Out of State Carry in Indiana question

[revance]

Nope I am not saying that. IF the terms require them to AGREE to obey the applicable laws then it is explicit.

In no way am I saying that they have to obey the laws of their state while not on their state.

The permit was issued and predicated on the fact that certain terms be met, in TX those terms include that you agree to not carry into a bar among other statutes. Indiana's code is so vague on the subject if a prosecutor was trying to find a way to charge you, there is no reason he could not. My argument rests on the fact that obeying local laws are the terms under which your license is issued. If the laws restricted you from carrying on Sunday you would have to do so no matter where you were, unless the state you were in stated otherwise.

I am just going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

A TX permit is not issued under the terms that you not carry in a bar. It is issued under the terms you not carry in a bar in TX.

A prosecutor can charge you for anything they want at any time. They can charge you with murder because you gave them the finger if they really wanted to. They wouldn't keep their job long, but they COULD do it.

Again, you are arguing that "obeying local laws are the terms under which your license is issued"... but those local laws say you cannot do that THERE, not that you can't do it HERE. The law restricting you from carrying on Sunday is that you cannot carry IN THAT STATE on Sunday. Unless the law says you can't carry anywhere in the world on Sunday, your argument is false.

 

[clgustaveson]

I am just going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

A TX permit is not issued under the terms that you not carry in a bar. It is issued under the terms you not carry in a bar in TX.

A prosecutor can charge you for anything they want at any time. They can charge you with murder because you gave them the finger if they really wanted to. They wouldn't keep their job long, but they COULD do it.

Again, you are arguing that "obeying local laws are the terms under which your license is issued"... but those local laws say you cannot do that THERE, not that you can't do it HERE. The law restricting you from carrying on Sunday is that you cannot carry IN THAT STATE on Sunday. Unless the law says you can't carry anywhere in the world on Sunday, your argument is false.

Ok, argument over.

I just want to point out that is not what I am arguing though. That is the problem. I am arguin that they issue the permit based on the spirit of the idea of the law.

The law in Texas is that you can't carry a gun into a bar, it typically doesn't limit it, jurisdiction usually limits it. Now all I say is those permits are issued based on your agreeance not to violate that law. It's not enforceable in another state.

And no, a prosecutor cannot charge you with whatever they want and it actually stick. You have to break the law in order for a judge to indict you. It would probably be a good court case because of how vague Indiana law is on the subject.

 

[revance]

Ok, argument over.

I just want to point out that is not what I am arguing though. That is the problem. I am arguin that they issue the permit based on the spirit of the idea of the law.

The law in Texas is that you can't carry a gun into a bar, it typically doesn't limit it, jurisdiction usually limits it. Now all I say is those permits are issued based on your agreeance not to violate that law. It's not enforceable in another state.

And no, a prosecutor cannot charge you with whatever they want and it actually stick. You have to break the law in order for a judge to indict you. It would probably be a good court case because of how vague Indiana law is on the subject.

and if a prosecutor charges you for illegal carry because they don't think you were following the "spirit of the idea" of another state's law, you bet that judge is going to throw it out just as fast as the murder charge for flicking the prosecutor off.

 

[clgustaveson]

and if a prosecutor charges you for illegal carry because they don't think you were following the "spirit of the idea" of another state's law, you bet that judge is going to throw it out just as fast as the murder charge for flicking the prosecutor off.

Well, one is actually against Indiana code... You pick... Cody out!

 

[ATM]

...I am arguin that they issue the permit based on the spirit of the idea of the law.

...Now all I say is those permits are issued based on your agreeance not to violate that law.

What?

and

What?



Prove either of those and I will owe you a rootbeer. Good luck.

 

[clgustaveson]

What?

and

What?



Prove either of those and I will owe you a rootbeer. Good luck.

Oh, I meant to press backspace more, but I was on my phone so what the heck.

What I meant was that permits are issued under the predication you agree to the law. If the terms of the permit require you to attest that you agree to the law, Indiana code expects you to follow that letter without breaking Indiana law.

An example would be a state the prohibited guns that held more than 10 rounds. Your state limits you from carrying a weapon that meets that criteria, Indiana does not. Your permit is issued under the predication that you do not violate that law, thus under no uncertain terms does your permit authorize you to carry a gun that holds more that 10 rounds.

Is it kind of a moot argument? Yeah, sure it is. But what exactly are the "terms thereof" limited to? I would think the terms you agree to abide by when your permit is issued.

No, since no state is required to inform another state when their aws change, I would think this is completely not enforceable from a LEO standpoint (unless maybe it was written on their permit). But could it be upheld in court? Sure. Based on Indiana law and the terminology of the law, there is no reason why you would be allowed to do anything more in Indiana than you could in your own state.

 

[ATM]

What I meant was that permits are issued under the predication you agree to the law.

I didn't have to agree to Indiana's laws, that I'm aware of, to get the license.
Do any states actually make you agree to something like this to be licensed?

...what exactly are the "terms thereof" limited to?

Just guessing here due to vagueness: expiration dates, other specifics noted on the license.
Violating a law may certainly get the license revoked but that wouldn't make any of those laws a term of the license IMO.

 

[Hammerhead]

No. If you lived in People's Republic of Kalifornia, where they limit the rounds in a gun to 10, you cannot carry more than ten rounds in PRK. If you visit IN, IN does not limit how many rounds you can carry, so you are allowed to carry as many as will fit in your gun, while in IN. When you return to PRK, you are required to return to 10 rounds.

You are not breaking any law by being in IN and carrying more than PRK allows. PRK laws do not hold any jurisdiction in IN. Just as if I were to go to PRK, I'd have to OC with an empty gun.

When you agree to abide by the law, you aren't breaking the law if you're not in the jurisdiction where the law applies. You cannot be charged in IN for breaking the PRK law as a visitor to our fine state.

TX does not allow bar carry. IN does. You're not breaking TX law by carrying in a bar in IN. You're still abiding by the law where you are physically located, thus, you are abiding by the terms of your permit. You don't agree to not violate TX law outside of TX when you're given your permit, because TX law, or any other state law, does not apply to IN jurisdiction. A prosecutor cannot charge you under a law of a municipality that you are not physically in.

 

[Hammerhead]

I didn't have to agree to Indiana's laws, that I'm aware of, to get the license.
Do any states actually make you agree to something like this to be licensed?




Just guessing here due to vagueness: expiration dates, other specifics noted on the license.
Violating a law may certainly get the license revoked but that wouldn't make any of those laws a term of the license IMO.

You agreed to abide by IN firearms law to be licensed, i.e. that you're a proper person without a felony, you don't commit a felony, you don't become a domestic batterer, and you don't carry where IC specifies as off limits legally. If you don't follow that law, your LTCH can be revoked.

A TX prosecutor couldn't make a case against someone visiting IN for carrying in an IN bar with a TX permit as an attempt to revoke a TX permit. A visitor to IN with a TX permit has not broken a law where a TX prosecutor has any jurisdiction, or where TX law has any coverage.

However, as the permit is only allowed for CC in TX, you must CC in IN as that is a specific license to CC only.

A person from VT cannot come to IN and carry, as VT does not issue permits or licenses, they have constitutional carry. Unless VT issues a license for out of state carry so that you can abide by local firearms laws, but I'm not sure that they do.

 

[clgustaveson]

I didn't have to agree to Indiana's laws, that I'm aware of, to get the license.
Do any states actually make you agree to something like this to be licensed?




Just guessing here due to vagueness: expiration dates, other specifics noted on the license.
Violating a law may certainly get the license revoked but that wouldn't make any of those laws a term of the license IMO.

Vague.... thats really the point I am making.

Yes, Other states do make you agree. At least one I know of and that would be Nevada. You sign a sworn affidavit after you pass a shooting qualification indicating you agree that you know and will abide by those laws.

Is what I am saying absolute? No, but look how vague indiana's code is.... I am sure I am not just throwing a glowstick down a dark hallway.

 

[ATM]

You agreed to abide by IN firearms law to be licensed, i.e. that you're a proper person without a felony, you don't commit a felony, you don't become a domestic batterer, and you don't carry where IC specifies as off limits legally. If you don't follow that law, your LTCH can be revoked.

I still don't think I agreed to or claimed any future action to be licensed.

I may have stated that I hadn't up to the present time done anything to preclude being licensed, but they probably double checked that anyway.

 

[clgustaveson]

I still don't think I agreed to or claimed any future action to be licensed.

I may have stated that I hadn't up to the present time done anything to preclude being licensed, but they probably double checked that anyway.

You hadn't been caught....

 

[ATM]

You hadn't been caught....

9/10ths of the law, right?

They got nothin' on me, see.

 

[MikePapa1]

I love legal discussions. They are so enlightening.