open carry stopped by hobart pd while pumping gas

[dansgotguns]

Neither have I.

But I default back to the fact that a middle-aged, chubby woman with kids in tow is a low risk sight, even for the hardened JBT who's jonesin' for a curb-stompin' fix.

I have to say, 90% of the posts I read from you are either hilarious or very intelligent and often both. Kudos.

 

[IndyGunworks]

So you have not contacted a lawyer? It seems w/ the video that this is a pretty simple case w/ the officer being in the wrong here. What did the lawyers say?

 

[88GT]

I have to say, 90% of the posts I read from you are either hilarious or very intelligent and often both. Kudos.

You're being very generous, or you haven't read many of my posts. (So says my haters anyway. I happen to agree with you.)

But thanks anyway.

 

[dansgotguns]

So you have not contacted a lawyer? It seems w/ the video that this is a pretty simple case w/ the officer being in the wrong here. What did the lawyers say?

Lawyers say its not worth the money.

 

[lonehoosier]

So you have not contacted a lawyer? It seems w/ the video that this is a pretty simple case w/ the officer being in the wrong here. What did the lawyers say?

I'm interested in your take of what laws where broken. I'm on the OP side here but the only thing with in the law that was broken was he's own sidearm being pointed at him.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Told him was being detained but did not cite why.

Didn't have RAS for any of the stop to begin with.

Illegal seizure.

 

[dansgotguns]

Heres my thoughts. His RAS was I was in possession of a handgun, the way I read the law he can check it out until I prove I meet the criteria. I dont like it but it is what it is. Why my id was necessary is besides me as the LTCH is enough as I wasnt driving and he had no reason to believe I had committed any kind of traffic violation or that I had even been driving at all. When he told me to cover it up, as I see it he broke the law as noone other than Indiana should be regulating firearms in any way. He searched and seized even though I provided LTCH and didn't consent and already proved I hadn't committed a crime due to providing LTCH, he then gave the firearm back which as I read the IC he should've kept it since he obviously deemed me dangerous since he took it to begin with, then tells me not to load it which again is regulating how I handle my firearm which im under the impression only Indiana can do. And he wore his hatike a douche. Just saying.

 

[IndyGunworks]

What did the police department say when you showed them the video?

 

[dansgotguns]

What did the police department say when you showed them the video?

They refused to return any emails calls or anything. Their lawyer said they'd review thier policy give no apologies and if u want see you in court.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Maybe talk to a different lawyer?

 

[bradmedic04]

Carrying a handgun without a license is illegal, correct? If that's the case, seeing someone with a gun would be RAS that they're committing a crime and grounds to check their ltch.

What seems questionable to me is 1) asking for additional identification and 2) disarming him. I don't know what rights LEOs have to ask for additional proof verify who you are in this situation, and what rights they have to remove your firearm. I also wonder how the circumstance changes if you're not carrying the paper ltch.

I have a problem with these somewhat vague areas. It's onerous enough to have to pay for a license to exercise a constitutional right, much less to still have the possibility of getting jammed up while exercising the right for which one already had to pay. If some of us take issue with this, we should probably be pushing our legislators to introduce constitutional carry so all this garbage can be avoided altogether.

 

[hd96heritage]

we live in an area where the mindset on the 2nd amendment is split. whether it leo or not. i used to OC a few years ago all the time and would get so many people coming up to me asking if i was LEO because i had a firearm. i couldn't believe how many people just didn't know that you could legally carry a firearm much less openly carry. my OC was short lived tho as my mindset changed but during that time i had only 2 instances where i ran into a "situation", both my older men, and one working at CABELAS! he told me i didn't need to open carry in his store (he worked at the gun counter so i'm pretty sure he didn't own said store) and i was scaring other customers which was not the case as there was only 1 person who complained to management and that was ME. the store manager assured me that cabelas supports my 2nd amnd rights and i could OC as i pleased.

what happened on that day with the LEO is a perfect example of the mindset in our area. was the LEO acting out of ignorance or purposely infringing upon your rights? probably ignorance. should that just be swept under the table and ignored as if YOU "got off lucky"? of course not. if it wasn't for the fact that he disarmed you without consent you could just about let everything else be ok, but he really did cross the line there. unfortunately there is no one standing guard watching our back with authority to put LEO in check when they abuse power

 

[hd96heritage]

Guess people would like to know what happened. Consulted a lawyer, lawyer spoke to hobarts lawyer, not worth it. Hopefully this doesnt happen to others wish I could've made a positive impact with this video but it didnt work out that way.

I still think this video made a positive impact. Look at all the people that saw it. you may not be getting a settlement or even an apology, but you're getting awareness for others. and you handled that situation better than most. kudos!

 

[bradmedic04]

Yeah, I'm assuming you're talking about the Hammond Cabelas. Certainly wouldn't be the first time one of the gun counter fellers led someone astray. I've heard the old "just load up the shotgun with birdshot" bit there more than a few times.

The proximity of NWI to IL probably explains a lot of the mentality thing you mentioned. Spend some time around some of the local folks or at some of the events and you might find yourself OCing a bit more.

 

[Birds Away]

Carrying a handgun without a license is illegal, correct? If that's the case, seeing someone with a gun would be RAS that they're committing a crime and grounds to check their ltch.

What seems questionable to me is 1) asking for additional identification and 2) disarming him. I don't know what rights LEOs have to ask for additional proof verify who you are in this situation, and what rights they have to remove your firearm. I also wonder how the circumstance changes if you're not carrying the paper ltch.

I have a problem with these somewhat vague areas. It's onerous enough to have to pay for a license to exercise a constitutional right, much less to still have the possibility of getting jammed up while exercising the right for which one already had to pay. If some of us take issue with this, we should probably be pushing our legislators to introduce constitutional carry so all this garbage can be avoided altogether.

If that were the case then the Police could pull over anyone driving a car to check their license. That is not legal so why do you think it would apply to a gun? This police officer was ignorant of the law.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If that were the case then the Police could pull over anyone driving a car to check their license. That is not legal so why do you think it would apply to a gun? This police officer was ignorant of the law.

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that. Pulling someone over to check if they have a license used to be perfectly okay, SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't. That is the difference.

 

[Birds Away]

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that. Pulling someone over to check if they have a license used to be perfectly okay, SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't. That is the difference.

What's the difference? You can pull someone over/detain to check one license but not the other?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What's the difference? You can pull someone over/detain to check one license but not the other?

Because one is distinctly called out in the US and IN Constitutions as a protected right and the other isn't....wait..........

 

[Rookie]

What's the difference? You can pull someone over/detain to check one license but not the other?

The difference is SCOTUS has ruled on one but not the other.

 

[actaeon277]

The difference is SCOTUS has ruled on one but not the other.

this