Letter to the Editor in The Republic, Columbus, IN

[DarkRose]

Here's a link to a letter to the editor from The Republic newspaper here in Columbus.

To follow the rules, Ive avoided copying and pasting the article, and hope the link shows up without having to "log-in". I've tested it, and it appears to let unregistered users see the article, if not, I can copy and paste, it's not terribly long...

The Republic - Letter: Wearing handgun shouldn't be questioned - Columbus, Indiana

 

[Bill B]

+1.
I could read it just fine.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thanks. Was that your letter?

 

[starbreather]

This column sums up Columbus in general. Officers with so much free time they have nothing better to do than harass law abiding citizens whom don't fit a specific description.

 

[jblomenberg16]

This column sums up Columbus in general. Officers with so much free time they have nothing better to do than harass law abiding citizens whom don't fit a specific description.

I think you need to re-read the article there. The officers didn't harrass the OP, or at least that's not how I read it. I read that a "concerned" citizen reported a MWAG and the police responded. One guy was polite, and another did give him some grief about OC'ing. Nothing I read made it appear he was harrassed in anyway by an officer though.


Columbus is continuing to grow, as Cummins and other local business grows. Part of that growth means a continuing influx of people that are not familiar with firearms and a person's right to openly carry one. Some of them are very liberal and make their opinions well known. Others are very conservative and typically remain part of the silent majority.

Either way, it is a fact of today's society that people are more and more uneducated about firearms and only know what they see and hear on TV, the movies, and the internet. Unfortunately most of those sources (with some obvious exceptions like INGO) portray firearms in very skewed light, as some evil, scarey item that brings instance death to anyone in a 100 yd radius of one. They miss the fact that guns are part of the history of our country, as well as very tightly intertwined within our culture here in Indiana. They miss the fact that while violent in nature, gun crimes are overal a verly low percentage of crime. They miss the fact that you are much more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a gun.


Letters like what the OP wrote to the Republic are a way we can all use our First Ammendment right to help remind everyone of our 2nd Ammendment right.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Why do police respond to people reporting someone with a gun? What would they do if I called and said I just saw someone at Lowe's with a knife on their belt? Do you have to make a statement that you're concerned about his motives to get them involved? I mean driving a car is illegal unless you have a license too. Can I call the police and report that I saw someone driving a car and make them prove they have a license?

Sorry for the many questions, just curious why the response by LEO when someone reports a potentially legal activity.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Why do police respond to people reporting someone with a gun? What would they do if I called and said I just saw someone at Lowe's with a knife on their belt? Do you have to make a statement that you're concerned about his motives to get them involved? I mean driving a car is illegal unless you have a license too. Can I call the police and report that I saw someone driving a car and make them prove they have a license?

Sorry for the many questions, just curious why the response by LEO when someone reports a potentially legal activity.

Because if they don't, and if the MWAG was the 1 in a million out to do harm, you'd better bet there would be hell to pay if said MWAG did his harm and the police just said "meh, its not big deal" and didn't check it out. Not that I agree with that philosophy, but in today's cry-baby, ready to sue at the drop of the hat, "somebody is going to pay for that" society, can you blame them? By the same token, if they do stop a shooting, they are heros (and rightly so) for saving the day. So what to do?

 

[Hammerhead]

The best we can hope for is officers who don't go into each and every situation in condition red, and that they know the law and don't have a chip on their shoulders about carry, or OC specifically.

Otherwise, we, as lawful carriers continue about our business and do what we can to make things go smoothly when interacting with the police.

 

[Hammerhead]

And before anyone mentions it, I do not mean rolling over and/or giving up our rights just to make things go smoothly.

Firmly asserting our rights is essential to keeping things going smoothly from our side. Notice I said firmly, not stupidly, violently, sarcastically, or insolently.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why do police respond to people reporting someone with a gun? What would they do if I called and said I just saw someone at Lowe's with a knife on their belt? Do you have to make a statement that you're concerned about his motives to get them involved? I mean driving a car is illegal unless you have a license too. Can I call the police and report that I saw someone driving a car and make them prove they have a license?

Sorry for the many questions, just curious why the response by LEO when someone reports a potentially legal activity.

Fair questions. If you called to report a man with a knife, yes, I'd imagine they'd respond and at a minimum, check out the person.

As for your question about driving without a license, I do not have the cite for it, but SCOTUS has ruled that LEOs can't just pull people over to check and see if they have a license to drive. No such ruling has been applied to the LTCH or any similar permission slip.

And yes, I agree that would be the stuff piled up behind the bull.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DarkRose]

Thanks. Was that your letter?

Nope, wasn't my letter, just happened to see it when I was looking up a former co-workers obituary.

I don't OC often, it seems like every time I'm out and about it's tied to getting my son from daycare, and even having it on the property there is a no-no, so I don't push it.

When I have OC'd it's mainly been at Wal-Mart, gas stations, and a local fishing spot there was a meth lab found near a few weeks ago, or a local park I fish at, and so far, I've never been hassled. OC'd once at Texas Roadhouse and a couple times at Applebee's, nada.

One of these days I'll come up with a decent carry rig and it'll be out and about with me more, lol.

 

[XDinmyXJ]

Its seems like for the most part our officers do a good job of responding to these calls in an appropriate manner. I mean if I am standing in line at the gas station OC'ing legally and I get tackled by the police and cuffed because a "concerned citizen" reported me, I am suing someone. It saddens me that people are so uneducated about firearms these days. I'm normally pretty clean cut and wearing a t-shirt. I don't think i look like a criminal....

 

[Gun Bunny]

I think the amount of LEOs responding is normal for Columbus. My mother was pulled over for speeding there and she had 4 cars behind her. I have hardly ever seen anyone pulled over with no less than 2 cars. They just play it safe.

It is the interaction that counts to me, don't care how many officers respond.

 

[Hotdoger]

I think the amount of LEOs responding is normal for Columbus. My mother was pulled over for speeding there and she had 4 cars behind her. I have hardly ever seen anyone pulled over with no less than 2 cars. They just play it safe.

It is the interaction that counts to me, don't care how many officers respond.

It should matter to the taxpayers!
It is a inappopriate use of tax dollars having 4 units for a speeding ticket.
Having 4 units also creats an unsafe traffice situation.

 

[bft131]

Remember, Columbus isnt that far from Bloomington so I am sure some of the "fruityness" spills over with new residence.....Good for you in your handling of the situation and to 2/3rds of the officers involved.....

 

[pinshooter45]

This happens when we move from a rual to urban society

It is amazing how short a time it takes to change attitudes twawrds firearms. I can rember when I was a kid in the late 60's to early 70's I always carried a pocket knife to school, no problems. Now it'll get you an expulsion. I also remember listening to G. Gordon Liddy on the radio telling how him and his friends would walk to school with their .22's in the 40's. Put them in the coat room, and be able to talk to their teacher about the squirrels they were going to hunt on the way home. That would be dang near suicide today!

 

[Gareth]

Because if they don't, and if the MWAG was the 1 in a million out to do harm, you'd better bet there would be hell to pay if said MWAG did his harm and the police just said "meh, its not big deal" and didn't check it out. Not that I agree with that philosophy, but in today's cry-baby, ready to sue at the drop of the hat, "somebody is going to pay for that" society, can you blame them? By the same token, if they do stop a shooting, they are heros (and rightly so) for saving the day. So what to do?

The one receiving the MWAG call should ask if the visibly armed individual is behaving suspiciously, and is their handgun holstered. If the answers are "no" and "yes" respectively, everyone should just chill and get on with their lives.

Too many of these supposedly "alarmed" citizens that bother LE with this MWAG nonsense are just anti-gun agitators attempting to use LE in a pathetic effort to inflict their irrational feelings on those who choose to carry handguns.

 

[sporter]

MWAG.....Panic!!

I seen a early 20's kid buying a couple boxes of 9mm ammunition at Wally World yesterday. I should have called the cops! "Thug buying bullets at Walmart, Story at 11"

2nd amendment applies to everyone in the country. Not just the police.

Thanks for posting the letter OP.

 

[Indy317]

Why do police respond to people reporting someone with a gun?

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(Cops aren't clairvoyant. There is, for the most part, no way to know if a person is covered under the subsection (b) exemptions).

As such, cops are going to investigate because:
IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies

(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.

Can I call the police and report that I saw someone driving a car and make them prove they have a license?

You can. The cops can't do anything on that alone:
Delaware v. Prouse

Sorry for the many questions, just curious why the response by LEO when someone reports a potentially legal activity.

Because as you stated, the activity is only "potentially" legal. This means the activity is also potentially illegal. Imagine the outrage if the cops don't respond to a MWAG call (someone sees something, for whatever reason), and 20 mins. later, that MWAG is now a suspect in the killing of a former spouse and has multiple past felonies. The original witness comes forward and tells the media "I saw John with a handgun, he dropped it as he was walking to his car. I called the cops, but they said they don't respond because John's possession could potentially be legal." That is likely a reason why LE will always respond to calls about people with weapons. They would rather investigate a possible criminal act in progress, discover there is no crime and leave, than not investigate a criminal act and have that criminal act of carrying lead to another worse criminal involving the same gun just moments after the original complaint comes into dispatch.

 

[Hotdoger]

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(Cops aren't clairvoyant. There is, for the most part, no way to know if a person is covered under the subsection (b) exemptions).

As such, cops are going to investigate because:
IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies

(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.



You can. The cops can't do anything on that alone:
Delaware v. Prouse



Because as you stated, the activity is only "potentially" legal. This means the activity is also potentially illegal. Imagine the outrage if the cops don't respond to a MWAG call (someone sees something, for whatever reason), and 20 mins. later, that MWAG is now a suspect in the killing of a former spouse and has multiple past felonies. The original witness comes forward and tells the media "I saw John with a handgun, he dropped it as he was walking to his car. I called the cops, but they said they don't respond because John's possession could potentially be legal." That is likely a reason why LE will always respond to calls about people with weapons. They would rather investigate a possible criminal act in progress, discover there is no crime and leave, than not investigate a criminal act and have that criminal act of carrying lead to another worse criminal involving the same gun just moments after the original complaint comes into dispatch.

So now as good citizens, we should call on everyone we see getting in a vehicle because 20 minutes later they may commit an illegal act while driving .

LOL.

I don't think INGOers are sheeple you can sway with the "what if" dreams.