Applying for LTCH then interview??

[Newbomb92]

Why did a town interview me as part of the process of applying for my LTCH last week? What would happen if they decided not to let someone proceed? My fiance is going next week and I don't want any problems. Also, they collected the $50 FIRST.

 

[snojet]

Hey "Newbomb92",
I got an interview as well. See the link below...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...levant_info_to_firearms_ic_reference_ect.html

 

[red_zr24x4]

I had moved and when I went to renew my LTCH I had to go to the town cheif of police.
I never touched the app, the cheif asked me the questions and filled it out,the office noterized it and I gave them my money.
When I lived in the county I would go get the app fill it out and take it back with the money no questions asked

 

[kludge]

Snojet, Someone should really file suit against the Carmel police chief. (not me I don't have standing). Newbomb92, you should too. Precident need to be set and get these guys back within the law.

The letter of the law:

IC 35-47-2-3 (c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been
suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.

If the local PD is "going the extra mile" they are usurping power not entrusted to them.

The application form, when filled out, will give the local PD the information they need to "ascertain" the things needed under the law. The investigation at the local PD is in the form of "official records" NOT and interview.

This sort of thing leads to capricious and "need" based issuance of licenses. "You better answer my questions, or I'm gonna deny your permit. If you're not a criminal what do you have to hide?"

 

[CountryBoy19]

Snojet, Someone should really file suit against the Carmel police chief. (not me I don't have standing). Newbomb92, you should too. Precident need to be set and get these guys back within the law.

The letter of the law:

IC 35-47-2-3 (c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been
suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.

If the local PD is "going the extra mile" they are usurping power not entrusted to them.

The application form, when filled out, will give the local PD the information they need to "ascertain" the things needed under the law. The investigation at the local PD is in the form of "official records" NOT and interview.

This sort of thing leads to capricious and "need" based issuance of licenses. "You better answer my questions, or I'm gonna deny your permit. If you're not a criminal what do you have to hide?"

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. How can an interview not be considered an investigation into the applicants character and reputation. If the chief doesn't know you, how is he supposed to say that you're a person of good character? IMHO, while I agree that we shouldn't have to do this to use our 2A rights, that is the system we have, and that is how its written, so I don't fault the LEO for doing so. It sounds like he just wants to be sure. I'm positive that you wouldn't win a lawsuit on it.

 

[eldirector]

Ah... the joys of living in the county! Dropped off my money orders, filled out the app, and got fingerprinted. Took 10 minutes, and the young lady in the sheriff's office was very nice and quite helpful.

Always wondered why Carmel (and any other city) would bother with interviews. Especially now, when the application rate is way up.

What all did you get asked during your interview?

 

[Scutter01]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. How can an interview not be considered an investigation into the applicants character and reputation. If the chief doesn't know you, how is he supposed to say that you're a person of good character?

The IC specifically states "an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation". An interview is not part of your official record. His recommendation (NOT "decision", since it's not up to him) for GO/NO-GO is supposed to be based solely on your local record.

 

[Newbomb92]

LEO- "Why do you want to carry a handgun"?

ME- "Self defense, personal protection, for me and my family and all....."

LEO- "Who do you want protection from? Is somebody bothering you?"

ME- "Nope, just want to get my LTCH. Everything checked out ok, right?"

LEO- "Yea I'm just conducting an interview."

LEO- "Do you own any guns, handguns?"

ME- "Yup. A few. Got a few long-guns as well. Getting ready to do my first AR build. And yes I know I can't even transport the handgun until I get my LTCH."

....silence....

He then realized I work for the EMS for the town and BS'd with me for about 5 minutes.

 

[mrjarrell]

I never had any type of interview. Apparently, the sheriff in my locale actually read and understood the law. An interview could reasonably be understood to be harassment. I would say a complaint would be in order and a law suit wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[Newbomb92]

They gave everyone an interview that day. Must have been 5 people. Took over an hour for the entire process. They were very friendly, I just was surprised and felt a bit uncomfortable.

 

[Scutter01]

If the CoP just wanted to meet me and chat, I'd have no problem with that. If it's a requirement as part of his investigation before he'll sign off on my app, that's a whole different story.

 

[snojet]

I am cutting and pasting my previous answer from 26 Aug 2009. And yes I actually agree that my time I had to wait for the interview that ultimately delayed my License was not right. But, I went through the motions back then and here is how I responded back then...
"Everyone in Carmel that wants a LTCH permit has to have a chat with the chief. His explanation for this, is because he is putting his signature on my application and he wants to know who I am. Plus, he wants to know what kind of firearm experience that I have. He further explains that if I didn't have any or little experience with the firearms then he would simply encourage me to take a firearms safety course. He has sign off on every application from what he told me. The meeting was really quite nice."
Gentlemen that was it on my interview.

Back in August I like how another member replied, I echo this.
His quote...
"No, an interview isn't required. But I do think it's nice that the police chief is so involved with knowing what's happening in his town. His signature is required on that piece of paper and I find it refreshing that he takes it seriously. It doesn't sound like he's stopping anyone from getting their license, he just wants to meet his community gun owners. He's being a shepherd. Nothing wrong with that as long as he isn't stepping on any toes."
Now I sure many of you will say that he would be stepping on your toes, and that is ok, we all have a threshold.

Just to note, a friend that is really not for or against guns, or rather he simply has no interest in firearms of any sort that has inquired to what I'm reading, this was sometime ago. I've showed him the website and he than started to read on his own from time to time. The other day we had a conversation and this site came up and he stated that the "tone" on a lot of these posts/replies were sort-of hostile and argumentative, finally he said he could sometimes see other being put-off by this.

I only mention this as an awareness, nothing more.

 

[public servant]

I never had any type of interview. Apparently, the sheriff in my locale actually read and understood the law. An interview could reasonably be understood to be harassment. I would say a complaint would be in order and a law suit wouldn't be out of the question.

The interview could also reasonably be understood as verifying the applicant's character or verifying for accuracy, the information contained in the application.

At least that's how I understand it...and I consider myself to be fairly reasonable. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Newbomb92]

I don't know how I feel about the interview...I do however feel that if they would have denied me based solely on the interview, I'd be extremely pissed. When my fiance goes in next week I don't want her to seem nervous or anything and have a problem with this interview, thus getting her denied. She's new to guns and once she applies we are going to buy her a Bersa 380. She then will have a few months to practice and get accustomed to it before carrying.

 

[Alegre]

I'm getting ready to drop my app and get finger printed and what not this week. I feel that an interview is not necessary at all. Everything that they need is right there on the app.

If they need any other info other than what's on the app, it should be included on the app itself.

Why do they need to know what you need the LTCH for? It's my right, that's why.
Why do they need to know if you own any guns, handguns? If I'm applying for a LTCH is because I either have guns or are buying some.....what else do you need a LTCH for? Carrying rocks??

Everything that's required to be disclosed by law is on the app...... You can say whatever you want on an interview that's not being recorded but you have to be truthful on the app....what else is needed?

 

[revance]

Again, this is why we need it privatized like Utah's process.

Believe me, its worth taking a 4 hour class talking guns with other gun lovers at a convenient time/place than dealing with this BS and working around their banking hours.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. How can an interview not be considered an investigation into the applicants character and reputation. If the chief doesn't know you, how is he supposed to say that you're a person of good character? IMHO, while I agree that we shouldn't have to do this to use our 2A rights, that is the system we have, and that is how its written, so I don't fault the LEO for doing so. It sounds like he just wants to be sure. I'm positive that you wouldn't win a lawsuit on it.

The interview goes beyond official records and character and reputation. If it did not, no LTCH would ever issue in this state without one.
As for being certain... Consider, please, the words my father, an attorney, once told me: With a jury, you are never, ever more than 50% sure of the verdict. Make a good case, show proper precedent, show the incremental nature of an interview today, a higher fee to account for the Sheriff (or Chief)'s time tomorrow, etc., etc. and I think you might have a better chance of winning that suit than you think possible. The line in the sand was drawn by the legislature. Shall Issue. Even if the chief doesn't take a shine to you, if he has no official reason to reject your application, he cannot do so, and ISP Shall Issue the LTCH. The interview and any result of it is moot and presents yet another block to the license: Suppose you work nights and the chief is only available on Tuesday from noon to 3PM for interviews: Is it really fair to ask you to get up at what amounts to midnight to three AM when you have to work in a few hours, just to attend some pointless, worthless interview?

I think not.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

They gave everyone an interview that day. Must have been 5 people. Took over an hour for the entire process. They were very friendly, I just was surprised and felt a bit uncomfortable.

Sounds like you felt a little (or a lot) intimidated. If anyone else did that to you, it would be a criminal act.

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of causing:
(A) a dwelling, a building, or another structure; or
(B) a vehicle;
to be evacuated;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a judge or bailiff of any court;
(iii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iv) is an employee of a school corporation;
(v) is a community policing volunteer;
(vi) is an employee of a court;
(vii) is an employee of a probation department; or
(viii) is an employee of a community corrections program.
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.
(c) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses; (6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am cutting and pasting my previous answer from 26 Aug 2009. And yes I actually agree that my time I had to wait for the interview that ultimately delayed my License was not right. But, I went through the motions back then and here is how I responded back then...
"Everyone in Carmel that wants a LTCH permit has to have a chat with the chief. His explanation for this, is because he is putting his signature on my application and he wants to know who I am. Plus, he wants to know what kind of firearm experience that I have. He further explains that if I didn't have any or little experience with the firearms then he would simply encourage me to take a firearms safety course. He has sign off on every application from what he told me. The meeting was really quite nice."
Gentlemen that was it on my interview.

Back in August I like how another member replied, I echo this.
His quote...
"No, an interview isn't required. But I do think it's nice that the police chief is so involved with knowing what's happening in his town. His signature is required on that piece of paper and I find it refreshing that he takes it seriously. It doesn't sound like he's stopping anyone from getting their license, he just wants to meet his community gun owners. He's being a shepherd. Nothing wrong with that as long as he isn't stepping on any toes."
Now I sure many of you will say that he would be stepping on your toes, and that is ok, we all have a threshold.

Just to note, a friend that is really not for or against guns, or rather he simply has no interest in firearms of any sort that has inquired to what I'm reading, this was sometime ago. I've showed him the website and he than started to read on his own from time to time. The other day we had a conversation and this site came up and he stated that the "tone" on a lot of these posts/replies were sort-of hostile and argumentative, finally he said he could sometimes see other being put-off by this.

I only mention this as an awareness, nothing more.

IMHO, you only need a shepherd if you have sheep, not sheepdogs.

YMMV.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

The interview could also reasonably be understood as verifying the applicant's character or verifying for accuracy, the information contained in the application.

At least that's how I understand it...and I consider myself to be fairly reasonable. But that's just my opinion.

I consider you pretty reasonable, too, public servant. I also disagree with, but respect your right to your opinion.

I don't know that I would take the adversarial position of a court case... but I would certainly register my objection to the process. If timing issues (as I wrote in a previous reply) prevented me from making my application, I would attempt to straighten it out with the local department, perhaps via email or phone calls. If I could not do so or met with significant resistance, I'd just contact ISP and have them straighten it out. If that still didn't work.... there are other avenues one can use. The court of public opinion can be pretty helpful, if properly involved.

Blessings,
Bill