Need a lawyer in INDY

[Bill B]

Just when I thought all the BS with St. John was done, today I got a letter from the ISP saying that I am suspended pending a hearing on Feb. 23. Can anyone recommend a lawyer in Indy to help?
Thanks.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Dang, man! Sorry to hear that!

I was hoping that it all was behind you! I am in NE Indiana so if I can do something for you... except recommend a lawyer. I have no idea whom to contact.

 

[EdC]

Jim Voyles

 

[minuteman32]

Bryan Ciyou 317-972-8000. Author of Indiana Handgun Law.

 

[Ashkelon]

In this kind of matter Bryan Ciyou would be your best option IMO

 

[sparky241]

there is guy there named bryan ciyou, hes the one who wrote Indiana handgun laws

 

[Fenway]

Bryan Ciyou.... INGO Supporter and expert in these matters!

 

[Lobo]

It's not surprising that your LTCH was suspended. An arrest for a felony is pretty much an automatic suspension, until a hearing can be had to determine the facts.

Here is the law on suspension of an LTCH:

IC 35-47-2-5
Suspension or revocation of license; failure to return license; rules concerning procedure for suspending or revoking license Sec. 5. (a) The superintendent may suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's license should be suspended or revoked.
(b) Documented evidence that a person is not a "proper person" to be licensed as defined by IC 35-47-1-7, or is prohibited under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter from being issued a license, shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of a license previously issued under this chapter. However, if a license is suspended or revoked based solely on an arrest under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter, the license shall be reinstated upon the acquittal of the defendant in that case or upon the dismissal of the charges for the specific offense.
(c) A person who fails to promptly return his license after written notice of suspension or revocation commits a Class A misdemeanor. The observation of a handgun license in the possession of a person whose license has been suspended or revoked constitutes a sufficient basis for the arrest of that person for violation of this subsection.
(d) The superintendent shall establish rules under IC 4-22-2 concerning the procedure for suspending or revoking a person's license.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.140-1994, SEC.7; P.L.2-1996, SEC.285; P.L.120-2001, SEC.2; P.L.1-2006, SEC.535.


I've read the other thread where you were arrested, and based on the information that you provided, the bolded and underlined part of the law is the basis for the suspension of your LTCH.

Here is section 3(g)(5) that is referred to in the above statute:

(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed. The superintendent shall prescribe all forms to be used in connection with the administration of this chapter.


So basically, you were arrested for a felony, committed while armed with a deadly weapon. A judge found that there was probable cause to believe that you committed the offense, and charges were formally filed. A warrant was issued for your arrest. You were arrested, and entered a plea of "not guilty." Through depositions and discovery, the prosecutor found that the case was weak, and declined to prosecute. The charges were dismissed.

As far as the law goes, it looks like you will get your LTCH back. It specifically states that if the suspension is based solely on the arrest, that you shall get your license back upon dismissal of the charges.

The only other way that I see the ISP revoking your LTCH would be under the "proper person" definition under state law:

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.


The bolded and underlined section is the only possible way that I see that your LTCH could be revoked, but from your explanation of the events in the other thread, that would be a big stretch. But I don't know the ISP's criteria for "documentation" (police report?). I will say that, in reading your story, I am surprised that you didn't get more heat for your decision to strap on a gun to go settle a property dispute, and then to attempt to enter another person's home with your gun visible. That was stupid.

For clarification, from your other thread:

Some clarification:
1. It was indeed, a "man with a gun" call to 911. How do I know? The first words out of the little corporals mouth were "Ok, where's the gun."
2. I was charged with residential entry (aka, breaking and entering) and intimidation.
3. Although my wife was wearing hers OWB, she had a jacket on and it was't visible.
What would I have done different?
1.) I would have called the cops from the street before we ever pulled into the driveway.
2.) I would have remembered my jacket, which would have rendered my gun invisible.
3.) After the incident that night, I would have immediately contacted the baddest lawyer the ACLU could recommend in Indianapolis, and then called fox news and all the local stations.

Imagine that your cousin (or other relative that you may not be that close with) coming over to get some of his things out of your home, and bringing a stranger with a gun over with him. You gonna let him into your home, not knowing him from Adam? I think that even most of us, who are familiar with firearms and carry them ourselves, would be uncomfortable with that. Imagine how a person who does not see firearms everyday would react.

I know that you didn't commit residential entry. But if the complainant says that you tried to come into the house unwelcome, the objective facts are:

* You are on their private property.
* You purposely drove there from somewhere else.
* You are visibly armed.
* You are there for no other reason than to settle a dispute regarding property.
* You do not know the people who live there.
* You intended to follow your daughter-in-law into their house.
* You have no right to carry a firearm onto someone else's private property.

Although you were there to help your daughter-in-law carry some of her things, the pistol on your hip conveys another purpose entirely to most reasonable people, and that is intimidation....pure and simple. Even the mafia has a rule about bringing a gun to negotiations. It is considered extremely disrespectful.

Realistically, the only "force" needed to establish the offense of residential entry is a push on the door. You were likely within a hair of violating the statute. All it takes is for the complainant to say that you DID try to push the door open (attempted residential entry is also a felony), and you are screwed....as you learned very well, no doubt.

I would suggest that perhaps a concealed weapon would serve the same purpose in keeping you safe in certain situations. I would sincerely hope that you don't choose to go to stranger's houses to settle disputes while armed, however. Did your daughter-in-law really need physical help removing a few personal items from the residence? Could you not have stayed in your vehicle and called the police if trouble arose?

Imagine that you are in their home, and someone does come around the corner with a gun. Are you going to shoot them, in their own home? Let's say you win the gunfight. What are his relative going to say? You came to THEIR home, armed, to settle a dispute. A residential entry charge may be the least of your worries.

I don't post this to slam you. I post it to make you think of the other person's perception, and to give you some insight on things that ISP may consider when holding a hearing on your LTCH. You got lucky on the criminal charges. The cousin could have well have been a lying SOB who insisted that you tried to push open the door and force your way in, and if he had said that, it would have been YOU who was there, uninvited, with a gun. Who do you think a jury would believe?

I also didn't want to post this in the other thread, because it was way too cluttered.

Good luck getting your LTCH back. I mean that. It doesn't seem like you are a bad guy at all. But you did make a bone-headed decision that has caused you an enormous amount of stress, I'm sure. Yes, the cop was a prick, with his "John Dillinger" comment, but from his perspective, you were the one that came over to someone's home with a gun to settle a dispute. That doesn't look good to the average citizen, let alone a cop who sees problems solved with guns much too often.

None of this is legal advice. Just some things to consider, and maybe bring up with your attorney prior to your hearing. A good attorney will bring up all sides of an argument, so that he or she is prepared for anything at a hearing. When you get your LTCH back, please think before you act next time. This all could have been easily avoided.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Do you mind if I ask if they gave a reason for the suspension, and what it was if they did?

 

[JoshuaW]

Do you mind if I ask if they gave a reason for the suspension, and what it was if they did?

Obviously the OP will best be able to answer this, but Im assuming the reason was either "No longer a proper person" or "Felony Arrest". (Probably not worded exactly like that).

To the OP, best of luck to you. This could go either way, and I genuinely hope it goes in your favor. No one should lose their right to protect themselves over a silly dispute.

 

[Bill B]

They use IC 35-47-1-7 "a proper person is one who (6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct."

 

[Hotdoger]

They use IC 35-47-1-7 "a proper person is one who (6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct."

Wonder if the St. Johns police chief or Lake County prosecutor backdoored you?

 

[mike4sigs]

Reading back on the O.P. the (I Beleive it was the Crpl) made a threat that he could and or has had many permits revoked!

Looks like he (The Crpl)may have started another one in process!
and another case of harassment

 

[theweakerbrother]

What about Kirk Freeman?

 

[Indy317]

They use IC 35-47-1-7 "a proper person is one who (6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct."

Wonder if the St. Johns police chief or Lake County prosecutor backdoored you?

Using the conduct reason seems very suspicious. I would be asking for everything: Who made the complaint, and most importantly, when it was made. If you were arrested/charged with a crime that would cause you to lose the license, but you find out the complaint was forwarded after your lawyer started tearing into the cops, or better yet, after your charges were dismissed, then I would make sure the board knows that this is nothing more than retaliation. If they ask why, you can simply point out that the complaining person likely only waited till after you were vindicated to file the complaint. I would hope you would have the ability to question the person who complained. If it is an officer, and they sent the complaint in after charges were dismissed, then I would ask them why they didn't send it in the same day the judge signed off on the warrant for your arrest. That will really point out a hypocritical stance on their part if that happened.

 

[PatriotPride]

It's not surprising that your LTCH was suspended. An arrest for a felony is pretty much an automatic suspension, until a hearing can be had to determine the facts.

Here is the law on suspension of an LTCH:

IC 35-47-2-5
Suspension or revocation of license; failure to return license; rules concerning procedure for suspending or revoking license Sec. 5. (a) The superintendent may suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's license should be suspended or revoked.
(b) Documented evidence that a person is not a "proper person" to be licensed as defined by IC 35-47-1-7, or is prohibited under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter from being issued a license, shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of a license previously issued under this chapter. However, if a license is suspended or revoked based solely on an arrest under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter, the license shall be reinstated upon the acquittal of the defendant in that case or upon the dismissal of the charges for the specific offense.
(c) A person who fails to promptly return his license after written notice of suspension or revocation commits a Class A misdemeanor. The observation of a handgun license in the possession of a person whose license has been suspended or revoked constitutes a sufficient basis for the arrest of that person for violation of this subsection.
(d) The superintendent shall establish rules under IC 4-22-2 concerning the procedure for suspending or revoking a person's license.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.140-1994, SEC.7; P.L.2-1996, SEC.285; P.L.120-2001, SEC.2; P.L.1-2006, SEC.535.


I've read the other thread where you were arrested, and based on the information that you provided, the bolded and underlined part of the law is the basis for the suspension of your LTCH.

Here is section 3(g)(5) that is referred to in the above statute:

(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed. The superintendent shall prescribe all forms to be used in connection with the administration of this chapter.


So basically, you were arrested for a felony, committed while armed with a deadly weapon. A judge found that there was probable cause to believe that you committed the offense, and charges were formally filed. A warrant was issued for your arrest. You were arrested, and entered a plea of "not guilty." Through depositions and discovery, the prosecutor found that the case was weak, and declined to prosecute. The charges were dismissed.

As far as the law goes, it looks like you will get your LTCH back. It specifically states that if the suspension is based solely on the arrest, that you shall get your license back upon dismissal of the charges.

The only other way that I see the ISP revoking your LTCH would be under the "proper person" definition under state law:

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.


The bolded and underlined section is the only possible way that I see that your LTCH could be revoked, but from your explanation of the events in the other thread, that would be a big stretch. But I don't know the ISP's criteria for "documentation" (police report?). I will say that, in reading your story, I am surprised that you didn't get more heat for your decision to strap on a gun to go settle a property dispute, and then to attempt to enter another person's home with your gun visible. That was stupid.

For clarification, from your other thread:



Imagine that your cousin (or other relative that you may not be that close with) coming over to get some of his things out of your home, and bringing a stranger with a gun over with him. You gonna let him into your home, not knowing him from Adam? I think that even most of us, who are familiar with firearms and carry them ourselves, would be uncomfortable with that. Imagine how a person who does not see firearms everyday would react.

I know that you didn't commit residential entry. But if the complainant says that you tried to come into the house unwelcome, the objective facts are:

* You are on their private property.
* You purposely drove there from somewhere else.
* You are visibly armed.
* You are there for no other reason than to settle a dispute regarding property.
* You do not know the people who live there.
* You intended to follow your daughter-in-law into their house.
* You have no right to carry a firearm onto someone else's private property.

Although you were there to help your daughter-in-law carry some of her things, the pistol on your hip conveys another purpose entirely to most reasonable people, and that is intimidation....pure and simple. Even the mafia has a rule about bringing a gun to negotiations. It is considered extremely disrespectful.

Realistically, the only "force" needed to establish the offense of residential entry is a push on the door. You were likely within a hair of violating the statute. All it takes is for the complainant to say that you DID try to push the door open (attempted residential entry is also a felony), and you are screwed....as you learned very well, no doubt.

I would suggest that perhaps a concealed weapon would serve the same purpose in keeping you safe in certain situations. I would sincerely hope that you don't choose to go to stranger's houses to settle disputes while armed, however. Did your daughter-in-law really need physical help removing a few personal items from the residence? Could you not have stayed in your vehicle and called the police if trouble arose?

Imagine that you are in their home, and someone does come around the corner with a gun. Are you going to shoot them, in their own home? Let's say you win the gunfight. What are his relative going to say? You came to THEIR home, armed, to settle a dispute. A residential entry charge may be the least of your worries.

I don't post this to slam you. I post it to make you think of the other person's perception, and to give you some insight on things that ISP may consider when holding a hearing on your LTCH. You got lucky on the criminal charges. The cousin could have well have been a lying SOB who insisted that you tried to push open the door and force your way in, and if he had said that, it would have been YOU who was there, uninvited, with a gun. Who do you think a jury would believe?

I also didn't want to post this in the other thread, because it was way too cluttered.

Good luck getting your LTCH back. I mean that. It doesn't seem like you are a bad guy at all. But you did make a bone-headed decision that has caused you an enormous amount of stress, I'm sure. Yes, the cop was a prick, with his "John Dillinger" comment, but from his perspective, you were the one that came over to someone's home with a gun to settle a dispute. That doesn't look good to the average citizen, let alone a cop who sees problems solved with guns much too often.

None of this is legal advice. Just some things to consider, and maybe bring up with your attorney prior to your hearing. A good attorney will bring up all sides of an argument, so that he or she is prepared for anything at a hearing. When you get your LTCH back, please think before you act next time. This all could have been easily avoided.

He didn't ask for your opinion. If you even bother to carry a gun, make sure you disarm every time you step off your property. Then, when a police department behaves in an unprofessional manner, you won't have to read BS comments about how you should "please think before you act next time. This could have been easily avoided".

Of course, you throw in the CC vs. OC argument. It seems to be the fallback when there is nothing of substance to post.

Although you were there to help your daughter-in-law carry some of her things, the pistol on your hip conveys another purpose entirely to most reasonable people, and that is intimidation....pure and simple. Even the mafia has a rule about bringing a gun to negotiations. It is considered extremely disrespectful.

Have you been hitting the bottle a bit too hard??? What's this crap about the Mafia, and negotiations? You really sound like an anti-gunner here. Why do any of us, including the police, carry a firearm? For the protection of ourselves and others should the need arise. You're making the same old tired "OC=intimidation" argument, and here's a hint: you're wrong.

The OP went to help his daughter-in-law (and apparently you hold a low view towards being a man and helping family as well) who obviously needed his help. This BS behavior from the St. John PD has been going on for longer than you know.

Bottom-line: I'm tired of seeing people with nothing of substance to say crapping on other peoples' threads when all they are asking for is a step in the right direction. Keep your disrespectful and judgemental comments to yourself, and if you have any RELEVANT information to share with the OP, then do so.

*Disclaimer: This post is not intended to insult the intelligence of nor provoke any member. It is an honest response to a post that I found insulting and rather rude. Instructions on the proper application of butthurt cream can be found with a simple Google.com search, or so I am told. Happy New Year.

 

[Hotdoger]

Reading back on the O.P. the (I Beleive it was the Crpl) made a threat that he could and or has had many permits revoked!

Looks like he (The Crpl)may have started another one in process!
and another case of harassment

Which may violate the terms of his settlement?
Maybe an opening to extract more $.
This thing just gets more intresting everyday, much to the dismay of the OP.

 

[Lobo]

He didn't ask for your opinion. If you even bother to carry a gun, make sure you disarm every time you step off your property. Then, when a police department behaves in an unprofessional manner, you won't have to read BS comments about how you should "please think before you act next time. This could have been easily avoided".

Of course, you throw in the CC vs. OC argument. It seems to be the fallback when there is nothing of substance to post.

Have you been hitting the bottle a bit too hard??? What's this crap about the Mafia, and negotiations? You really sound like an anti-gunner here. Why do any of us, including the police, carry a firearm? For the protection of ourselves and others should the need arise. You're making the same old tired "OC=intimidation" argument, and here's a hint: you're wrong.

The OP went to help his daughter-in-law (and apparently you hold a low view towards being a man and helping family as well) who obviously needed his help. This BS behavior from the St. John PD has been going on for longer than you know.

Bottom-line: I'm tired of seeing people with nothing of substance to say crapping on other peoples' threads when all they are asking for is a step in the right direction. Keep your disrespectful and judgemental comments to yourself, and if you have any RELEVANT information to share with the OP, then do so.

*Disclaimer: This post is not intended to insult the intelligence of nor provoke any member. It is an honest response to a post that I found insulting and rather rude. Instructions on the proper application of butthurt cream can be found with a simple Google.com search, or so I am told. Happy New Year.

Bottom line: You have no substantive arguments to counter my points, only name calling and cute little comments about "hitting the bottle" and a general rant against "BS" from the St. John PD. Oh yeah, and an "anti-gunner" accusation, thrown in for good measure.

I hope that you are not involved in any substantive manner with the criminal justice system, because your lack of ability to take adversarial commentary, even on an internet forum, would make you highly unsuited for a career where you actually have to consider all angles in a rational matter. Just keep spouting the same drivel that anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-gun", or whatever your catch phrase of the day is.

Riddle me this, genius. If a relative that you had just thrown out of your home came back at midnight to get property, with an armed stranger, you gonna let him in your house? How would you take it?

 

[Bill B]

@Lobo: The cousin had no idea that I had a firearm until I turned away to leave. The courts have ruled many times that posession of a firearm, even visibly, is not intimidation.
If you have read the entire thread, at least my postings, you would realize that the charges were dismissed based on a counter-motion that the prosecutor made to our motion to dismiss. This happened after discovery and the cousin, the responding officr, and the investigating officer were all deposed and gave three different versions of what happened.

 

[red_zr24x4]

He didn't ask for your opinion. If you even bother to carry a gun, make sure you disarm every time you step off your property. Then, when a police department behaves in an unprofessional manner, you won't have to read BS comments about how you should "please think before you act next time. This could have been easily avoided".

Of course, you throw in the CC vs. OC argument. It seems to be the fallback when there is nothing of substance to post.



Have you been hitting the bottle a bit too hard??? What's this crap about the Mafia, and negotiations? You really sound like an anti-gunner here. Why do any of us, including the police, carry a firearm? For the protection of ourselves and others should the need arise. You're making the same old tired "OC=intimidation" argument, and here's a hint: you're wrong.

The OP went to help his daughter-in-law (and apparently you hold a low view towards being a man and helping family as well) who obviously needed his help. This BS behavior from the St. John PD has been going on for longer than you know.

Bottom-line: I'm tired of seeing people with nothing of substance to say crapping on other peoples' threads when all they are asking for is a step in the right direction. Keep your disrespectful and judgemental comments to yourself, and if you have any RELEVANT information to share with the OP, then do so.

*Disclaimer: This post is not intended to insult the intelligence of nor provoke any member. It is an honest response to a post that I found insulting and rather rude. Instructions on the proper application of butthurt cream can be found with a simple Google.com search, or so I am told. Happy New Year.

+1000 Very well said Sir.
I was looking for a, shall we say, polite way of saying it.

BillB, I hope this works out for you. It is truely sad that not only do we have to jump through hoops to practice our rights, but anytime something happens we are guilty until proven innocent