, but others do, they have to abide by them. We don't have qualification tests, others do and must abide by them even in IN.

Again, the license doesn't restrict the method of carry, the state's laws do. The license allows exemptions from some laws*. So, just quit getting hung up on the wording. It's license/permit and it allows the holder to carry a handgun in IN, but they must abide by OUR laws - not our state laws and their state laws.


* In PA the license allows CC, but OC is not restricted (oustide of Philly). In TX, the license allows CC, and OC is strictly verboten.

PS There's a lot of tinfoil in the thread about jackbootery.

PA also restricts UNLICENSED OC in vehicles.
Once you enter a vehicle, if OC-ing w/o a valid CH license, any weapon (even long guns) must be unloaded.
And Philadelphia just needs to be smacked ... little chicago they act like.
(how many pre-emption laws must my home/growing upstate pass for Philly to comply).

 

[aaron580]

I've seen a guy from Texas in camby OC'ing a stainless 1911… So by the terms I have read, he was committing a crime.

 

[ATM]

No, I believe that it grants a limited nature and scope of authority by what it licenses the individual to do...

OK, clarified further I'd still like to contrast our two beliefs as I still believe there is absolutely a distinction which you don't see based on your next response:

6 of 1, half a dozen of another. It is illegal in IN to drive without a drivers license, a drivers license is an exception to the law. Or a DL is a license to drive and it is illegal to do so without one. Either way it's a license to drive a vehicle.

You believe that the license grants a limited nature and scope of authority by what it licenses the individual to do.

I believe that the license grants no authority but serves only as an exception to law(s) as required.

I'll try to contrast them in this way, please bear with me:

In a system where everything is prohibited unless you are specifically permitted, one would need to be granted authority before they could do anything. This could be accomplished with licenses and you'd need a plethora of them to cover every possible action you'd like to do. Each one would grant to you some limited scope of authority to perform some defined action.

In a different system where everything is legal unless it is specifically prohibited, less licenses would be needed because no authority to perform an act ever needs to be granted. Licensing would only exist to provide immunity or exception from one of the prohibited actions, these prohibitions being defined and of limited scope.

I just want to establish what I see as a large gulf between our premises. I think it would be pointless to move past this if you still maintain that our above stated beliefs are even remotely similar despite the fact that each could appear on the surface to function similarly to the other in certain instances.

 

[ATM]

I've seen a guy from Texas in camby OC'ing a stainless 1911… So by the [STRIKE]terms[/STRIKE] I have read, he was committing a crime.

No, only by some of the interpretations and opinions of Indiana law you have read.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You believe that the license grants a limited nature and scope of authority by what it licenses the individual to do.

I believe that the license grants no authority but serves only as an exception to law(s) as required.

It doesn't really matter either way. But we'll go with your way. The terms of some licenses/permits only extend specific exemptions. It is still the terms of the license. The terms of a IN LTCH extend the specific exemption of carrying a handgun, the terms of a IL CCL extend the specific exemption of carrying a concealed handgun. Better?

 

[JettaKnight]

It doesn't really matter either way. But we'll go with your way. The terms of some licenses/permits only extend specific exemptions. It is still the terms of the license. The terms of a IN LTCH extend the specific exemption of carrying a handgun, the terms of a IL CCL extend the specific exemption of carrying a concealed handgun. Better?

No, not better.

The point ATM and I are making is that how you carry is not a term of the license. Therefore, and IL, PA, TX, MI visitor can open carry all they want (even while drunk in a church).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, not better.

The point ATM and I are making is that how you carry is not a term of the license. Therefore, and IL, PA, TX, MI visitor can open carry all they want (even while drunk in a church).

How is the express purpose behind the license not part of the terms of it?

 

[Paul30]

I know people who have a KY Concealed Weapons Permit, and in their training they tell them that it does not specify a gun. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you can carry brass knuckles, nunchakus, etc. if they are legal to own in the state. I'm sure there are a few weapons that state laws prohibit, but my point is if they have a concealed weapons permit, I'm pretty sure IN would not overlook a guy carrying a concealed weapon instead of a gun. At one time Oklahoma did specify a derringer, revolver, or auto on the license. If you qualified with a semi auto they would list it on your license and you could carry any of the 3.

 

[revance]

This has been argued to death...

but my opinion on how that would be interpreted would be that the "terms" would be what your license says on it.

Much like a drivers license. If U turns are illegal in my state but legal in the state I am visiting, I can make U turns. However if my license has a restriction prohibiting me from driving at night because of vision problems, it doesn't matter that the state I am in doesn't add that restriction for my level of vision loss. It is still printed on my license as a term of my license.

So in.my opinion, if carry in a bar is illegal in your state, you can carry in one here as long as your license doesn't specify you can't. However if your license is to carry a concealed handgun, you dont HAVE a license to carry openly. If you have a "handgun carry license" then you are licensed to do exactly that here... carry a handgun, however you wish.

Again, no case law, just my speculation.

 

[ATM]

How is the express purpose behind the license not part of the terms of it?

You're stuck in a different perception of what the purpose of a license is. You still see them as the source of something (granting or extending from within) rather than the mere documenting symbol of a qualification defined in its scope within law which lets one break some other law.

How can we move on to defining the "terms thereof" when the license itself still represents such vastly different things to us?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You're stuck in a different perception of what the purpose of a license is. You still see them as the source of something (granting or extending from within) rather than the mere documenting symbol of a qualification defined in its scope within law which lets one break some other law.

How can we move on to defining the "terms thereof" when the license itself still represents such vastly different things to us?

It does grant something, it grants an exemption to a certain law. And above I used your reasoning, why haven't you addressed that? The license is just a symbol of that exemption. And just my opinion you are really stretching. I've came up with multiple reasons and examples. So far you have what it's silly? Which I can agree that it is silly, but quite a few laws are imo. That doesn't make them not the law.

 

[ATM]

OK, I'll just address your premise further since you think I'm the one stretching.

It does grant something, it grants an exemption to a certain law.

Incorrect. A law grants exemption. Meeting the conditions of one law (the exception) provides immunity from some other law (the restriction).
Sometimes a license or permit will be issued to a person who meets the requirements of one of these legal exceptions as a portable means of signifying that the required conditions of the exception were met. That's all it is, it grants absolutely nothing.

And above I used your reasoning, why haven't you addressed that?

You're attempting to skip past my reasoning and continue on with examples that use a rephrased version of your own reasoning.
Sticking to what has emerged as the root of what I consider to be a very popular fallacy about "licenses and terms thereof" may lead to progress in clarifying, understanding, even resolving the debate for some people. That would be something valuable.

The license is just a symbol of that exemption. And just my opinion you are really stretching.

Then please reasonably refute what I've presented.

I've came up with multiple reasons and examples. So far you have what it's silly? Which I can agree that it is silly, but quite a few laws are imo. That doesn't make them not the law.

I'm attempting to refute the common core of all your examples rather than responding to each instance individually.
This method may be a slower, more deliberate pace, but I think it will be more effective than simply representing and defending our conclusions ad nauseum (which is how every previous version of this debate topic has ended).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Incorrect. A law grants exemption. Meeting the conditions of one law (the exception) provides immunity from some other law (the restriction).
Sometimes a license or permit will be issued to a person who meets the requirements of one of these legal exceptions as a portable means of signifying that the required conditions of the exception were met. That's all it is, it grants absolutely nothing.

You're attempting to skip past my reasoning and continue on with examples that use a rephrased version of your own reasoning.
Sticking to what has emerged as the root of what I consider to be a very popular fallacy about "licenses and terms thereof" may lead to progress in clarifying, understanding, even resolving the debate for some people. That would be something valuable.

And

Then please reasonably refute what I've presented.

I'm attempting to refute the common core of all your examples rather than responding to each instance individually.
This method may be a slower, more deliberate pace, but I think it will be more effective than simply representing and defending our conclusions ad nauseum (which is how every previous version of this debate topic has ended).

Yes and the license itself is a symbol of the law which I stated. IL law grants a specific exemption. Per their law.

(a) The Department shall issue a license to carry a

concealed firearm under this Act to an applicant who

(c) A license shall be valid throughout the State for a

period of 5 years from the date of issuance. A license shall

permit the licensee to:
(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm, fully
concealed or partially concealed, on or about his or her

person; and

(2) keep or carry a loaded or unloaded concealed

firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/PDF/098-0063.pdf
Notice the specific exemption, which is concealed firearm. Which is different than the law that issues the IN LTCH which is a blanket exception to carrying a handgun.

ETA Different licenses mean different things, A standard operator license is different than one with a motorcycle endorsement which is different than a CDL of which a A is different than a B which is different than a C. A person can have a license to make and sell wine, that license doesn't mean they can distill that wine into brandy.

If IN tomorrow banned open carry, holders of a LTCH could still open carry in states that allow it with a license. Because that is not part of the terms of the LTCH the terms of the LTCH cover carrying a handgun, and that is it. The terms of the IL code only cover carrying a concealed firearm. If the IL code only listed it as carry and a different section of the law prohibited OC, that wouldn't be part of the terms of their license.

IL law like IN law both prohibit the carrying of a firearm openly or concealed without an exemption. But IL license only exempts concealed carry, where the IN license does not.
See the difference?

And what of yours requires refuting? That it is silly? Or that the law provides an exemption rather than permission? If the latter as I stated it doesn't really matter. I'm arguing from what you prefer is that it provides an exemption.

What does terms thereof mean to you?

 

[ATM]

Yes and the license itself is a symbol of the law which I stated.

I thought I stated it and you were simply accepting it arguendo while maintaining the opinion that I was stretching? What you'd been stating was rather different. We've both refined our positions a bit during this process, but I'm sure you haven't truly adopted mine

...yet

IL law grants a specific exemption. Per their law.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/PDF/098-0063.pdf

I'll admit that I only skimmed this and will need to research the actual laws impacted, but the most interesting thing I note about the language of the bill is that it does seem to dictate what people can do, much the same as the first system I described in post #83. I'm not sure how much of this is due to being a modern law under a modern perception that permission is need for everything or simply that it originated in Illinois (and under protest) where the legislators are more accustomed to ruling as dictators and forgotten the principles of common law completely.

I will dig in further because this IL law seems oddly unique at first glance. Surely there is still another law somewhere which makes carry illegal (or there would be no need for an exception and people could carry by default) yet I must have missed where and how this new law addresses or notes such a prohibition.

Are there two laws existing now in conflict, one prohibiting and one allowing? Like I said, I might have missed it in the bill.

Notice the specific exemption, which is concealed firearm. Which is different than the law that issues the IN LTCH which is a blanket exception to carrying a handgun.

Is it an exception? To what law specifically and where is it? It definitely wasn't in your quote.

ETA Different licenses mean different things, A standard operator license is different than one with a motorcycle endorsement which is different than a CDL of which a A is different than a B which is different than a C. A person can have a license to make and sell wine, that license doesn't mean they can distill that wine into brandy.

If IN tomorrow banned open carry, holders of a LTCH could still open carry in states that allow it with a license. Because that is not part of the terms of the LTCH the terms of the LTCH cover carrying a handgun, and that is it. The terms of the IL code only cover carrying a concealed firearm. If the IL code only listed it as carry and a different section of the law prohibited OC, that wouldn't be part of the terms of their license.

Skipping these just for now because I still don't want to address conclusions yet.

IL law like IN law both prohibit the carrying of a firearm openly or concealed without an exemption.

Please cite, I'd like to verify

But IL license only exempts concealed carry, where the IN license does not.
See the difference?

No, please cite the IL law you're referring to where a prohibition was exempted. I only saw a permission to carry concealed, which would stand in conflict with a carry prohibition and would be senseless if carrying concealed weren't already prohibited.

And what of yours requires refuting?

Any of my claims which you believe I'm stretching or am wrong about.

That it is silly? Or that the law provides an exemption rather than permission? If the latter as I stated it doesn't really matter. I'm arguing from what you prefer is that it provides an exemption.

You don't have to refute my premises, but if you don't, you probably won't sway my conclusions.

That's why I'm not investing myself in refuting your conclusions, they will stand or fall on the strength of your premises.

What does terms thereof mean to you?

I'll admit, without yet researching the new IL law, that this one could finally be the example we've been asking for of a license where concealment is truly a limiting term thereof

...but not yet. I'll study it first.

At this point, the only terms by which it shouldn't be recognized are those terms which would invalidate the licensee from maintaining their licensed status.

In other words, If Illinois still recognizes the license as valid for their purposes, Indiana should recognize it as valid for ours.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I thought I stated it and you were simply accepting it arguendo while maintaining the opinion that I was stretching? What you'd been stating was rather different. We've both refined our positions a bit during this process, but I'm sure you haven't truly adopted mine

...yet

That's not what I was referring to by stretching, I was referring to you claiming that the specifics of the license didn't matter.

I'll admit that I only skimmed this and will need to research the actual laws impacted, but the most interesting thing I note about the language of the bill is that it does seem to dictate what people can do, much the same as the first system I described in post #83. I'm not sure how much of this is due to being a modern law under a modern perception that permission is need for everything or simply that it originated in Illinois (and under protest) where the legislators are more accustomed to ruling as dictators and forgotten the principles of common law completely.

I will dig in further because this IL law seems oddly unique at first glance. Surely there is still another law somewhere which makes carry illegal (or there would be no need for an exception and people could carry by default) yet I must have missed where and how this new law addresses or notes such a prohibition.

Are there two laws existing now in conflict, one prohibiting and one allowing? Like I said, I might have missed it in the bill.

It doesn't matter if permission is needed for everything or only some things. Well it does but not in this context. We are talking about a specific prohibition. If you disagree please explain why.
Here is the law for the Illinois permit.
430Â*ILCSÂ*66/Â*Â*Firearm Concealed Carry Act.
Here is the one prohibiting carrying a firearm.
720Â*ILCSÂ*5/Â*Criminal Code of 2012.

And IN law states what you can do, which is carry a handgun as an exemption to the law against it. Such as a wine makers permit allows a person to produce and sell wine which is normally illegal. ETA perhaps a better example is IN has a license/permit to sell beer and wine at retail, that license does not allow the sale of hard alcohol. Although there is one that does. If another state decided to honor IN permits for the sale of those items per the terms thereof of that permit. Do you think the wine/beer one would cover hard alcohol in that state? And that the terms thereof would only cover what IN would revoke that permit for. Or do you think it would only cover wine/beer?

Is it an exception? To what law specifically and where is it? It definitely wasn't in your quote.

Do you doubt that it is illegal to carry a firearm in IL?

No, please cite the IL law you're referring to where a prohibition was exempted. I only saw a permission to carry concealed, which would stand in conflict with a carry prohibition and would be senseless if carrying concealed weren't already prohibited.

See above.

You don't have to refute my premises, but if you don't, you probably won't sway my conclusions.

That's why I'm not investing myself in refuting your conclusions, they will stand or fall on the strength of your premises.

Which premises? That it is silly? That a license is an exemption? Please be specific. If it's silly I agree. That a license is an exemption, I've discussed it from your point of view although I disagree that it materially matters.

I'll admit, without yet researching the new IL law, that this one could finally be the example we've been asking for of a license where concealment is truly a limiting term thereof

...but not yet. I'll study it first.

At this point, the only terms by which it shouldn't be recognized are those terms which would invalidate the licensee from maintaining their licensed status.

Links are above. And why do you believe only certain of the terms apply? Does the IC state that? Or does it simply state according to the terms thereof?

In other words, If Illinois still recognizes the license as valid for their purposes, Indiana should recognize it as valid for ours.

Illinois recognizes the license as valid for one specific thing. To go back to the DL comparison. IN issues an operators license, by itself it doesn't cover motorcycles. If another state issued a operators license that by itself covered both, IN would or at least should recognize it for both. If they issued one for motorcycle only, then would it cover operating a car in IN? If so why?

 

[JettaKnight]

Illinois recognizes the license as valid for one specific thing. To go back to the DL comparison. IN issues an operators license, by itself it doesn't cover motorcycles. If another state issued a operators license that by itself covered both, IN would or at least should recognize it for both. If they issued one for motorcycle only, then would it cover operating a car in IN? If so why?

The DL analogy doesn't quite quite hold water. It might if IL completely banned motorcycles.

What if you extend that to say in PA riding a motorcycle doesn't require a license. If you have a DL from PA can you ride a bike here in IN?

Because you keep asking about what is a term, here's an analogy for you, TJBB - if your IL DL has the condition that you can only drive in the day, then that would be a "term thereof" and in IN, no nighttime cruising for you.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The DL analogy doesn't quite quite hold water. It might if IL completely banned motorcycles.

What if you extend that to say in PA riding a motorcycle doesn't require a license. If you have a DL from PA can you ride a bike here in IN?

Because you keep asking about what is a term, here's an analogy for you, TJBB - if your IL DL has the condition that you can only drive in the day, then that would be a "term thereof" and in IN, no nighttime cruising for you.

And the IL permit has in the law that issues it the condition of concealed. What is the difference?
IL completely bans carrying firearms, just like they completely ban riding motorcycles without a motorcycle endorsement. Same as IN except IN only restricts handguns and tasers without a license instead of all firearms. Their licensing specifically lists concealed. I'm not speaking of what the license is called, or what is written on it. I'm speaking of the IL code itself which controls the license including the terms thereof. I've made that or a similar analogy before, although mine was that the terms of your DL required outside mirrors iirc.

And no on the motorcycle on the PA license, because motorcycles are not one of the terms of that license.

 

[JettaKnight]

And the IL permit has in the law that issues it the condition of concealed. What is the difference?
IL completely bans carrying firearms, just like they completely ban riding motorcycles without a motorcycle endorsement. Same as IN except IN only restricts handguns and tasers without a license instead of all firearms. Their licensing specifically lists concealed. I'm not speaking of what the license is called, or what is written on it. I'm speaking of the IL code itself which controls the license including the terms thereof. I've made that or a similar analogy before, although mine was that the terms of your DL required outside mirrors iirc.

And no on the motorcycle on the PA license, because motorcycles are not one of the terms of that license.

Then look at my post #73. The law states "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally..." then goes on to list a whole series of things. So by your logic these terms must apply in IN.

As for UT, there's no requirement for a licensee to conceal so are they OK to OC in IN even though it say "concealed?"

 

[ATM]

Do you see how convoluted this always becomes when nearly all the examples revolve around attempting to support foregone conclusions which differ?

The reasoning behind the laws and what they were drafted to accomplish becomes lost and the mentality of the populace adapts to accepting explanations of how they can best steer clear of trouble as adequate interpretations of those laws.

In exploring the actual limitations placed upon individuals, I find that most folks tend to argue for only the specific liberties which they can prove that the state grants or permits to them, rather than scrutinizing and defining the limits to which their liberties have been removed.

So I'll ask a new question. When Indiana decided it should recognize other carry licenses to except non-residents from our unlicensed carry prohibition, do you think their purpose or intent was to:

a) ensure that by at least some minimum standard only a verified "proper person" would be able to lawfully carry in Indiana.

b) ensure that Indiana enforces whatever carry parameters would be applied to non-residents in their home states while carrying here (by whatever means we may).

c) bacon

I know everyone will end up agreeing to disagree (again) but I have found some new insights during this discussion and have chosen to pursue those above the usual back and forth which has never panned out. Thanks for the continued participation.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Everyone will agree. It is clearly bacon.

But back to the debate...