Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)

[2A_Tom]

In that situation, I ask politely, what have I done wrong Officer?

You were speeding.

How fast was I going, Sir?

If he continues digressing, I will inform that that is not consistant with the stop and tell him I will be unresponsive to anything but the elements of his stop.

Kirk?

 

[T.Lex]

In that situation, I ask politely, what have I done wrong Officer?

You were speeding.

How fast was I going, Sir?

If he continues digressing, I will inform that that is not consistant with the stop and tell him I will be unresponsive to anything but the elements of his stop.

Kirk?

Yes, Kirk. How do you see that playing out when the officer sees a [strike]firearm[/strike] handgun and the driver won't answer whether he has a Larry?

 

[KLB]

 

[2A_Tom]

Well I have actually been in similar situations and it has sometimes ended with a very frustrated officer who would liked to have shot me but told me get out of there.

If you like I will post links to the AARs.

 

[2A_Tom]

Just for clarification the reason that i mentioned last weeks Gun Guy Radio was that Guy went through an entire segment talking about how felons carrying under CC (easier than ConC in a thread dedicated to Constitutional Carry) would be aprehended.

I do realize that you never mentioned disarming. The only reason that I mentioned it was because the ISP atorney made two admissions that were pertinant to the gun community. One being that the officer has no reason "because of recent court decisions" (he did not say Pinner) to ask about firearms during a traffic stop.

 

[T.Lex]

Well I have actually been in similar situations and it has sometimes ended with a very frustrated officer who would liked to have shot me but told me get out of there.

If you like I will post links to the AARs.

Not necessary, but:
a) did the officer know you had a handgun?
b) did he ask you for your LTCH?
c) did you provide it?

 

[T.Lex]

I do realize that you never mentioned disarming. The only reason that I mentioned it was because the ISP atorney made two admissions that were pertinant to the gun community. One being that the officer has no reason "because of recent court decisions" (he did not say Pinner) to ask about firearms during a traffic stop.

I will politely decline to comment on the ISP representative's understanding of... well... anything.

 

[2A_Tom]

Not necessary, but:
a) did the officer know you had a handgun?
b) did he ask you for your LTCH?
c) did you provide it?

• Yes, Did he see it and make comment? Yes. Was he disturbed by the sight of it? Yes.
• No
• No

I will politely decline to comment on the ISP representative's understanding of... well... anything.

Yes, you are correct. Never take tha word of a [STRIKE]Liar[/STRIKE] lawyer. Unless, They have a vested interest in their point of view and admit they are wrong.



I other news a good article from Bearing Arms.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/08/25/indiana-considering-major-change-to-its-weapon-carry-law/

 

[T.Lex]

• Yes, Did he see it and make comment? Yes. Was he disturbed by the sight of it? Yes.
• No
• No

Interesting that he didn't even ask for the Larry.

I other news a good article from Bearing Arms.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/08/25/indiana-considering-major-change-to-its-weapon-carry-law/

Thanks for the link.

 

[chipbennett]

First - Kirk - little help here, dude?

Second:

This is a cart-horse problem.

RAS is the horse that pulls the investigative cart toward PC, and sometimes, BRD.

Pinner says dude with a handgun and nothing else wrong is not a horse. Its a... parakeet. A pretty bird that isn't very useful to get the cart anywhere.

Lots of other cases say a traffic stop is a big, powerful horse. Clydesdale. A fantastic horse for getting the cart almost anywhere.

Once there's RAS, the detention and questioning for almost whatever the officer wants, with Miranda basically being the boundary.

In other words, once there's RAS for something else, the officer doesn't NEED RAS to ask about the Larry.

Were those cases pre- or post-Pinner?

Is speeding (or committing some other, arbitrary, moving violation) while driving in any way associated with being a prohibited person, or with criminal behavior with a firearm? If so, how?

Pinner didn't affirm this.

I contend that this is exactly what Pinner affirmed. Look at Pinner in the context of Terry. The presence (or believed presence) of a firearm, absent some evidence of a crime, is not sufficient to conduct an investigatory detention. Even in a lawful detention, RAS that a person is not only armed BUT ALSO dangerous is required even to conduct a search for a firearm (unless you happen to live in the 4th district, apparently).

The mere presence of a firearm is not evidence of unlawful behavior, is not evidence that the possessor is dangerous, and is not evidence that the possessor is a prohibited person. The scope of a detention for a moving violation is citation for said moving violation, although it does allow for observation of the driver and the car. That said: a moving violation while driving, absent something more, is not in any related to the possession of a firearm, does not provide RAS that an observed firearm is possessed unlawfully, or has been used unlawfully.

Does this need to be challenged in court? Probably so.

In fact, the almost-last paragraph suggests that there is an ability by officers to go to a MWAG call and ask questions.

This time, you're suggesting I said something that I didn't say. I didn't say driver is obligated to answer the Larry question or be truthful. I am saying that a shocking number of criminals in that situation admit their criminality.

I was not attempting to claim that you said something that you didn't. I was merely clarifying, and providing context, for what you said.

 

[T.Lex]

Were those cases pre- or post-Pinner?

Pre. But Pinner doesn't change them AT ALL. In fact, Pinner is consistent with them.

Is speeding (or committing some other, arbitrary, moving violation) while driving in any way associated with being a prohibited person, or with criminal behavior with a firearm? If so, how?

It isn't. It also doesn't matter.

Once an officer has RAS, and other facts are presented that could lead an investigation of the RAS offense in a different direction, they are entitled to pursue it, even without RAS or PC of that new offense.

Is this really controversial? Stop a car for speeding, smell marijuana, can search for the source.
https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02061703tac.pdf
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05311702par.pdf

Stop a car for seat belt, smell marijuana, find gun under passenger seat, passenger says things that get him convicted.
http://cases.justia.com/indiana/court-of-appeals/12120802msm.pdf?ts=1396121547

I contend that this is exactly what Pinner affirmed.

It isn't, but I'll play.

Look at Pinner in the context of Terry.

Yes, exactly.

The presence (or believed presence) of a firearm, absent some evidence of a crime, is not sufficient to conduct an investigatory detention.

Yes. We're singing the same song, even harmonizing a bit at the good parts.

Even in a lawful detention, RAS that a person is not only armed BUT ALSO dangerous is required even to conduct a search for a firearm (unless you happen to live in the 4th district, apparently).

One of us missed the key change, but we can come back to that later.

The mere presence of a firearm is not evidence of unlawful behavior, is not evidence that the possessor is dangerous, and is not evidence that the possessor is a prohibited person.

Ok, we're a bit syncopated, but mostly together, in a jazzy kind of way.

The scope of a detention for a moving violation is citation for said moving violation, although it does allow for observation of the driver and the car. That said: a moving violation while driving, absent something more, is not in any related to the possession of a firearm, does not provide RAS that an observed firearm is possessed unlawfully, or has been used unlawfully.

Everything comes crashing down.

Once there's RAS for something, the officer can go (almost) wherever an investigation stops. The driver is detained. There doesn't need to be discrete RAS for each subsequent step.

I was not attempting to claim that you said something that you didn't. I was merely clarifying, and providing context, for what you said.

Yeah, but you provided context that wasn't there.

 

[HoughMade]

So, I'm late to the party.

Question. Will Constitutional Carry allow felons to carry?

Follow up. If not, why not?

(it's gonna git all Socratic up in here).

 

[T.Lex]

So, I'm late to the party.

Question. Will Constitutional Carry allow felons to carry?

Follow up. If not, why not?

(it's gonna git all Socratic up in here).

Ugh.

Yes, ConC (<--- I like that abbrev. better than "CC") means felons will have all the same opportunities to carry that they do now. That portion of the system will remain unchanged.



Oh, and Chip, here's a case more in line with what I'm describing.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07111101rts.doc.pdf

It is also pre-Pinner.

 

[HoughMade]

Ugh.

Yes, ConC (<--- I like that abbrev. better than "CC") means felons will have all the same opportunities to carry that they do now. That portion of the system will remain unchanged.

...

So if the organizing principle of Constitutional Carry is "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand"? Where is the Constitutional exception for felons? I missed that part of the text.

 

[chipbennett]

Pre. But Pinner doesn't change them AT ALL. In fact, Pinner is consistent with them.


It isn't. It also doesn't matter.

Once an officer has RAS, and other facts are presented that could lead an investigation of the RAS offense in a different direction, they are entitled to pursue it, even without RAS or PC of that new offense.

Is this really controversial? Stop a car for speeding, smell marijuana, can search for the source.
https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02061703tac.pdf
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05311702par.pdf

Stop a car for seat belt, smell marijuana, find gun under passenger seat, passenger says things that get him convicted.
http://cases.justia.com/indiana/court-of-appeals/12120802msm.pdf?ts=1396121547

Marijuana possession and use are inherently unlawful. Possession of a firearm is not inherently unlawful (something that Pinner does, in fact, affirm).

It isn't, but I'll play.


Yes, exactly.


Yes. We're singing the same song, even harmonizing a bit at the good parts.

I do love a good harmony!

One of us missed the key change, but we can come back to that later.


Ok, we're a bit syncopated, but mostly together, in a jazzy kind of way.


Everything comes crashing down.

Once there's RAS for something, the officer can go (almost) wherever an investigation stops. The driver is detained. There doesn't need to be discrete RAS for each subsequent step.

I don't think the latitude is quite as unlimited as I am inferring from this statement. RAS for a moving violation does not justify detention for anything longer than is reasonably required to investigate/cite the moving violation. If the officer observes evidence that constitutes RAS of some other, unlawful activity during the course of that detention, then the extent of reasonable detention and investigation increases to encompass that new RAS.

Here's the rub: mere possession of a firearm is not RAS of unlawful activity, as affirmed by Pinner.

So, a police officer observing a firearm (handgun) in the car while citing the driver for a moving violation is not the same as that officer seeing/smelling marijuana in the car while citing the driver for a moving violation. The latter provides RAS of additional, unlawful activity beyond the moving violation; the former does not.

Yeah, but you provided context that wasn't there.

Well, no. Because you implied that not only could a police officer ask any question he wanted, but that the person being detained would be lawfully compelled to respond to such questions. (Though, you did later clarify, and I agree: criminals are stupid.)

 

[chipbennett]

So, I'm late to the party.

Question. Will Constitutional Carry allow felons to carry?

Follow up. If not, why not?

(it's gonna git all Socratic up in here).

No, constitutional carry will not "allow" felons to carry. The definition of a "prohibited person" remains the same, with or without licensing requirements.

Related: no law prevents felons from acting of their own volition. Being a scofflaw is sort of part of the job description of being a criminal.

 

[HoughMade]

No, constitutional carry will not "allow" felons to carry. The definition of a "prohibited person" remains the same, with or without licensing requirements.

Related: no law prevents felons from acting of their own volition. Being a scofflaw is sort of part of the job description of being a criminal.

So I reiterate...

So if the organizing principle of Constitutional Carry is "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand"? Where is the Constitutional exception for felons? I missed that part of the text.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, and Chip, here's a case more in line with what I'm describing.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07111101rts.doc.pdf

It is also pre-Pinner.

The appellant's only argument was that the officer's observation of the firearm constituted an unlawful search. I see nothing in the decision regarding challenging the trial court on the grounds that a firearm is not inherently unlawful. Also: during the course of the lawful detention and investigation for moving violation, that later became an arrest for driving on a suspended license, the officer could easily have determined that the detainee was a felon, and therefore a prohibited person - at which point, the possession of the observed firearm does constitute RAS of unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.

So, I don't see how this particular decision would apply (or control?), especially in a post-Pinner world.

 

[chipbennett]

So I reiterate...

You'll get no argument from me on that point. I believe that once one's full sentence has been carried out (including incarceration and any following probation), full rights should be restored automatically. Anyone demonstrating themselves to be too dangerous to exercise those full rights should not be unleashed upon society, and should be kept incarcerated.

 

[HoughMade]

You'll get no argument from me on that point. I believe that once one's full sentence has been carried out (including incarceration and any following probation), full rights should be restored automatically. Anyone demonstrating themselves to be too dangerous to exercise those full rights should not be unleashed upon society, and should be kept incarcerated.

I'm making no argument. I am wondering why we are calling this "Constitutional Carry". Beyond that, those who are in favor of "Constitutional Carry" and barring felons from having guns legally (or inmates for that matter) what is the argument? What is the Constitutional bases for these restrictions? Is there one?

I am simply asking for people to think this through.