Penalty for carrying without a LTCH?

[rambone]

Penalty for carrying a gun while possessing drugs?

*EDIT: It is apparently federal crime if you possess a gun and illegal drugs together at the same time. It seems to bring you a 5-year minimum sentence in federal prison. Having a LTCH does not seem to matter, and will be revoked anyways after such an arrest.

DUI checkpoint case resolved?


HAMMOND | The Plymouth man accused of driving into a Lake County drunken driving checkpoint with two pistols, a heroin-covered dinner plate and a stockpile of pills, marijuana and drug paraphernalia would be sentenced to at least five years in federal prison if a judge accepts the plea agreement the defendant has signed. Ty Brock, 26, admits in a plea agreement filed last week in Hammond federal court that he had heroin and a gun Nov. 7 when he drove into the checkpoint along Ripley Street in Lake Station. Brock would plead guilty to heroin possession with intent to deliver and gun possession during a federal drug crime.

The gun charge carries a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison. No mandatory minimum sentence is attached to the heroin charge. The sentence on the drug charge is capped at 20 years, but the nonbinding federal sentencing guidelines appear to suggest a sentence of less than five years for Brock on the heroin charge. Brock would have to serve the mandatory five-year sentence for the gun charge in addition to the sentence for the heroin charge, rather than serving them at the same time, the plea agreement shows.

Brock's attorney, Jeffrey Schlesinger, declined to comment Monday.

Brock drove his car into the checkpoint on Ripley near Central Avenue late Nov. 7. The car smelled of burnt marijuana, and Brock appeared nervous, police said. Officers spotted the dinner plate dusted with heroin, and Brock tried to kick the plate under his seat, police said.

After Brock got out of the car, he reached for his ankle, police said. After the officers wrestled Brock to the ground, they found a .32-caliber Beretta semiautomatic pistol in an ankle holster, federal authorities said.

The plea agreement follows Hammond federal Judge Philip Simon's rejection of Schlesinger's argument that the traffic stop couldn't stand up to the standards of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[melensdad]

Do you think he'd have gotten 5 years IF he was 1) not drunk, 2) not in possession of a heroin covered plate, 3) not in possession of marijuana, 4) not in possession of drug paraphernalia and ALSO, 5) not in possession of pills?

Me thinks the 5 years was levied as a consequence of ALL these things combined and that it was not for no LTCH but for having the guns in combination with the drugs. Look carefully, that appears to be a federal statute.

 

[rambone]

Me thinks the 5 years was levied as a consequence of ALL these things combined and that it was not for no LTCH but for having the guns in combination with the drugs. Look carefully, that appears to be a federal statute.

Hmm... I didn't realize there was such a federal law. If somebody knows specifically it would be nice to point it out specifically.

 

[singlestacksig]

the fed charge is commiting a drug crime while having a firearm.

 

[Denny347]

That is assuming that they get charged in Federal court. That is a rare bird indeed. If you are getting charged federally for carrying without...it will be the less of a stack of greater charges against you. The feds only want the "big" cases and a carrying without case alone is far from big enough.

 

[Zoub]

Well, he was in a Federal Court, not an Indiana one, look at the last paragraph (and first)

In Indiana carrying a handgun without a permit is typically not a felony or years in jail. He was probably a known drug dealer and this was likely not his first rodeo in court either. Drug dealer with a gun, give him the needle.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ram, the feds took this one. Sixty (60) months is likely what the sentencing matrix recommended and the man min required.

There is no federal carrying without a license as there is no federal carry license (despite what you hear in gun shoppes). You can be prosecuted for carrying a pistol into federal facilities (including the post office).

Indiana makes carrying without a license (the first time by a non-SVF) a Class A misdemeanor, 0 to 365 days in jail and 0 to $5,000 fine.

That is assuming that they get charged in Federal court. That is a rare bird indeed.

Denny is on target yet again. I believe the feds prosecute one case for every one thousand that the state prosecuting attorneys file. This ratio could be different as the 1:1,000 comes from my LEO daze.

FYI, if you care, if you have a prior conviction for carrying without a license or you are a Serious Violent Felon the penalties are much different.

 

[rambone]

Thanks for setting me straight guys. I don't know much about drug laws, but reading the article with the non-descript reference to a "gun charge" got me wondering.

 

[samot]

That is assuming that they get charged in Federal court. That is a rare bird indeed. If you are getting charged federally for carrying without...it will be the less of a stack of greater charges against you. The feds only want the "big" cases and a carrying without case alone is far from big enough.

It is my understanding !!! the feds have 2 or 3 years to indite for having a firearm while getting popped with some kind of drugs, this is even after you have been convicted of your misdermeaner or felony drug charges

 

[Timjoebillybob]

the fed charge is commiting a drug crime while having a firearm.

This, iirc he had a ltch.

 

[minuteman32]

I've heard that in some parts of the US, local LEO's will, when interviewing someone that they have found in the possession of a firearm, casually ask them if they "smoke a little pot" or somehing like that. If the person says they do, they turn them over to the feds. As a "user or abuser of illegal drugs" is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.

 

[22lr]

And that is why most drug dealers on the street have a body guard so they dont have to carry there own gun and risk a larger sentence. Also why drug dealers are a easy target for robberies, which sparks retaliations and killing, which leads to gang wars and lots of people dieing.

If the person says they do, they turn them over to the feds. As a "user or abuser of illegal drugs" is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.

And yet another reason why you should know your rights, not smoke dope, and NEVER talk to cops unless you have a lawyer present.

 

[rambone]

So what if someone on this site has their LTCH and they also smoke marijuana? Does that federal stipulation apply to those people, or only non-LTCH carriers?

 

[esrice]

Good thread.

 

[steve666]

Do you think he'd have gotten 5 years IF he was 1) not drunk, 2) not in possession of a heroin covered plate, 3) not in possession of marijuana, 4) not in possession of drug paraphernalia and ALSO, 5) not in possession of pills?

Me thinks the 5 years was levied as a consequence of ALL these things combined and that it was not for no LTCH but for having the guns in combination with the drugs. Look carefully, that appears to be a federal statute.

You're right. Indiana law - A first offense is usually a Class A misdemeanor (max 1yr and a fine), then it becomes a Class C felony.

 

[minuteman32]

So what if someone on this site has their LTCH and they also smoke marijuana? Does that federal stipulation apply to those people, or only non-LTCH carriers?

That is a state issued LTCH, it has no bearing on this particular federal law. If someone w/o a LTCH is caught with a gun & admits to drug use, they could face both state & federal charges. If someone w/ a LTCH is found to have a gun & admits to illegal drug use, they could face the federal charge. If they had a pot pipe/bong/other paraphernalia, they could face state charges, too. It is a license to carry handguns, not a license to carry handguns & do drugs. Not saying I agree w/ it, just stating that it is.

 

[theturtle06]

So what if someone on this site has their LTCH and they also smoke marijuana? Does that federal stipulation apply to those people, or only non-LTCH carriers?

I am definitely not a lawyer, but if someone is charged with simple possession, and it is their first offense, odds are their charges would get dropped (dismissed?). As another said in this thread, I think the weapon charge would be on a federal level and the drug charges would come from the state. I would hope the law has an "accommodation" if you will if someone was caught with some pot, I.E. if you are 18 and you get caught with a personal use amount (explained a bit further down in my post). For distribution type charges - which are usually felonies in the first place (IANAL) - and you have a metric crap ton of pot and an illegal, full auto AK on your lap I don't really have the same feelings. I think in many situations once a gun gets involved in a drug case (legal gun or not, and beyond personal possession) many move to "violent crimes." That is one of the reason that the federal prisons are so full - lots of drug dealers carry guns/have bodyguards that carry for them (the court system can add 1+1) and get caught and instantly get moved to a federal trial (correct me if I am wrong as IANAL).

I don't understand the logic in marking someone as a criminal for the rest of their lives just because they possess and inhale a plant which just happens to have an effect on them. Don't misinterpret that please as I am not advocating getting really stoned and then handing a firearm. I realize it is against the law and I think that is not appropriate for it to be illegal but that is just the way it is here in Indiana. I think it is easy to conclude that pot doesn't have quite as dramatic of an effect on the psyche and attitude of people as alcohol does. How often do you hear about potheads raging out in the Taco Bell drive-thru? As much as boozed up guys rage on their wives at home? I sure don't.

The guy in this case was properly sentenced IMO, maybe a bit on the lenient side. Illegal possession of a handgun is (automatically?) a felony IIRC and then you throw in the hodgepodge of drug charges which on their own could warrant more time than just the gun charge and he may have got off a bit easy.

 

[finity]

The guy in this case was properly sentenced IMO, maybe a bit on the lenient side. Illegal possession of a handgun is (automatically?) a felony IIRC and then you throw in the hodgepodge of drug charges which on their own could warrant more time than just the gun charge and he may have got off a bit easy.

No.

It has already been pointed out that the first offense for carrying without a license in IN is a misdemeanor.

There is no federal crime against carrying a gun without a license (by itself). That is a state matter.

He got charged with carrying a gun during a drug crime (federal). It didn't make any difference if he had a LTCH or not.

He got less time for the drug charge than he did for the gun charge. The gun charge had a mandatory 5 yr minimum. There is no mandatory minimim for the drug charge.

He was an idiot.