If I'm just minding my own Business

[bart2278]

So if I'm walking around...lets say the mall, and I have my firearm. It is inside the waistband, but can occasionally be seen. A cop is also in the mall and sees my firearm. Can he legally stop me and check out my firearm? Can police stop you just because you have a firearm visible?

 

[Bunnykid68]

They can ask to see your LTCH and you must show it to them. They can ask for anything else they want but you have no obligation to respond once you have given them your LTCH

 

[HmDBrian]

I dont believe there is a law that says you must prove you have a ltch. As far as him checking your gun, no you don't have to hand your gun to him. If a cop comes up to me and respectfully asks to see my ltch, I will show them it and my license. However I will not let him run my name, I will not hand them over to him, just put it where he can read my name on both licenses. Again though, no law that says you have to do that either.

 

[HmDBrian]

They can ask to see your LTCH and you must show it to them. They can ask for anything else they want but you have no obligation to respond once you have given them your LTCH

Hey bunny, you have a link for that law? Im not saying your wrong. I have looked for a law that says I have to show them, but I cant find it. Is it in title 35, article 47?

 

[Bill of Rights]

You must be licensed to carry in Indiana, and not being so is a criminal act.

It is the officer's responsibility to ensure if you are armed that you are within the law.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity. (c) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun.
(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.326-1987, SEC.1; P.L.195-2003, SEC.6; P.L.98-2004, SEC.155; P.L.118-2007, SEC.35; P.L.164-2011, SEC.1; P.L.6-2012, SEC.231.

And the burden of proof is on you to prove you are exempt from that law by having a LTCH.

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

You may choose to not show it or otherwise prove the fact, but it will mean you get inprocessed in some official facility until such time as it can be proven.

Your choice.

Oh, and no, there is no comparison with a DL for a driver, due to a SCOTUS case. Delaware v. Prouse, IIRC.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Hey bunny, you have a link for that law? Im not saying your wrong. I have looked for a law that says I have to show them, but I cant find it. Is it in title 35, article 47?

Nope, but it looks like Bill of Rights covered it, he is awesome like that

 

[bart2278]

Thank you gentlemen

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nope, but it looks like Bill of Rights covered it, he is awesome like that

Thank you, sir.

Also... In 35-47-2-24, it specifies that all records must, by law, be *destroyed*.

When someone is arrested/booked, etc., correct me if I'm mistaken, but that all happens on computer now, right?

We all know that something on computer is never, ever, completely destroyed unless it's something you want kept. Thus, I have to wonder if the hypothetical in the OP was to actually happen twice or more... What is the likelihood that the accused would be confronted with "Now, it says here you were arrested for this last month as well... Are you just trying to waste our time here?"

Or if not confronted with it, at least that it would come to a prosecutor's or LEO's attention, meaning the data were not "destroyed", but rather marked, "case closed" or some such?

And further... how actionable would that be, the government not following their own laws?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

Thank you, sir.

Also... In 35-47-2-24, it specifies that all records must, by law, be *destroyed*.

When someone is arrested/booked, etc., correct me if I'm mistaken, but that all happens on computer now, right?

We all know that something on computer is never, ever, completely destroyed unless it's something you want kept. Thus, I have to wonder if the hypothetical in the OP was to actually happen twice or more... What is the likelihood that the accused would be confronted with "Now, it says here you were arrested for this last month as well... Are you just trying to waste our time here?"

Or if not confronted with it, at least that it would come to a prosecutor's or LEO's attention, meaning the data were not "destroyed", but rather marked, "case closed" or some such?

And further... how actionable would that be, the government not following their own laws?

Blessings,
Bill

I don't know, Bill, how actionable is it that they're not following the 60 day max allowable by law for the issuance of a LTCH?

 

[Dirtebiker]

I dont believe there is a law that says you must prove you have a ltch. As far as him checking your gun, no you don't have to hand your gun to him. If a cop comes up to me and respectfully asks to see my ltch, I will show them it and my license. However I will not let him run my name, I will not hand them over to him, just put it where he can read my name on both licenses. Again though, no law that says you have to do that either.

How do you think you can "not let him run my(your) name"?

 

[arthrimus]

I thought we had a law specifically stating that you are not required to carry your LTCH on your person, but that you must only identify yourself and allow the officer to call in and check your LTCH status.

 

[CTS]

I thought we had a law specifically stating that you are not required to carry your LTCH on your person, but that you must only identify yourself and allow the officer to call in and check your LTCH status.

You are no longer required to be in possession of it, but it's a big convenience factor for you if you do get stopped.

 

[MTC]

I dont believe there is a law that says you must prove you have a ltch.

... or be charged with the crime of carrying without a license (CWOL). Oh yes there is. It's called IC 35-47-2-1(a).
And though sections of 35-47-2 have been recently amended to say that one is not required to have the license in one's possession when queried, carrying a handgun/pistol/sidearm on or about your person (while off your property) is - and has been since 1935 - a crime in Indiana. Unless, of course, you get "checked out" and are shown to have dutifully applied, got fingerprinted (like a common criminal), got CLEO sign-off, submitted all your personal info and paid an extortion fee to the State in order to be graciously allowed the privilege of doing so.