Uuhhh, it's not about the money (code for: it's always about the money)
-
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/
Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)
- Thread starter Bill of Rights
- 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:
They can always ask that question. They just can't do anything now if the person doesn't respond, or says, "yes", and then excuses him- or herself to leave, barring other evidence/indication of crime committed or "afoot".
Again, taking the devil's advocate role (yeah, I can see your shocked face from here)
....For purposes of the summer study of constitutional carry, if we get constitutional carry, then the officers would not be able to even ask that. It wouldn't matter what the answer was.
Let's play out the Pinner situation in a world of const. carry. Report of a MWAG, doing nothing illegal with it. Dispatcher does nothing, because that's not illegal. MWAG shoots up a movie theater.
That would be bad, at many levels.
Under existing framework, officers would have more leeway in approaching MWAG, confirming M is WAG, and asking about a license.
IMHO, the appropriate counter is that, just like a 911 call about an erratic driver, officers can be dispatched, identify the individual if they can, then determine BASED ON THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS if there is something erratic to produce RAS of some other issue. That could, likely, include indications of inebriation or mental issue.
You know, maybe that's the summer study tradeoff: we get const. carry, but Possession of a Firearm while Intoxicated becomes a Class A misd. (or less). Could incorporate a substantial body of caselaw from the DWI prosecutions.
Given that none of their arguments is rational to begin with, I never would have assumed as much with this one.
Again, taking the devil's advocate role (yeah, I can see your shocked face from here)
For purposes of the summer study of constitutional carry, if we get constitutional carry, then the officers would not be able to even ask that. It wouldn't matter what the answer was.
Wait: what? Police officers can approach anyone at any time. Police officers can ask anyone any question at any time.
The only thing that changes is the lack of compulsion to answer such questions, and the lack of legal authority of police officers to investigatorily detain people to compel them to answer such questions.
One, the default position of MWAG is not being a criminal about to commit a crime. Some 10-15 million non-LEO citizens in this country carry firearms. One person shooting up a theater doesn't even rise to the level of a statistical anomaly.
Two, nothing prevents police officers from observing people, and using behavioral profiling to develop evidence sufficient to constitute RAS/PC. MWAG is not some magic talisman that points police officers to someone about to commit a crime.
And as such, the existing framework violates the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.
Good. So we're on the same page.
Oh, goodie: more malum prohibitum laws.
If the firearm never leaves its safely holstered location, why should the inebriation status of the carrier matter? We need laws that deal with actual harm, not on pre-harm or potential harm.
Again, taking the devil's advocate role (yeah, I can see your shocked face from here)
For purposes of the summer study of constitutional carry, if we get constitutional carry, then the officers would not be able to even ask that. It wouldn't matter what the answer was.
Let's play out the Pinner situation in a world of const. carry. Report of a MWAG, doing nothing illegal with it. Dispatcher does nothing, because that's not illegal. MWAG shoots up a movie theater.
That would be bad, at many levels.
Under existing framework, officers would have more leeway in approaching MWAG, confirming M is WAG, and asking about a license.
IMHO, the appropriate counter is that, just like a 911 call about an erratic driver, officers can be dispatched, identify the individual if they can, then determine BASED ON THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS if there is something erratic to produce RAS of some other issue. That could, likely, include indications of inebriation or mental issue.
You know, maybe that's the summer study tradeoff: we get const. carry, but Possession of a Firearm while Intoxicated becomes a Class A misd. (or less). Could incorporate a substantial body of caselaw from the DWI prosecutions.
I agree with Chip. With constitutional carry, even with a MWAG call, the dispatcher could still query the caller to determine if it needs further attention. (I'm not sure if that would be via departmental procedures or what--just saying cc would not prohibit a unit being dispatched). Like Chip points out, like any suspicious person call or other such call, the officer can still observe the subject for suspicious behavior or criminal activity and act accordingly.
Chip - I didn't take your comments personally to me, as I was not providing my own view of what "good" is here, but playing out the politics of it. But, I still want to reinforce that you and I are fundamentally in agreement: more laws divorced from actual harm is a philosophical bad idea, but it also ignores the political realities.
With that....
Agreed, but this isn't about statistics or engineering outcomes.
You and I might not completely agree on that narrow point, but the problem is MOST people would agree with it.
Incrementalism.
Politics is the art and science of horse trading. We want something big; we can afford to give up something small.
To me, PFWI would be a minor give to have constitutional carry. I will concede that others (particularly drunkards) might disagree.
With that....
Agreed, but this isn't about statistics or engineering outcomes.
I will weakly argue a counterpoint: 100% of gun-bearing robbers use guns to rob people. While not all MWAGs rob people, that's not the measure that is politically important. A 911 call about a man brandishing a gun COULD indicate a crime is about to happen. It is reasonable for police to be dispatched and look for an opportunity for a "voluntary" interaction with the individual.
You and I might not completely agree on that narrow point, but the problem is MOST people would agree with it.
Technically, that's not true. Yet.
More often than not. IMHO.
Oh, goodie: more malum prohibitum laws.
If the firearm never leaves its safely holstered location, why should the inebriation status of the carrier matter? We need laws that deal with actual harm, not on pre-harm or potential harm.
Incrementalism.
Politics is the art and science of horse trading. We want something big; we can afford to give up something small.
To me, PFWI would be a minor give to have constitutional carry. I will concede that others (particularly drunkards) might disagree.
No worries; I understood your comments to be from a Devil's Advocate position.
(Something that is only relevant because RKBA is the only constitutionally enumerated right NOT subjected to strict scrutiny in order to justify infringement.)
100% of drunk drivers, and 100% of those driving on a suspended license, are driving a car.
Brandishing and carrying are not interchangeable. A holstered firearm and a firearm in the hand are not the same situation. Brandishing is a behavior, and generally speaking, unlawful (unless used justifiably in a defensive situation).
On the narrow point of brandishing, I'm sure we do agree. But brandishing is a separate issue from MWAG.
Technically, that's not true. Yet.
No. It remains unconstitutional, before, after, and regardless of whether a court recognizes it as such.
Agreed.
Incrementalism.
Politics is the art and science of horse trading. We want something big; we can afford to give up something small.
To me, PFWI would be a minor give to have constitutional carry. I will concede that others (particularly drunkards) might disagree.
I happen to think that we in Indiana are on the cusp of getting full-blown constitutional carry, horse-trading or no. So, I am not in favor of such horse-trading, if it proves to be needless.
So, that leads to a definitional issue: in Indiana, there is no legal description of "brandishing." Maybe that's the horse trade? We get a law on what "brandishing" is (which, IMHO, would be worse than PFWI but reasonable people might disagree on that).
Part of my goal would be to make policing easier (in the functional sense, not the authoritarian sense). Which is not always easy.
The clearer the laws can be, the easier it is on police - and citizenry. Police officers shouldn't be expected to have a uniform sense of what "brandishing" is without a legal definition. They already have a sense of what "while intoxicated" is.
I did say "technically."
Alas, like any trade, we don't know going into it what we'll have to give up. My gut is that we are not on the cusp of just getting it because we're asking for it. Watching the LEO organizations line up against it this last time was disconcerting, politically. Not many of the elected will vote against that bloc because of what their opponents will be able to turn it into in the next cycle.
Totally MHO.
I don't understand the "brandishing" rabbit hole. An untouched, holstered firearm is not being brandished. Any act that can reasonably be construed to constitute "brandishing" would explicitly involve more than merely possessing a holstered firearm.
I did say "technically."
Less a technicality, and more a position of principle. Judges are not the arbiters of rights. We The People are. Judges only have authority enumerated to them by We The People. We The People, ultimately, decide what is and is not an unconstitutional infringement of our rights and authority.
And I see the lining-up of those LEO organizations as the last gasp of a cornered tiger. Truth will win out - and sooner rather than later, IMHO.
So Pinner? Having an unholstered firearm fall out into a vehicle (or on the street - that wasn't completely clear in the facts)? Personally, that's not brandishing, its sloppiness.
Resting a hand on a holstered OC'd pistol during an argument? To me, not brandishing. But, might be a good idea for police to be nearby.
If you choose to carry a firearm in an insecure manner, you assume the risk of having your intentions called into question when that unsecured firearm does things that you don't want it to - such as falling out. That said, even with Pinner, the taxi driver said that, while he was "afraid" that he would be robbed, Pinner did absolutely nothing to indicate that he intended to rob the taxi driver.
Putting a hand on a holstered firearm during an argument is an explicit action, and would reasonably lead someone to question the meaning behind the action. It is entirely different from an unmolested, holstered firearm carried by someone during an argument.
Late back to the party, but T, I gotta say, no, the PFWI "trade" is a lose-lose for me, an just for the record, I've had, in my life, one sip of beer, and one sip of wine (prior to cooking, that is) so I doubt I qualify as a "drunkard". I stand against a PFWI law. No, I don't think it's a good idea for drunks to be armed, but I don't think it's a good idea to stiff my server when I go out to supper, either. Doesn't mean I think there should be a law against it. If we go down that rabbit hole, the next question will address drunks with knives. Or clubs. Or rocks. Or fists...good luck trying to outlaw THAT one. How about outlawing drunks with keys to a car? They're not behind the wheel, and with Uber, may not even be anywhere within miles of the car that those keys fit, but darn it, they COULD be about to OWI!
Alternatively, I could go back to the argument I've used before, reference MWAG.
"911, do you have an emergency?".................................................................................................."911, do you have an emergency?"
"THERE'S A MAN WITH A LAPTOP COMPUTER!"..................................................................................."THERE'S A MAN WITH A GUN!"
"Ma'am, there's no law against having a laptop computer....................................................................."Ma'am, there's no law against having a gun.
...Is the man doing anything suspicious?".............................................................................................Is the man doing anything suspicious?"
"HE COULD BE ABOUT TO COMMIT IDENTITY THEFT!".........................................................................."HE COULD BE ABOUT TO ROB THE STORE!"
Now, based on Castle Rock v. Gonzales and the fact that police do not respond to what "could be" "about to happen"... why is this different, in either case?
I have to agree also- we need laws that address actual crimes that cause harm, not pre-crime, a la Minority Report. Conveniently, we have such laws in place, prohibiting such things as murder, manslaughter, rape, battery, arson, attempted battery and even OWI (yes, I see the discrepancy here, in both of the latter cases.)
Having the tools to commit a crime is not the same as committing that crime, as the old joke illustrates:
Prosecutor: "Mr. Cheatham, when you were apprehended, you had in your possession all the tools necessary to commit a burglary! How can you claim innocence?"
Plaintiff: "Madame, at this moment here in court, you have on your person all the tools necessary to commit prostitution."
As to the above discrepancies, "attempted battery" is what Indiana calls "assault". Putting someone in reasonable fear (AOJ, etc.)of harm rises above the taxi driver in the Pinner case's statement. OWI involves someone actively committing an act that falls into the same category as "attempted battery"; there is the ability, the opportunity, and the jeopardy in the drunk driver's action to cause real, demonstrable harm. PFWI would fall into the same category as making bars off-limits to possession of a firearm, which is to say that it would criminalize the guy who goes out for a couple, and in conversation, finishes his second drink at the 90 minute mark, rather than 2 hours, as he planned. Is he, under the law, intoxicated? Yes. Is he a threat to anyone who does not threaten him? Perhaps, but not much more so than when sober. Too, there is the AOJ issue in question: left alone, that guy is going to go on about his day, not threatening anyone.
"Ma'am, call us back if he does something illegal, please, and we'll send someone right away."..................."Ma'am, call us back if he does something illegal, please, and we'll send someone right away."
And T, when you're playing Devil's Advocate... never forget who your client is. Free advice, take it or leave it.
Blessings,
Bill
Alternatively, I could go back to the argument I've used before, reference MWAG.
"911, do you have an emergency?".................................................................................................."911, do you have an emergency?"
"THERE'S A MAN WITH A LAPTOP COMPUTER!"..................................................................................."THERE'S A MAN WITH A GUN!"
"Ma'am, there's no law against having a laptop computer....................................................................."Ma'am, there's no law against having a gun.
...Is the man doing anything suspicious?".............................................................................................Is the man doing anything suspicious?"
"HE COULD BE ABOUT TO COMMIT IDENTITY THEFT!".........................................................................."HE COULD BE ABOUT TO ROB THE STORE!"
Now, based on Castle Rock v. Gonzales and the fact that police do not respond to what "could be" "about to happen"... why is this different, in either case?
I have to agree also- we need laws that address actual crimes that cause harm, not pre-crime, a la Minority Report. Conveniently, we have such laws in place, prohibiting such things as murder, manslaughter, rape, battery, arson, attempted battery and even OWI (yes, I see the discrepancy here, in both of the latter cases.)
Having the tools to commit a crime is not the same as committing that crime, as the old joke illustrates:
Prosecutor: "Mr. Cheatham, when you were apprehended, you had in your possession all the tools necessary to commit a burglary! How can you claim innocence?"
Plaintiff: "Madame, at this moment here in court, you have on your person all the tools necessary to commit prostitution."
As to the above discrepancies, "attempted battery" is what Indiana calls "assault". Putting someone in reasonable fear (AOJ, etc.)of harm rises above the taxi driver in the Pinner case's statement. OWI involves someone actively committing an act that falls into the same category as "attempted battery"; there is the ability, the opportunity, and the jeopardy in the drunk driver's action to cause real, demonstrable harm. PFWI would fall into the same category as making bars off-limits to possession of a firearm, which is to say that it would criminalize the guy who goes out for a couple, and in conversation, finishes his second drink at the 90 minute mark, rather than 2 hours, as he planned. Is he, under the law, intoxicated? Yes. Is he a threat to anyone who does not threaten him? Perhaps, but not much more so than when sober. Too, there is the AOJ issue in question: left alone, that guy is going to go on about his day, not threatening anyone.
"Ma'am, call us back if he does something illegal, please, and we'll send someone right away."..................."Ma'am, call us back if he does something illegal, please, and we'll send someone right away."
And T, when you're playing Devil's Advocate... never forget who your client is. Free advice, take it or leave it.
Blessings,
Bill
Again, taking the devil's advocate role (yeah, I can see your shocked face from here)
For purposes of the summer study of constitutional carry, if we get constitutional carry, then the officers would not be able to even ask that. It wouldn't matter what the answer was.
Let's play out the Pinner situation in a world of const. carry. Report of a MWAG, doing nothing illegal with it. Dispatcher does nothing, because that's not illegal. MWAG shoots up a movie theater.
That would be bad, at many levels.
Under existing framework, officers would have more leeway in approaching MWAG, confirming M is WAG, and asking about a license.
IMHO, the appropriate counter is that, just like a 911 call about an erratic driver, officers can be dispatched, identify the individual if they can, then determine BASED ON THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS if there is something erratic to produce RAS of some other issue. That could, likely, include indications of inebriation or mental issue.
You know, maybe that's the summer study tradeoff: we get const. carry, but Possession of a Firearm while Intoxicated becomes a Class A misd. (or less). Could incorporate a substantial body of caselaw from the DWI prosecutions.
JeremiahJohnson
Master
Wonder if this thread and this one:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n-armed-hoosiers-check-handgun-license-2.html
Should be merged now?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n-armed-hoosiers-check-handgun-license-2.html
Should be merged now?
That was my point - it isn't in IC, but it is a word. A word people sometimes use to describe MWAGs in the real world.
Post-Pinner, a new angle may open: let's legislative support the ISC opinion. That would be an avenue that wouldn't necessarily need horse-trading. Antis could be thrown under the "no respect for the courts" bus.
Among the responsible, carrying community, no. But this provision of the Constitutional Carry bill is not about the responsible carrying community. It's about the fact that people who carry a gun and who get drunk while doing that, often, do not have a license and the "carrying with a license" law can be used to intervene. No need for a license, no basis to intervene with a guy is drunk and carrying, without this provision.
I'm all for Constitutional Carry, but let's not act like it won't result in people who were carrying illegally and doing irresponsible things continuing to carry and people who didn't get a license because of the cost, certainly won't pay for training, but will carry anyway.
Again, so long as the firearm stays securely holstered, what harm is one causing by being "drunk and carrying"?
This statement is tautological. Removal of a law that doesn't constrain people from doing something will "result in" those people, not previously restrained by the erstwhile law, continuing to do that which the erstwhile law failed to constrain them from doing? Obviously. Because laws don't compel or constrain the actions of the lawless - which only makes it all the more odious to leave in place laws that unconstitutionally constrain the actions of the law-abiding.
And what harm has come from people who carry without first paying for training? We're up to a baker's dozen of states that have implemented permitless carry; if lack of training is a legitimate concern, surely there are data to support that concern.
Site Supporter
Members online
- d.kaufman
- baranjhn
- klausm
- crumbflicker
- Creedmoor
- Michigan Slim
- TacOpsGuy320
- SpinDrift762
- Talkinghalls
- DoggyDaddy
- migunner
- Mike227
- tcecil88
- schmart
- DDadams
- danil
- maxipum
- texkev
- JHB
- Zephri
- Gabriel
- darkkevin
- Sheepdog103
- Leadeye
- slims2002
- pokersamurai
- jedi
- target64
- dmeadlo
- stack23
- Cavman
- lafrad
- Reece'sPieces
- mike4sigs
- gpasp101
- 5point9
- dieselrealtor
- Milo
- ROOTS54454
- SlowPlay
- gregr
- ljjhw
- Haven
- Zombie
- hhi7410
- nhgluff
- Chevyman540
- BoilerWes
- ogtruckin
- Hoosierdood
