Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession

[Bill of Rights]

Correct me if I'm misreading it, Doug, but it's not that the person "was directed to stand up" as much as it was the fact that they were directed to do anything. It's the fact that government is force applied to the citizenry that makes the difference.

The removal of the law requiring us to ask permission to exercise a right would be the most sweeping way to remove that force insofar as the RKBA, and the best way, IMHO, to avoid this whole issue. T. Lex, would a ruling in Pinner that the sight of a handgun is not, by itself, RAS for Terry or other legal entanglements be something the antis could reasonably point to as a lack of necessity for Constitutional Carry?

Blessings,
Bill

This ^^^ is what I find so fascinating about the law. That the simple fact that a person was directed to stand up carries a great deal of weight in a case regarding our right to keep & bear arms.

Thank you for the play by play and the nice poetry opening!

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

T. Lex, would a ruling in Pinner that the sight of a handgun is not, by itself, RAS for Terry or other legal entanglements be something the antis could reasonably point to as a lack of necessity for Constitutional Carry?

Ok. That's an interesting question, that I'm not sure I can really answer.

If visible possession of a handgun is not RAS, then it means LEOs can only do a consensual conversation. It might make a de facto constitutional carry, in that officers may or may not start up a conversation, if they want.

If visible possession of a handgun is RAS, then they can either detain or do a conversation. They don't have to, any more than they HAVE to enforce speeding laws. It just provides "better" justification for the interaction with the handgun possessor.

My best guess at this point is that the court will say that on the limited facts of this case, there was or wasn't RAS. There is enough here to say that there was more than just possession. In pseudo-math, it would be something like:
possession of handgun + not in excepted place + report of person with handgun + nervous actions + lying about having handgun despite matching description of possessor = RAS

 

[Woobie]

I guess I don't see how this could amount to de facto constitutional carry. If it goes the way we wish, the mere sight of a handgun will no longer be RAS for the crime of carrying without a license. But if RAS is established for something else, say a drug dog likes the way your back seat smells, then in the process of that investigation they will find your handgun, which you are still carrying without a license, and which is still illegal.

Am I off base here?

 

[T.Lex]

I think this is a better angle.

We already have constitutional carry for long arms. If an officer sees someone with an AR-15 (and a beard) at WalMart, what happens? He can go up and ask him what he's doing. He can't ask for a Larry, because you don't need one. If the guy isn't doing anything wrong, you can't really ask for ID. Well, you can, but he doesn't have to give it. The officer has to wait for an action that would provide RAS to detain Arlo McBeardsley.

I think what BoR is getting at is that, functionally, it would be the same result if Pinner says visible possession of a handgun is not RAS. An officer can still come up and engage in conversation, but without more, that's all.

It almost turns into a distinction without a difference.

 

[Woobie]

I think this is a better angle.

We already have constitutional carry for long arms. If an officer sees someone with an AR-15 (and a beard) at WalMart, what happens? He can go up and ask him what he's doing. He can't ask for a Larry, because you don't need one. If the guy isn't doing anything wrong, you can't really ask for ID. Well, you can, but he doesn't have to give it. The officer has to wait for an action that would provide RAS to detain Arlo McBeardsley.

I think what BoR is getting at is that, functionally, it would be the same result if Pinner says visible possession of a handgun is not RAS. An officer can still come up and engage in conversation, but without more, that's all.

It almost turns into a distinction without a difference.

I get that, but at the end of the day you are still committing a crime. And you would never get caught, unless you do. Like if I actually have to use the dumb thing. To me it's a good step, but there are more steps to take.

 

[Libertarian01]

Correct me if I'm misreading it, Doug, but it's not that the person "was directed to stand up" as much as it was the fact that they were directed to do anything. It's the fact that government is force applied to the citizenry that makes the difference.

The removal of the law requiring us to ask permission to exercise a right would be the most sweeping way to remove that force insofar as the RKBA, and the best way, IMHO, to avoid this whole issue. T. Lex, would a ruling in Pinner that the sight of a handgun is not, by itself, RAS for Terry or other legal entanglements be something the antis could reasonably point to as a lack of necessity for Constitutional Carry?

Blessings,
Bill

Bill,

My only observation was that the simple, innocuous(?) act of directing some one to stand up (or do anything) could have such a profound influence on the logic flow of the case.

It is these little details that almost never make it into a mainstream media report but which may well tip the balance of a decision.

I can only imagine the fun() one would have trying to apply a truth table to a court case. I wonder if it has ever been done?

While we may well disagree with the courts decision in many cases they do seem to give tremendous in depth thought to many small variables to come up with their decisions.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

One other thing to realize from oral arguments - the minutiae can become distractions. For instance, when the Deputy Attorney General (DAG acronym) referred to an absence of support in the record for the trial court determination that the officer "directed" Pinner to stand up, 3 justices got in on proving her wrong. That wasn't really germane to the analysis, they just didn't want to let her get away with saying something so wrong.

That may have felt like more emphasis than it really was.

But, in reality, close cases - the kind that turn on whether someone was ordered or asked to sit or stand - are difficult.

 

[Hawkeye]

........

If an officer sees someone with an AR-15 (and a beard) at WalMart, what happens?

...

What if the indiviual wth the AR 15 is smooth shaven? Or if hte individual is a woman (without a beard)?

Is the beard a relevant part of the discussion or a "red herring"?

 

[T.Lex]

What if the indiviual wth the AR 15 is smooth shaven? Or if hte individual is a woman (without a beard)?

Is the beard a relevant part of the discussion or a "red herring"?

Clearly, you are new to INGO. Welcome!



On a separate note, that was added to suggest that the officer saw 2 people.

 

[Alamo]

What if it is a glitter beard? Does that change the analysis?

 

[T.Lex]

What if it is a glitter beard? Does that change the analysis?

Yes. The police would then have RAS of a fashion crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes. The police would then have RAS of a fashion crime.

RAS or prima facie evidence?

 

[T.Lex]

RAS or prima facie evidence?

ISWYDT.

Rep inbound.

(Wish I'd thought of it.)

 

[Ericpwp]

RAS or prima facie evidence?

Sorry folks. The internet has been won for the day. Please try again tomorrow.

 

[Vigilant]

What if the indiviual wth the AR 15 is smooth shaven? Or if hte individual is a woman (without a beard)?

Is the beard a relevant part of the discussion or a "red herring"?

What if it was a woman WITH a beard?

 

[Hawkeye]

Clearly, you are new to INGO. Welcome!

Clearly, I am not new.

 

[thebishopp]

Whatever happened with this?

 

[jamil]

I think we left off with Hawkeye is old.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think we left off with Hawkeye is old.

Yes, I am. But that was a different thread in a different forum!

 

[jamil]

Yes, I am. But that was a different thread in a different forum!

Clearly, I am not new.

It was this thread too. If you're not new...