LTCH and Ohio

[kevman65]

What happened to Indiana only recognizing states that recognize Indiana's LTCH? I notice that an Ohio resident with a permit can carry here now, but not vice versa

 

[Scutter01]

What happened to Indiana only recognizing states that recognize Indiana's LTCH? I notice that an Ohio resident with a permit can carry here now, but not vice versa

Er... since 1983?

IC 35-47-2-21
Recognition of retail dealers' licenses and licenses to carry handguns issued by other states
Sec. 21. (a) Retail dealers' licenses issued by other states or foreign countries will not be recognized in Indiana except for sales at wholesale.
(b) Licenses to carry handguns, issued by other states or foreign countries, will be recognized according to the terms thereof but only while the holders are not residents of Indiana.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

 

[kevman65]

I thought they were excluding states that didn't reciprocate. I remember there was a to do with Kentucky because they weren't recognizing ours and that changed. Just noticed on a reciprocity map that Indiana was recognizing Ohio's.

Kind of steams me a might. We aren't allowed our right there, but they can come here with no worries.

Not to mention dealers are getting more and more selective on the one state away on long guns.

 

[Scutter01]

I thought they were excluding states that didn't reciprocate. I remember there was a to do with Kentucky because they weren't recognizing ours and that changed. Just noticed on a reciprocity map that Indiana was recognizing Ohio's.

I've only been in Indiana for about 10 years but I don't remember that ever being the case. Regardless, the statute I quoted was enacted in 1983, according to the note at the bottom, so I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[kevman65]

I've only been in Indiana for about 10 years but I don't remember that ever being the case. Regardless, the statute I quoted was enacted in 1983, according to the note at the bottom, so I'm not sure what to tell you.

I've had a LTCH since '83, Kentucky used to NOT recognize it, but wanted Indiana to recognize theirs. There was a stink made about it and Kentucky changed their statutes to start recognizing state's LTCH (keeping in mind that Kentucky is not a state )

Some statutes, as we all know, change language and if you don't have the older version you don't see the previous language. Still irks me about Ohio, I have family there but I HATE traveling to that state.

 

[Scutter01]

I've had a LTCH since '83, Kentucky used to NOT recognize it, but wanted Indiana to recognize theirs. There was a stink made about it and Kentucky changed their statutes to start recognizing state's LTCH (keeping in mind that Kentucky is not a state )

Some statutes, as we all know, change language and if you don't have the older version you don't see the previous language. Still irks me about Ohio, I have family there but I HATE traveling to that state.

Maybe I'm confused about what you mean. Indiana has recognized all other states' licenses since at least 1983. Are you talking about that or are you talking about other states recognizing Indiana's? I'm confused about what you're angry about.

 

[kevman65]

The fact that Indiana backed off of its reciprocity fight. It WAS an issue in the 80's and they got some states (and commonwealths) to turn around on their not recognizing Indiana's permits.

The fact that Ohio gets to enjoy their freedom here but denies us our freedom there.

At least Illinois is cut and dried, no one no how no way.

The fact that I got pulled over for +3 in a 65 and then got hassled because I wouldn't grant them permission to search without just cause. I was legal, separate and locked, but I was pissed. One hour traffic stop while they brought out a drug dog who found nothing but somewhere to ****. No citation, no verbal or written warning, pulled for an out of state plate. Also no apology. If there was reciprocity, I would have made his day by handing him my permit and letting him wig out more. The whole thing reminded me again I can't carry there, but the jackbooted OSP can carry here

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The fact that Indiana backed off of its reciprocity fight. It WAS an issue in the 80's and they got some states (and commonwealths) to turn around on their not recognizing Indiana's permits.

The fact that Ohio gets to enjoy their freedom here but denies us our freedom there.

At least Illinois is cut and dried, no one no how no way.

The whole thing reminded me again I can't carry there, but the jackbooted OSP can carry here

I think you may have the laws of KY and IN backwards. KY honors out of state permits if the issuing state honors KYs.
Kentucky State Police: Concealed Deadly Weapons
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/237-00/110.PDF

Oh and any LEO can carry in any state. Even IL, WI, CA, NY and in DC. They are covered under LEOSA.

 

[kevman65]

I think you may have the laws of KY and IN backwards. KY honors out of state permits if the issuing state honors KYs.
Kentucky State Police: Concealed Deadly Weapons
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/237-00/110.PDF

Oh and any LEO can carry in any state. Even IL, WI, CA, NY and in DC. They are covered under LEOSA.

No, Indiana recognized Kentucky's, Kentucky did not recognize Indiana's. There was some blustering about and Kentucky along with some other states came into a reciprocity agreement with Indiana. You have to not look at now but look back then. Things have changed quite a bit and wording has been stricken from some of the statutes.

The comment about OSP was because of the BS I was put through this evening, its actually aimed at residents of Ohio that get permits being able to carry here and yet we have to do the separate and lock dance when we travel there.

 

[ATM]

...its actually aimed at residents of Ohio that get permits being able to carry here and yet we have to do the separate and lock dance when we travel there.

Should be aimed at other state legislatures that restrict you, not the permit holders.

I certainly don't want our state to deny or impose extra restrictions on any gun owners, regardless of whether their state restricts us and others.

We already have enough needless restrictions here.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This discussion's been had a few times, but you might have missed it. To my knowledge, IN has no "reciprocity agreements" with anyone; we simply recognize the RTC for the holder of any government-issued permission slip (LTCH/CCW/CFP/etc). There are a few who have written letters that they will recognize ours... Texas comes to mind, thanks to INGO member Kirk Freeman.

A separate point is that by wanting to restrict their RTC here because they restrict ours there, you're saying you want increased "gun control". I don't think that's really what you intend, but that's the end result of the position you describe. It comes across to me as vindictive. Suppose Vermont did that? The RTC there has never been subject to "permits" or "licenses", and as a result, many VT residents can carry only in their own state, even though they do not at the state level restrict anyone from carry.

If you want to carry in OH, having family there, you can contact, or have them contact, their legislators. Another option is to obtain a FL or a UT permit- personally, I like Utah's better- and your restriction is at an end.

Hope this helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bondhead88]

Side note on this discussion. I always wonder why it seems that LEOs do not seem to understand that bringing out a dog to sniff around your car is already a search.

The dog is searching for the smell of illegal substances and is breaking the 4th amendment. Meaning you do not have justifiable reasons to search because there is no evidence nor probable cause to search. So you use a dog to do what a human cannot do. The dog doesn't give you probable cause.

It is already a search at the point the car is detained and then an instrument (in this case canine) is walked around the car trying to find anything that will then allow them to get around the need for a warrant.

That bothers me as well "Get around a warrant."

A warrantless search is a warrantless search. The US needs to once again become a nation of laws based upon the Constitution for everybody.

 

[Bondhead88]

The fact that Indiana backed off of its reciprocity fight. It WAS an issue in the 80's and they got some states (and commonwealths) to turn around on their not recognizing Indiana's permits.

The fact that Ohio gets to enjoy their freedom here but denies us our freedom there.

At least Illinois is cut and dried, no one no how no way.

The fact that I got pulled over for +3 in a 65 and then got hassled because I wouldn't grant them permission to search without just cause. I was legal, separate and locked, but I was pissed. One hour traffic stop while they brought out a drug dog who found nothing but somewhere to ****. No citation, no verbal or written warning, pulled for an out of state plate. Also no apology. If there was reciprocity, I would have made his day by handing him my permit and letting him wig out more. The whole thing reminded me again I can't carry there, but the jackbooted OSP can carry here

Side note on this discussion. I always wonder why it seems that LEOs do not seem to understand that bringing out a dog to sniff around your car is already a search.

The dog is searching for the smell of illegal substances and is breaking the 4th amendment. Meaning you do not have justifiable reasons to search because there is no evidence nor probable cause to search. So you use a dog to do what a human cannot do. The dog doesn't give you probable cause.

It is already a search at the point the car is detained and then an instrument (in this case canine) is walked around the car trying to find anything that will then allow them to get around the need for a warrant.

That bothers me as well "Get around a warrant."

A warrantless search is a warrantless search. The US needs to once again become a nation of laws based upon the Constitution for everybody.

 

[Hammerhead]

Open carry in OH is legal, so there's no need to disarm, unlike IL. However, you can not open carry in a car without an OH CCW permit, which non-residents can't get. OH does allow you to put your firearm into your glove box or console without unloading it. Basically, if I were driving to OH for something I can put my sidearm in the console under my armrest until I stop and get out, then I can put it back on my hip OC.

It seems that OH CCW holders must inform that they're carrying, if they're carrying on their person. However, it seems that if you're transporting in your console so you can OC, you don't have to inform.

I agree that there should be reciprocity with every state. But I'm glad that OH has at least non-license OC unlike IL.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Side note on this discussion. I always wonder why it seems that LEOs do not seem to understand that bringing out a dog to sniff around your car is already a search.

The dog is searching for the smell of illegal substances and is breaking the 4th amendment. Meaning you do not have justifiable reasons to search because there is no evidence nor probable cause to search. So you use a dog to do what a human cannot do. The dog doesn't give you probable cause.

It is already a search at the point the car is detained and then an instrument (in this case canine) is walked around the car trying to find anything that will then allow them to get around the need for a warrant.

That bothers me as well "Get around a warrant."

A warrantless search is a warrantless search. The US needs to once again become a nation of laws based upon the Constitution for everybody.

No. The dog is not searching IN the vehicle, it is sniffing the air AROUND the vehicle. This falls into the "plain sight" area; if an officer pulls you over, looks in your back seat as he approaches, and sees a small child on the back seat, bound hand and foot with a rag in his mouth, he does not need a warrant to investigate further. He has been trained to recognize that as indicative of a crime possibly occurring. Similarly, the dog smells drugs or bombs or whatever and has been trained to recognize that smell as indicative of a possible crime, he alerts, and the investigation moves forward.

There was a case someone posted video here on INGO from, in which a man was pulled over, removed from the car, detained, etc., and his passengers were left in the vehicle. When the LEOs later decided to have the dog do a "free air sniff", they tried to remove the passengers from the car. They refused, leaving the windows up and the doors secured. The police claimed that the dog might alert to the people in the car just as he would to drugs, but the passengers didn't budge. The officers ended up not doing the "free air sniff", leading me to wonder if the door did not have to be opened to allow for the dog to have something to sniff. (I'd imagine any wind would clear the smell of drugs away from the vehicle in short order.) Now, mind you, I am not experienced with police dogs, I have no knowledge of their training or their abilities, these are merely my guesses as to the actions I saw.

Bottom line, though, it's not a search of the vehicle to look through windows and see what is displayed openly. If the officer had some device clipped to his belt that would detect drugs, bombs, and the like in the air in his presence, it wouldn't be "plain sight" but it might be "plain smell". If you make an unsolicited statement of guilt of a crime prior to Miranda being read to you, I think that's admissible in court. I know in at least some places, a statement made on a deathbed is later admissible where otherwise it might be considered hearsay.

The nation is still based on laws. The law from the first exempted legislators, privileging them from arrest or detention in any place other than the legislature while it was in session. I agree that anyone and everyone should be subject to the same rules. I'm not sure I agree with the exemption above: If the legislator is not present, it might prevent a bill from passing into law. No great loss-we have too many laws! However, that person is the representative of many, and with him/her absent, they are unrepresented. Tricky point there. Worthy of some thought, anyway: Do you disenfranchise an entire district to handicap government from running roughshod, and is that a fair trade-off?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[kevman65]

Ohio is the one being restrictive, they won't accept our LTCH because a mandatory course isn't involved with ours. Last time I checked the 2nd says nothing about having to have a firearm safety course in order to keep and bear arms.

Ohio used to be a "may issue" state and it was very difficult for law abiding residents to obtain a CCW. Gun control, no, reciprocity, yes.

I was around (involved is closer but not true) the whole situation when Indiana had their little disagreement with Kentucky. I was in high school with the son of one of our State Reps that was pushing for agreements with neighboring states that allowed their residents LTCH. Myself and this State Rep had many discussions and I got to sit in on part of the process because of this. Just because it isn't common knowledge and just because Indiana didn't push a reciprocity clause doesn't mean it wasn't being haggled out in the background with states in the region.

We shouldn't have to spend extra money, extra time, and bow to other states demands, especially if they are granted privileges here. Remember, they are not residents here, so it is a privilege for them to carry here.

I am a little calmer today. I may write ANOTHER letter to the commander of OSP AGAIN because of this unwarranted stop. It won't do any good, never does. I was less than 2 miles from the state line when this happened.

Bond, they can bring a drug dog out to sniff around the outside of a vehicle for any and every traffic stop if they so desire, unfortunately. I had out of state plates, tinted windows, and was uncooperative in his desire to search my truck. When he called for the dog I did an internal because I knew they were wasting their time along with mine. I'm squeaky clean, have several background checks with ID to prove it, and a higher security clearance than most on the street LEO's because of where I have worked construction jobs.

 

[shibumiseeker]

When Ohio first enacted their CCP a few years ago, there was about a 6 month period where they recognized Indiana's license. Then they changed because of compromise within the Ohio legislature for decreased Ohio restrictions in some ways.

I was visiting a GF in OH at the time who was an OH state trooper so there was a short period of time I was legal in Ohio when visiting.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

However, you can not open carry in a car without an OH CCW permit, which non-residents can't get. OH does allow you to put your firearm into your glove box or console without unloading it. Basically, if I were driving to OH for something I can put my sidearm in the console under my armrest until I stop and get out, then I can put it back on my hip OC.

Can I ask where you got that information? Best that I can find from the OH statutes that is very incorrect. What you posted applies for someone with a license/permit that OH recognizes. If you have a permit that they recognize you can carry it on your person or in a glove box/console or in a case.

If you do not have a license that they recognize you cannot have it loaded in a vehicle at all. That includes loaded magazines/speed loaders/etc that are not in the firearm.

Lawriter - ORC - Chapter 2923: CONSPIRACY, ATTEMPT, AND COMPLICITY; WEAPONS CONTROL; CORRUPT ACTIVITY

Ohio is the one being restrictive, they won't accept our LTCH because a mandatory course isn't involved with ours. Last time I checked the 2nd says nothing about having to have a firearm safety course in order to keep and bear arms.

We shouldn't have to spend extra money, extra time, and bow to other states demands, especially if they are granted privileges here. Remember, they are not residents here, so it is a privilege for them to carry here.

But what you seem to be asking for is for IN to become more restrictive. Be glad you live in a semi free state.

And no it is not a privilege for them to carry here, it is their right to do so. Just because their state infringes on others rights does not mean our state should.

 

[Hammerhead]

I got my info here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf and here: OpenCarry.org - State Information For Ohio

From the handgunlaw.us pdf:

"The transportation of loaded, concealed handguns in motor vehicles is permitted, but strict obligations are imposed by the law to protect you and law enforcement. These obligations apply to drivers and occupants. These obligations do not apply if you are storing a firearm for any lawful purpose and it is not on your person or you are lawfully storing or possessing a firearm in your home. You may not have a loaded handgun in the vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If you have a concealed carry permit, you may not transport a loaded, concealed handgun in a vehicle unless it is carried in one of the following ways: The loaded handgun is in a holster secured • on the person. Ohio law previously required carrying firearms in a holster in plain sight. The “plain sight” provision has been removed from the law.

· The loaded handgun is in a closed case, bag, box, or other container that is in plain sight and that has a lid, a cover, or a closing mechanism with a zipper, snap, or buckle, which lid, cover or closing mechanism must be opened for a person to gain access to the handgun, or

· The loaded handgun is securely encased by being stored in a closed, glove compartment or console,

· or in a case that is locked."

Emphasis mine. Somehow OH has made the carry of a handgun in a vehicle so bass-ackwards that it confuses everyone. You may not OC a handgun in a vehicle unless you have their CCP, then you can OC, CC, or put it away. But you can have a loaded handgun in your console or glovebox for the lawful purpose of waiting until you stop and can put it back on your person to OC.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I got my info here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf and here: OpenCarry.org - State Information For Ohio

From the handgunlaw.us pdf:

"The transportation of loaded, concealed handguns in motor vehicles is permitted, but strict obligations are imposed by the law to protect you and law enforcement. These obligations apply to drivers and occupants. These obligations do not apply if you are storing a firearm for any lawful purpose and it is not on your person or you are lawfully storing or possessing a firearm in your home. You may not have a loaded handgun in the vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If you have a concealed carry permit, you may not transport a loaded, concealed handgun in a vehicle unless it is carried in one of the following ways: The loaded handgun is in a holster secured • on the person. Ohio law previously required carrying firearms in a holster in plain sight. The “plain sight” provision has been removed from the law.

· The loaded handgun is in a closed case, bag, box, or other container that is in plain sight and that has a lid, a cover, or a closing mechanism with a zipper, snap, or buckle, which lid, cover or closing mechanism must be opened for a person to gain access to the handgun, or

· The loaded handgun is securely encased by being stored in a closed, glove compartment or console,

· or in a case that is locked."

Emphasis mine. Somehow OH has made the carry of a handgun in a vehicle so bass-ackwards that it confuses everyone. You may not OC a handgun in a vehicle unless you have their CCP, then you can OC, CC, or put it away. But you can have a loaded handgun in your console or glovebox for the lawful purpose of waiting until you stop and can put it back on your person to OC.

The restrictions you quoted are for people with a licence/permit that OH recognizes. Read a bit further on handgunlaw.us you will find this.

It is illegal to carry a loaded firearm in any vehicle without a valid Permit/License.

And from opencarry

Unfortunately, despite passage of HB-12, a permit to conceal is still required to openly carry a handgun in a vehicle.

And from the OH state statutes

(C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:
(1) In a closed package, box, or case;
(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;
(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;
(4) If the firearm is at least twenty-four inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle and if the barrel is at least eighteen inches in length, either in plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

I wish it was how you say but it is not. And I don't want anyone going by your opinion and getting busted.