Permit

[GARANDGUY]

Starting in July you will no longer need a permit to carry a handgun in your vehicle. I dont need one dur to the FFL but I have my lifetime for when I travel out of town. It is a good thing to get but make sure to go lifetime.

 

[GuyRelford]

Oh, I believe you! I've had 2 officers tell me two different things, while they were standing next to each other. That's the whole problem - it isn't clear in the law, so the officers have to make a best guess.

Actually the law is clear. The only places you can have a handgun without a LTCH in Indiana are 1) in your dwelling; 2) in your fixed place of business; or 3) on your property. Ind. Code 35-47-2-1(a).

You can also transport a handgun from the place of purchase to one of the above places and to and from a place of repair, or among the places listed above, so long as it is in a "secure wrapper." Ind Code 35-47-2-2(11).

The federal Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 also allows a person to carry a firearm in their vehicle from an origin "where he may lawfully possess and carry" to a destination "where he may lawfully possess and carry," so long as the firearm is unloaded and neither the firearm nor any ammunition is "readily" or "directly" accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. In vehicles without a separate compartment from the passenger compartment (e.g., an SUV), the firearm or ammunition must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. 18 USC 926(A).

 

[GuyRelford]

Starting in July you will no longer need a permit to carry a handgun in your vehicle.

Have you got a cite for that?

 

[Scutter01]

Starting in July you will no longer need a permit to carry a handgun in your vehicle. I dont need one dur to the FFL but I have my lifetime for when I travel out of town. It is a good thing to get but make sure to go lifetime.

Have you got a cite for that?

I'm sure you know this already, but for anyone else, I think GARANDGUY is referring to SB506. The bill that will allow you to carry to/from a range without a license is (IIRC) still awaiting third reading in the Indiana senate and has not been either approved or signed into law yet by the governor.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...eeds_our_help_sb_292_and_sb_506_2-7-11_a.html

 

[finity]

Actually the law is clear. The only places you can have a handgun without a LTCH in Indiana are 1) in your dwelling; 2) in your fixed place of business; or 3) on your property. Ind. Code 35-47-2-1(a).

You can also transport a handgun from the place of purchase to one of the above places and to and from a place of repair, or among the places listed above, so long as it is in a "secure wrapper." Ind Code 35-47-2-2(11).

Obviously you're the lawyer & I'm not but I don't think I agree with you on the last part where you say "or among the places listed above"

The relevant part (Ind Code 35-47-2-2(11)) reads:

(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

I take "in moving from one dwelling or business to another" to mean "permanantly relocating your place of residence or business". IOW, it's the common meaning of usage by someone who says "I'm moving next week."

Although I personally don't see a problem with someone doing as your interpretation says they can, I don't think that's the intent of the exception. Otherwise it could be read to mean (as many others here have tried) that "I'm always moving from one place of residence/business to another in just my normal course of daily life so I should not even need a LTCH to transport it anywhere as long as it's unloaded & in a case."

That's not the way I read it.

Do you have any case law to back up your interpretation? If you do, that would be great. If not then I think the jury is still out on that interpretation & I think it's prudent to read it in the most restrictive way to prevent yourself from getting into legal trouble.

Also, if your interpretation was correct then why is there the need for the new bill referenced above to allow you to carry unloaded & cased to a range & back again without at least a qualified license?

I would say that the law is far from clear on the issue.

The federal Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 also allows a person to carry a firearm in their vehicle from an origin "where he may lawfully possess and carry" to a destination "where he may lawfully possess and carry," so long as the firearm is unloaded and neither the firearm nor any ammunition is "readily" or "directly" accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. In vehicles without a separate compartment from the passenger compartment (e.g., an SUV), the firearm or ammunition must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. 18 USC 926(A).

Again, I'm not sure I agree.

18 USC 926A is titled "Interstate Transportation of Firearms" implying that the law only applies to the action stated in the title.

IOW, the law wouldn't cover you transporting your firearm WITHIN the state of IN. It would only cover you transporting it from one state to another & only if you were legal to possess/carry the gun in both states - both origin & ultimate destination.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Good lord somebody please but this topic to rest it seems to come up once a week.

 

[Scutter01]

Good lord somebody please but this topic to rest it seems to come up once a week.

It's in the INGO FAQ, but I get yelled at and accused of being arrogant when I direct people to it.

 

[DFM914]

 

[GuyRelford]

Obviously you're the lawyer & I'm not but I don't think I agree with you on the last part where you say "or among the places listed above"

The relevant part (Ind Code 35-47-2-2(11)) reads:



I take "in moving from one dwelling or business to another" to mean "permanantly relocating your place of residence or business". IOW, it's the common meaning of usage by someone who says "I'm moving next week."

Although I personally don't see a problem with someone doing as your interpretation says they can, I don't think that's the intent of the exception. Otherwise it could be read to mean (as many others here have tried) that "I'm always moving from one place of residence/business to another in just my normal course of daily life so I should not even need a LTCH to transport it anywhere as long as it's unloaded & in a case."

That's not the way I read it.

Do you have any case law to back up your interpretation? If you do, that would be great. If not then I think the jury is still out on that interpretation & I think it's prudent to read it in the most restrictive way to prevent yourself from getting into legal trouble.

Also, if your interpretation was correct then why is there the need for the new bill referenced above to allow you to carry unloaded & cased to a range & back again without at least a qualified license?

I would say that the law is far from clear on the issue.



Again, I'm not sure I agree.

18 USC 926A is titled "Interstate Transportation of Firearms" implying that the law only applies to the action stated in the title.

IOW, the law wouldn't cover you transporting your firearm WITHIN the state of IN. It would only cover you transporting it from one state to another & only if you were legal to possess/carry the gun in both states - both origin & ultimate destination.

Actually, I didn't mean anything different than what you say above, and I agree with both of your interpretations. I probably should have used more precise language, and I think your clarifications are great!

And I suppose this whole discussion casts some doubt on my earlier statement that "the law is clear."

 

[Hammerhead]

Actually, I didn't mean anything different than what you say above, and I agree with both of your interpretations. I probably should have used more precise language, and I think your clarifications are great!

And I suppose this whole discussion casts some doubt on my earlier statement that "the law is clear."

Think about the law (all law) and the fact that it takes several years to study and lawyers and judges "practice" it for the rest of their lives, and still, even to them it's clear as mud. Even to the point that it's open to the whims and interpretation of the humans who deal with it every day.

No offense to our resident lawyers, who have shown their ability to help us laymen in our quest to be better informed carriers and citizens.