Indiana Constitutional Carry - HB1022 (2018)

[d.kaufman]

Yeah...I have a problem with it being a crime of which I'd be prosecuted because I simply forgot my wallet as I left the house.

I cant see why you would need your id on your own property, and if asked for some strange reason, i cant forsee why you wouldn't be allowed to retrieve it from the house to show it. That being said, why even let the police on your property, short of a warrant, if you've done nothing wrong?

 

[Trigger Time]

Yeah...I have a problem with it being a crime of which I'd be prosecuted because I simply forgot my wallet as I left the house.

Yep also the courts have ruled that the act of carrying a firearm alone doesn't allow the police to initiate a stop. I think the mandatory ID requirement is Bull **** and if they put it in the bill then it will be defeated in court down the road and rightly so.
There are reasons police do not make laws. They enforce them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not a crime, class c infraction. Same as if driving with license forgotten at home.

Very well. I realize there's a technical and real difference but I was being more broad in my comments. Anything that would cause the"state" to find excuse to insert itself into my day, I have a problem with it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I cant see why you would need your id on your own property, and if asked for some strange reason, i cant forsee why you wouldn't be allowed to retrieve it from the house to show it. That being said, why even let the police on your property, short of a warrant, if you've done nothing wrong?

I don't think I have much of a say so...particularly in my drive way or front yard.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yep also the courts have ruled that the act of carrying a firearm alone doesn't allow the police to initiate a stop. I think the mandatory ID requirement is Bull **** and if they put it in the bill then it will be defeated in court down the road and rightly so.
There are reasons police do not make laws. They enforce them.

I think this aspect was added to alleviate LEO concerns expressed during the summer study with regards to being able to identify prohibited persons. You're right that Pinner should override their ability to simply walk up and ask because they see you have a gun. We'll see if and how it's applied, I suppose.

 

[Fargo]

I think this aspect was added to alleviate LEO concerns expressed during the summer study with regards to being able to identify prohibited persons. You're right that Pinner should override their ability to simply walk up and ask because they see you have a gun. We'll see if and how it's applied, I suppose.

Requiring that you carry ID is completely different from saying that you can be stopped and required to produce it just because you are carrying.

Since the proposed law is actually less restrictive than the one considered under Pinner, there is no way I can see that the ruling in Pinner wouldn't still apply.

 

[2A_Tom]

Very well. I realize there's a technical and real difference but I was being more broad in my comments. Anything that would cause the"state" to find excuse to insert itself into my day, I have a problem with it.

This is my thought.

When Fargo (wood chipper guy) explains it so eloquently. It sounds as if he is all for it. Pretty sure he is not, just acting like an officer of the court.

Sorry for the empty rep GFGT.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Requiring that you carry ID is completely different from saying that you can be stopped and required to produce it just because you are carrying.

Since the proposed law is actually less restrictive than the one considered under Pinner, there is no way I can see that the ruling in Pinner wouldn't still apply.

Understood. You're arguing from a different angle than I am, I think. Let's say I keep a money clip in my pocket and my license stays in my wallet. I decide I need to run to the store to make a purchase and, in a moment of forgetfulness, I leave my wallet at home. (Who hasn't ever accidentally done that?) For whatever reason...for the sake of argument, an officer legitimately determines s/he has reason to approach you and ask you since you're carrying a gun, if you have your license on you. You say "sure", *reach back to retrieve it, and* "uh-ohhhh...crap! I must have left it at home, officer"....what will happen next? If it's an infraction, I guess I might get a ticket under the proposed law. How is that different than now? If the exact same scenario happened today, under current law, what would likely happen?

 

[2A_Tom]

Giving my name and address is all that is required under current law. Now if the add to the law that it is illegal to use fake ID like the Illinois thug that bought a bunch of guns with an ID with a ladies name.

 

[Fargo]

This is my thought.

When Fargo (wood chipper guy) explains it so eloquently. It sounds as if he is all for it. Pretty sure he is not, just acting like an officer of the court.

Sorry for the empty rep GFGT.

It's not something I "want," but it also isn't something that particularly offends me in the context of getting the LTCH requirement removed.

The bulk of opposition has come from LEO admin types who go on about how this will hinder officers ability to arrest felons in possession. A lot of legislators I have spoken to find this compelling, even those in rural/conservative districts.

As a practical matter, people with warrants, suspended DL's, etc. not infrequently use friend/family/false identities when stopped by the cops. From time to time, this results in in innocent people getting arrest warrants for failing to appear for court which is a terrible thing IMO.

Having this concession will will allow me to point it out as a way that CC makes LE's life easier rather than harder when I go up to testify.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As a practical matter, people with warrants, suspended DL's, etc. not infrequently use friend/family/false identities when stopped by the cops.

Objection! No, they don't, it's simply a mistake. I am certain he was just talking with his cousin that THAT'S why he gave, mistakely, another name.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The bulk of opposition has come from LEO admin types who go on about how this will hinder officers ability to arrest felons in possession. A lot of legislators I have spoken to find this compelling, even those in rural/conservative districts.

Less than unworkable. Will failure to carry ID become a new crime now?

 

[Fargo]

Less than unworkable. Will failure to carry ID become a new crime now?

C infraction for no ID while carrying. I am unaware of any bill to criminalize failure to carry ID, I would oppose it if there was.

 

[2A_Tom]

Let me see yourrr paperrrs, your paperrrs, please.

 

[Fargo]

Let me see yourrr paperrrs, your paperrrs, please.

That got taken care of by Pinner. If Terry stopped for an infraction/ordinance, it is already criminal to not provide ID or identifiers.

Like I said, I don't like it but it isn't a deal breaker for me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

House Public Policy has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, but both of the bills to be heard are alcohol bills.

Committee Chairman Rep. Ben Smaltz is also a co-author on HB 1022 now. I'm not sure why he would delay 1022 being heard, but I am sure there is a reason.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Expat]

I have read a lot of comments on FB the last week or so that they will be too busy with the alcohol bills and the marijuana oil to cure seizures to deal with guns.

 

[Trigger Time]

Our gun rights are never as important as everything else
But if this was a bill to secure first amendment rights then it would be front and center.

That being said, Indiana needs to get this cbd oil totally legalized. It helps many people.
Alcohol Sunday sales is just a no brainer

 

[KellyinAvon]

House Public Policy has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, but both of the bills to be heard are alcohol bills.

Committee Chairman Rep. Ben Smaltz is also a co-author on HB 1022 now. I'm not sure why he would delay 1022 being heard, but I am sure there is a reason.

Blessings,
Bill

It looks like we'll have to check regularly because hearings are going to come quick. Having Representative Smaltz the Committee Chair as co-author on both 1022 and 1424 is a very positive thing. It tells me one of the bills will get out of committee and see the floor for a vote. Wesco is vice-chair of the Public Policy Committee and authored 1424, that bill could be the favorite to get out of committee. Either way we're matriculating the ball down the field.

 

[PistolPastor]

Our gun rights are never as important as everything else
But if this was a bill to secure first amendment rights then it would be front and center.

That being said, Indiana needs to get this cbd oil totally legalized. It helps many people.
Alcohol Sunday sales is just a no brainer

Amen