Open Carry Harassment South Bend-Video

[jbombelli]

IC 35-47-2-24 Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the
enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. (b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately. As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

It does not relieve you from your responsibility to prove you are legal. It just means that if you are legal but don't have your LTCH with you and get arrested, you will win in the end. The difference is that before you had to have it with you or you could be prosecuted for not being licensed even if you produced it later.

Nowhere does it say I must surrender it upon demand in what you posted.

They can check to see if I'm licensed easily enough. If they arrest me for not having it I WILL waste every bit of everyone's time that I can before I produce it.

And they better not call it a "permit" either because I don't have one of those.

 

[PaulF]

Sorry for the interruption.

I have merged two nearly identical threads, carry on.

 

[1911ly]

Seems like some think what this guy did was a good thing. Personally I think this guy gives gun owners a black eye. The average non gun owners fear us anyway. How does this kind of action present us in a good way? Wouldn't you thing the average fellow would fear this idiot? Wouldn't you worry that the average person will stereo type us?

What purpose did the gun serve in that confrontation? Why did he carry it over his shoulder in plain sight. Some of you will say "it's his right". But the real reason was to intimidate the public and the LEO's.

Loon's like this will be the reason why people will vote for stricter gun laws.

 

[1911ly]

Thanks Paul! Makes sense!

 

[CZB1962]

Nowhere does it say I must surrender it upon demand in what you posted.

They can check to see if I'm licensed easily enough. If they arrest me for not having it I WILL waste every bit of everyone's time that I can before I produce it.

And they better not call it a "permit" either because I don't have one of those.

I'm not quite sure what part of The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. you aren't reading, but this is pretty clear. The fact that they can check does not matter. You have the burden of proof which means it is up to you to show it. It really is just that simple. They can check to see if your driver license is valid too. That does not mean you cannot be ticketed if you don't have it on you.

Your a big boy and can do what you want, just don't be surprised if some LEO decides to push back. Again, you will win in the end, but the end result will be the same in that you will end up showing your LTCH.

BTW don't get mad at me. I didn't write the law, I am just quoting it so those who don't want the hassle know what the truth is.

 

[rgrimm01]

I have a question concerning instruction to not reload your emptied firearm until the officers leave. If it has been determined that you are legal and not being detained, what is the legal basis that supports this instruction?

 

[JMoses]

You mean unlawfully arrested by an LE that does not know the law?

No, you are WRONG, it would be a perfectly legal arrest.

 

[KG1]

Don't take this too personal because it's not aimed at just you.

I get that this may have been covered before, but some of us have not been here as long as others or may not be able to frequent the page as much as others.

I for one am still a "plinker" and really only get to read the site in the evening or on weekends so often times what is "old news" to some may be brand new to me.

I would respectfully ask that if a subject bores you, just don't read it. This place would be pretty dead if every post only covered new material.

The post I quoted and commented on prior to quoting yours was related to your answer to his post. Putting the two together contextually should read.

"This angle along with whether or not you can be stopped while carrying a handgun and asked for your LTCH has been discussed ad nausaeum before on INGO. I don't have the actual case law at hand right now but I do believe the courts have also ruled that you cannot be pulled over just to check if you have a D/L (papers)"

I'm not the INGO thread police. Discuss as you wish.

 

[Mr. Habib]

I have a question concerning instruction to not reload your emptied firearm until the officers leave. If it has been determined that you are legal and not being detained, what is the legal basis that supports this instruction?

There is none. In fact, Indiana's preemption law could make that instruction unlawful and quite costly for the officers and their department.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm not quite sure what part of The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. you aren't reading, but this is pretty clear. The fact that they can check does not matter. You have the burden of proof which means it is up to you to show it. It really is just that simple. They can check to see if your driver license is valid too. That does not mean you cannot be ticketed if you don't have it on you.

Your a big boy and can do what you want, just don't be surprised if some LEO decides to push back. Again, you will win in the end, but the end result will be the same in that you will end up showing your LTCH.

BTW don't get mad at me. I didn't write the law, I am just quoting it so those who don't want the hassle know what the truth is.

You're right. I'm a big boy and can do what I want. And you're also right that I'll win in the end.

I'm just going to waste a lot of someone else's time in the process. Because I can.

 

[JMoses]

You're right. I'm a big boy and can do what I want. And you're also right that I'll win in the end.

I'm just going to waste a lot of someone else's time in the process. Because I can.

If you're ever in a position that you're carrying in public and asked by an LEO to show your LTCH or give your name and DOB to prove that you have said LTCH, you should refuse both and report back on what happens just to prove that you're so cool. Gotta love keyboard warriors.

 

[bradrob]

Seems like some think what this guy did was a good thing. Personally I think this guy gives gun owners a black eye. The average non gun owners fear us anyway. How does this kind of action present us in a good way? Wouldn't you thing the average fellow would fear this idiot? Wouldn't you worry that the average person will stereo type us?

What purpose did the gun serve in that confrontation? Why did he carry it over his shoulder in plain sight. Some of you will say "it's his right". But the real reason was to intimidate the public and the LEO's.

Loon's like this will be the reason why people will vote for stricter gun laws.

AMEN

 

[OWGEM]

You're right. I'm a big boy and can do what I want. And you're also right that I'll win in the end.

I'm just going to waste a lot of someone else's time in the process. Because I can.

 

[1911ly]

Just goes to prove that some epic fails are funnier then others!

 

[TheSpark]

Seems like some think what this guy did was a good thing. Personally I think this guy gives gun owners a black eye. The average non gun owners fear us anyway. How does this kind of action present us in a good way? Wouldn't you thing the average fellow would fear this idiot? Wouldn't you worry that the average person will stereo type us?

What purpose did the gun serve in that confrontation? Why did he carry it over his shoulder in plain sight. Some of you will say "it's his right". But the real reason was to intimidate the public and the LEO's.

Loon's like this will be the reason why people will vote for stricter gun laws.

Although I agree with you we still have to respect the fact that it is indeed his right (for both the protest and gun display). You are right that many people will stereotype him to all gun owners.

 

[harry1911]

I fully agree this truly is police harassment, it is harassment of the police officers by some insane moron who's only purpose is to come into an area and cause problems knowing the police are going to come out and investigate, he knew exactly what would happen and his sole purpose was to cause problems, nothing more, nothing less; Someone who is so stupid as to stand around in public with a rifle where there is no need nor purpose to do so. All I can say is sir if you are gong to be this insanely dumb and your police department is going to tolerate it then stay in your city and do it there!

 

[Roadie]

I fully agree this truly is police harassment, it is harassment of the police officers by some insane moron who's only purpose is to come into an area and cause problems knowing the police are going to come out and investigate, he knew exactly what would happen and his sole purpose was to cause problems, nothing more, nothing less; Someone who is so stupid as to stand around in public with a rifle where there is no need nor purpose to do so. All I can say is sir if you are gong to be this insanely dumb and your police department is going to tolerate it then stay in your city and do it there!

Investigate? I agree with that

LEO comes up on a citizen with a SECURED firearm, pulls their duty weapon, points it at the guy and yells at the guy he can't have a gun? Nope, sorry, bad cop, no donut.

 

[jbombelli]

If you're ever in a position that you're carrying in public and asked by an LEO to show your LTCH or give your name and DOB to prove that you have said LTCH, you should refuse both and report back on what happens just to prove that you're so cool. Gotta love keyboard warriors.

Why would I do that when I can give my name and DOB and he can easily look it up with that?

Reading and understanding and context are not your strong points, are they?

Remember... my whole question had to do with not showing it, based on not having to have it with me anymore, and the fact that it can easily be verified without the physical copy.

If I'm in that spot and the officer refuses to take 2 minutes to check and takes me to jail for not having something on me that I'm not required to have on me, I will have no problem wasting a bunch of his time.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Investigate? I agree with that

LEO comes up on a citizen with a SECURED firearm, pulls their duty weapon, points it at the guy and yells at the guy he can't have a gun? Nope, sorry, bad cop, no donut.

Totally agree that the cop could have approached the situation different. However, think about it from a different perspective...

You are a cop and you get a call from some lady about a guy holding a sign and carrying a rifle. You think "Oh great, here we go again. Guess I gotta check this guy out." You roll up on this guy expecting to see just another OC advocate and expecting this to be a quick investigation. However, you then read the sign he is holding. He is warning motorist to slow down, but the print is too small for motorists to read. The sign doesn't even make sense to you. Then you realize that the rifle really has nothing to do with the sign. As a reasonable person, you determine that there is a good possibility that this guy may have a few screws loose. Hard telling what this guy may do. You approach the guy with gun drawn until you can determine his intentions.

Not saying that is the way it went down, just trying to examine all the angles. BTW, this guy comes in to the gun shop occasionally OCing a High Point in a BB gun holster. Definitely not operating on all cylinders.


ETA: The High-Point can be seen at 7:54. Looks like he may have upgraded to an Uncle Mike's holster. Couldn't see it very well.

 

[dsom2006]

No, you are WRONG, it would be a perfectly legal arrest.

What crime did he commit to be legally required to provide his ID or his license to carry? Absolutely none is the correct answer. If he did not commitment a crime he is under no obligation to provide any information about his identity or legal ability to carry. Had they arrested him for failing to show ID or a license it would definitely be an unlawful arrest.