Use it or don't. No skin off my nose. Keep papers with guns in compartments where you don't want to give implied consent to search, have them removed, muzzle swept your body by Officer-I-check-all-firearms-in-case-their-stolen, etc...if that's what you want to do. I want to get him/her in and out of my day as quickly as possible with as little extra-curricular activity as possible. YMMV.
Never keep a gun in your glovebox is my reply. Do yourself a favor and you drive next time.
You say the pistol was loaded. People's understanding of this varies. The mag was loaded, but was the pistol chambered? Since it wasn't holstered, I'm assuming it wasn't chambered laying loose in the glove box?
I'm confused. Are you saying you don't run guns in normal stops? Reading between the lines do you just run those that you find in "interesting" situations where you have PC to believe that all isn't above board?
Those were my thoughts too. 1) I thought when a LEO ran a plate in Indiana it would show if the owner had a LTCH. If the owner of the piece had a valid license to carry then no further action should be justified. 2) The driver was being thoughtful/cautious in informing LE that there was a firearm in the glove box with the registration so don't freak out. 3) If the officer had taken control of the pistol in the interest of "Officer safety" that could be understood but not to just run it for a stolen gun check.
I would add the LAWFUL possession of a firearm...
Where's Kirk?
Scope of the consent was to retrieve registration. Not to touch gun, move gun or even look at serial number. No PC to search car. Arguably no RS. No crime charged w/ re to the gun, so no suppression issue.
The mere presence of a gun does not give PC to search. All the more so since the driver was licensed to carry, therefore can carry a gun in the vehicle. Why the trooper would think the gun was possibly stolen in this scenario is beyond me. Did he let you run his firearm's SN? It too could have been stolen.
But w/o consent to coonfinger, I would say trooper exceeded his authority. I would file a complaint. But you'll probably get no satisfaction.
Im no layer, but this is my opinion as well. Generally, I try to be agreeable when dealing with police, but I DO NOT OFFER THEM ANYTHING
Any time you interact with them, it is their job to look for anything that may be a reason to dig deeper. The more opportunity they are given, the deeper they will dig.bakn
Of course, I am speaking in general terms, as there are always going to be officers that couldnt care less about digging any deeper than is required to issue the ticket, and more on. But then, there are also those that look for the worlds larges Heroin trafficking, child smuggling bank robbery ring bust in history at every terry stop.
I find it best to not chum for sharks until I am out of the water.
No, I wouldn't. The presence of a firearm alone is not enough. Now, if the individual in possession of the firearm is not a proper person, or there is some other evidence that the individual is dangerous, ok. You are assumed to be lawful in your possession unless there is RAS that points otherwise. In terms of carrying a handgun, obviously this is different since we have larrys.
Possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a license (with the exception of being on your own private property, or other private property that you have permission to be armed on). You are obligated to provide proof that you are a "proper person" by presenting your little pink card. If you don't have one, you have committed a crime to which you will be arrested and you handgun seized as evidence.
What your talking about is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said LAWFUL possession of a handgun is not sufficient in and of itself to deem someone dangerous...
But even in the case of unlawful possession, that does not constitute RAS that the firearm was *stolen*. One does not need an LTCH to purchase a firearm in Indiana.
I would add the LAWFUL possession of a firearm...
Then I stated...SteveM4A1 said:No, I wouldn't. The presence of a firearm alone is not enough. Now, if the individual in possession of the firearm is not a proper person, or there is some other evidence that the individual is dangerous, ok. You are assumed to be lawful in your possession unless there is RAS that points otherwise.
SteveM4A1 said:In terms of carrying a handgun, obviously this is different since we have larrys.
The unlawful possession will open the door for further investigation.
And I don't believe I said a LTCH was needed to purchase a handgun in Indiana, but Indiana Code specifies how said handgun is to be secured in your vehicle if you DON'T have a LTCH...which is NOT loaded, and unholstered in your glove box.
Possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a license (with the exception of being on your own private property, or other private property that you have permission to be armed on). You are obligated to provide proof that you are a "proper person" by presenting your little pink card. If you don't have one, you have committed a crime to which you will be arrested and you handgun seized as evidence.
What your talking about is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said LAWFUL possession of a handgun is not sufficient in and of itself to deem someone dangerous...