so what your saying is if they arrest your for illegal carry and you have one they have unlawfully detained you. just because there is no grounds in court to make it unlawful to stop you doesnt mean it makes it ok to do so. this is the problem with govt in general they take liberties into their hands that do not belong to them. until we stand up for our right they will slowly fade away.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
-1 for Delaware County's Finest
- Thread starter GaDawg
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
No. I don't think that is quite what they are saying. It's pretty simple actually. The way the Indiana law stands now pertaining to the illegality of carrying a handgun without a license (openly or concealed) an LEO is within the scope of the law for being able to ascertain if you are licensed to carry a firearm (unless you are carrying on private property that you own or have permission to occupy). If they are not able to determine that fact then if they wish to push the issue they can indeed place you under arrest, and held until such time that it can be proven that you have an valid exemption. (LTCH)
Last edited:
No, no, a thousand times, no.
In the Indiana Code that I posted earlier, if you would have cared to read it, which by that post, you didn't, it states that burden of proof is on you. It states that you may be arrested, not every officer will do it though, and held until you can prove that you have a LTCH, at which point, charges will be dropped and all records of that arrest will be expunged.
In the Indiana Code that I posted earlier, if you would have cared to read it, which by that post, you didn't, it states that burden of proof is on you. It states that you may be arrested, not every officer will do it though, and held until you can prove that you have a LTCH, at which point, charges will be dropped and all records of that arrest will be expunged.
So, stephen87, maybe you can school me on this because I'm a little confused. I understand that the burden of proof falls on the person carrying the firearm to present their LTCH in order to have charges dropped and failing to provide an officer with proof that you are licensed may result in the officer placing you under arrest. But, what I don't understand is that I thought that officers could not detain you due to the fact that they lack reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime? Wouldn't it just be a consensual encounter where the officer couldn't demand I.D./LTCH and you could just walk away? If the officer doesn't have reasonable suspicion that you DON'T have a license then they can't detain you because you are not committing a crime, as stated in United States v. DeBerry, correct? (Last paragraph of this link: UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.?95-2232., February 22, 1996 - US 7th Circuit | FindLaw)
so if im driving a car and wearing clothes can a LEO just assume that i stole the car and clothes and make it my burden to prove other wise.
lets flip the script.....say im walking down the street with a AR strapped to my back. does he have the right to stop me then? no license is needed for this to be legal. is it lawful for him to stop you and prove what that you are walking down the street?
lets flip the script.....say im walking down the street with a AR strapped to my back. does he have the right to stop me then? no license is needed for this to be legal. is it lawful for him to stop you and prove what that you are walking down the street?
I give up-. You can't fix willfully stupidity.
Let's not forget some other things that can happen if "they" arrest you: they can try to find other charges (disorderly conduct anyone?), they can make a report to the ISP claiming that they believe you are no longer a proper person, even if "other charges" are dropped the arrest is still on record, it costs time and money to make all this go away.
Woah, no reason to be a dick. I'm just trying to fully understand the law, being a responsible gun owner and all. I didn't know asking question qualifies as willful stupidity.
You have to excuse some people they just can help themselves. Instead a healthy conversation or debate they just take the stance of I'm right your wrong so **** off. This is the type of attitude I'm speaking of that we need to get away from. This is the same attitude the uninformed LEO had yesterday. I'm right your wrong and that just all there is to it. WRONG!!!!!
Okay, I'll break it down to each individual scenario.
You are carrying a handgun, openly, through WalMart. Someone calls in a MWAG, or an officer just happens to walk by you, doesn't matter in this instance. The officer then can initiate a stop, due to RAS that you are carrying a handgun, which in Indiana, is illegal unless certain criteria are met. The officer approaches you and asks for your LTCH/permit/however he words it. You then have one of two options, provide him with documentation that you are legally allowed to carry a handgun in the state of Indiana, or refuse. With the presentation of the documentation, the courts have ruled that all discussion regarding the handgun is over, IE no more RAS.
In the scenario of the car, courts have ruled that an officer may not stop you to check for documentation that you can legally drive.
In Indiana, both of these are illegal without a license. However, case law dictates how far an officer is allowed to go to make sure you're legal. One instance, he's not allowed to check legality unless he has RAS that a crime or an infraction has been committed. In the other instance, he can legally stop you to check the legality of you carrying the handgun. Once you provide documentation, the stop is over.
No. Completely different scenarios. Clothes are legal to possess. Courts have ruled that an officer cannot stop you to check your driver's license, barring extenuating circumstances. Courts have NOT ruled on the legality of a stop to check your LTCH. If you want to be that guy, when you are stopped to check your LTCH, take it to court. I'm not being a dick, I genuinely want to see the courts rule in favor of the OC, absent Constitutional Carry.
No, he cannot stop you for the AR, barring RAS. If a bank was robbed down the street by a guy with an AR matching your description, yes. Just taking a walk? No.
To expand upon that: a LTCH is needed to carry a handgun. RAS being the illegality of carrying a handgun. A long gun requires no license to carry. As there is no license needed, there would be no RAS for a stop.
FTR:: It has happened before, not sure where everything stands on that incident, but it was an illegal detainment, as far as I remember.
Last edited:
I'm not the one being dense. If the courts haven't ruled then they shouldn't is my point. Govt overstepping their boundaries and everyone is so ignorant of it and numb to it we don't even know it's happening anymore. This process of is loading rights started long ago.
Yes, asking willfully stupid questions when the answers have already been provided multiple times by mulitple people qualifies as willfully stupid.
dawg has trouble with 2 plus 4 being 6. He wants the option for it to be 5, or maybe 10. Depending upon how he feels about the issue.
Who called you dense? I don't see a problem with courts ruling on it. I see officer after officer NOT checking licenses. In 4 years of carrying, I've been stopped once. The thread is on here. Think of it this way.
You buy a product. You absolutely hate it. Maybe it's broke, maybe it just isn't as advertised.
You buy another product, is advertised to do what the first was supposed to do.
Which are you more likely to openly talk about? The one that does what it's supposed to or the one that doesn't?
More people complain when they are unhappy. So you see a thread every 3-4 days about someone being stopped. You rarely see a thread about an officer checking a LTCH and walking off. You NEVER see a thread about an officer just walking by an OCer. Why is that? Do more stops happen that make people unhappy, or are there more than we post of happy stops/nonstop?
I'll tell you, from experience, it's the latter of the options. I post every time I'm stopped because of my handgun. I have one thread about being stopped.
I have decided that this will be my interaction:
"yes, officer I do have a LTCH it is in my left rear pocket. Here it is and here is my DL. Nope, not offended at all since I am a responsible legally carrying person. I do appreciate you checking. Too many illegal carrying felons out there. Thanks again. Be safe!"
Conversation is over in 5 mins...no offended ....I go on my merry way.
I don't have anything to hide nor to prove. Not only that, a respectable conversation on friendly terms does more to convince others who are in ear shot, how legally responsible we are. Had I been at the convenient store getting coffee and my above conversation had happened, the store owner and othe patrons would hve seen the friendly result by the police giving some confidence and credibility to me for future visits to the store.
This has happened on several occasions (sans the LEO) but with store personnel who view me as friendly and respectble.
Again, nothing to hide nor to prove.
"yes, officer I do have a LTCH it is in my left rear pocket. Here it is and here is my DL. Nope, not offended at all since I am a responsible legally carrying person. I do appreciate you checking. Too many illegal carrying felons out there. Thanks again. Be safe!"
Conversation is over in 5 mins...no offended ....I go on my merry way.
I don't have anything to hide nor to prove. Not only that, a respectable conversation on friendly terms does more to convince others who are in ear shot, how legally responsible we are. Had I been at the convenient store getting coffee and my above conversation had happened, the store owner and othe patrons would hve seen the friendly result by the police giving some confidence and credibility to me for future visits to the store.
This has happened on several occasions (sans the LEO) but with store personnel who view me as friendly and respectble.
Again, nothing to hide nor to prove.
I think you are confusing the issue of actual legalities verses feelings about government overstepping their boundaries. I would suggest that I think most, if not all of us are concerned with overstepping and we point that out as well. When it comes down to it though, simply telling an LEO to "go pound sand" when asked about having an LTCH is not classified as an exemption according to Indiana law or upheld caselaw in this jurisdiction, as much as any one of us wish it were so.
Site Supporter
Members online
- shawnfox12
- POG_88
- Zdub720
- Colt556
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- GSPBirdDog
- 2tonic
- Hassiebawked
- actaeon277
- cstoltie
- Twade94
- PowderApe
- Basher
- Butch627
- bkflyer
- Percolater
- Lwright
- Glock Fan
- Vimace
- Ted@
- Tombs
- Reale1741
- nhgluff
- indyblue
- TriggerOutdoor
- Bookmark
- AJBB87
- gcoop
- blueskies
- BR8818
- EPeter213
- IN New Guy
- Bigdog357
- texkev
- hvacrguy
- pokersamurai
- gassprint1
- jsclimbs
- Vanguard.45
- Iurobz
- Andyccw
- Wanderer
- nra4ever
- gdun67
- tsm
- Snapdragon
- steveIU
- cbhausen
- d.kaufman
- tjones
