Told I had to inform.

[Rookie]

Kut up

It seems to me that you really have a problem with the second Amendment.

If someone has a LTCH Indiana has checked his background and found him a proper person.

Who the H E Double Toothpicks do you think you are calling me a ****bag.

How many times have you been threatened, shot at wounded by a LTCH holder.

Some one wiser than I has said he hopes you just play a cop on tv and not in real life.

Hit the brakes turbo.

Search.

He's one of the good guys.

 

[Gabriel]

The Opposite to this is LEOs are not trained enough to Read the Law...

When YOU need Legal Advise do you go to your fellow Officers or to an Attorney?!

I go to certain officers or to the law books themselves.

I do, however, get emails through my work account that I believe are from a lawyer that is a member here (at least I believe he is a member of the organiztion sending the emails) that I do find interesting from time to time.

 

[rhino]

You guys are defeating my IGNORE list with the quoting again!

 

[Roadie]

Someone get Hammerhead for me? I gotta "spread some rep" around before I can get him..

Thanks!

 

[iChokePeople]

Someone get Hammerhead for me? I gotta "spread some rep" around before I can get him..

Thanks!

 

[theweakerbrother]

My guess is that it's only going to get worse and more aggressive until more cops hold the 2A in higher regard than their badge or maybe even paycheck.

 

[Caleb]

I work CLOSELY with the sheriff's dept, city cops, and detectives back when I did Child Protection work in MN. And yes, sometimes they DO make stuff up. I've seen good ones, and I've seen bad ones. It's just like any other profession or walk of life.

Back when I was a kid, we had a state trooper that was a legendary a-hole. He loved to bust people for anything, and was known to bully kids around quite a bit. (Allegedly even punching a few). Well, he made the mistake of pulling one of my dad's buddies over for speeding one afternoon, and then playing "tough guy" with Leroy. (Leroy owned a body shop, and had been sniffing paint fumes for too many years).

So super Trooper orders Leroy out of the car...pushes him over the hood all because he asked what the problem was. Leroy turned his head to look at the cop, and the cop then smashed Leroy's head into the hood.

That is when things went downhill. Leroy had a bad temper, and was a fighter, so he took the Super Trooper to the ground, took his weapon from him, and then proceeded to handcuff the cop to his door handle (cars still had door handles back then).

He thought about driving off, but he knew he was in trouble, so he went over and radioed in that the Super Trooper was handcuffed to his own car.

About 14 State Troopers and sheriff's cars arrived on scene......quite a bit of laughing ensued (Mr Super Trooper was not well liked by ANYONE).

Leroy did a short stint in jail......judge did find "extenuating circumstances" given the cops prior problems.

That's a funny story... I bet that trooper got an attitude correction right then and there.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why are you ignoring me rhino. I'm a nice guy.(usually)

 

[ATM]

You guys are defeating my IGNORE list with the quoting again!

Quoted just in case any of them had no idea you were also ignoring them.

 

[Caleb]

Why are you ignoring me rhino. I'm a nice guy.(usually)

How can you expect rhino to answer your question if he's ignoring you? Seriously?!

 

[Indy317]

An officer can ASK anything they want none of us are arguing that. The only thing we are concerned with is the ACTION after the LTCH is validated (which should be done first)!

Really?

Boom, immediately validated LTCH. Richardson kicks in, no authority to ask about firearms.

(Underline emphasis is mine). Maybe you didn't say it, but I thought that was the who thing we were discussing: An officer on a traffic stop discovers a person with a LTCH, can they ask about firearms after that?

A cop CANNOT disarm me based solely on the fact that I have a gun.

Are you saying in conjunction with a traffic stop? If a person is walking down the sidewalk OCing in a thigh rig, I don't know of any state case law (based on Indiana's handgun carry law) that says an officer can't secure that weapon while investigating for a possible violation under IC 35-47-2-1.

Several attorneys on INGO have backed up "our" interpretation of Richardson, but you, as a LEO, apparently know more than they do, so I was curious as to where you obtained your Law Degree and what State you passed the Bar in.. just curious.

So a person needs a law degree to understand every single law on the books? Does this this apply to say auto maintenance as well? A person can't possible change out a car battery unless they are a trained electrician? Can't change their own oil unless they have ASE certified? Remember, when lawyers go to court, it is usually to argue a case against another lawyer who will argue the opposite. Basically, for every lawyer you have that will claim a, b, and c on some issue, there is likely a lawyer who will claim x, y, and z on the exact same issue.

It appears that the state database for LTCH holders has now been tied to the same databases that are inquired upon when an officer runs a person's driver's license or ID record from the BMV. So basically, if there are 1,000 traffic stops a day in Indiana. If folks believe an officer asking about weapons is a violation of rights, then lawyers should be advertising this fact 24/7. Who wouldn't want such slam dunk civil rights violation cases?

I believe this is relevant..

(emphasis mine)

Indy317?

??? The Washington ruling had an officer remove a person from a car with a handgun. Handcuff said person. Had said handcuffed person moved away from the vehicle. The court said given the above, there was no longer an "officer safety" reason for the officer to go into the vehicle and retrieve the gun. I personally agree with that ruling. I don't agree with the following comment:

The point of the Washington case is that a motorist who admits to the presence of a firearm within the vehicle, presents a valid LTCH to to officer, and is otherwise cooperative - is not subject to a search of his person or the vehicle for the firearm, because there was no basis for the "reasonable belief" required for such a search.

The above gives partial information. Washington was removed from the vehicle and placed in handcuffs and told to stand back from the passenger compartment. Incidents like this need to have all the facts put out there. If I was just reading the above, I would be under the impression that what happened in Washington was: Driver pulled over, admits to a weapon in vehicle, gives LTCH to officer (even say officer runs LTCH and confirms it is valid), officer gets into vehicle (maybe driver is still in vehicle, maybe asked to step out) to obtain the firearm. Doesn't really fit with what really happened. If you pull a person out, that is strike one on the need to go into the vehicle and secure the firearm. If you then go further and handcuff the person, strike two.

How exactly are the attorneys that post here getting paid?

They also have backed up their interpretation with Case Law, so, what exactly are you implying?

They may not get paid posting here, but have they said publicly they will take such cases pro-bono since they are such a slam dunk in terms of a civil rights violation?

This one's pretty self-explanatory too, but you seem to be missing it. Even if she had RAS or PC to continue to ask, the valid LTCH ends further questioning about his firearm. What they're saying here is if she had ANY other type of interaction with him, if the stop had been for ANY other reason where asking these types of questions were allowed, his valid LTCH is enough to end the discussion. They're tying the first and third sentences together.

I disagree with you on this. We will just have to agree to disagree. The entire context of asking has to do with the underlying infraction being enforced...the seat belt enforcement act. She didn't see a gun, she saw a bulge, and absent anything else, had no right to even ask. The court just said that even if they did OK the asking about the bulge, as soon as he presented the license, she should have stopped digging given the restrictions of the underlying infraction that she was enforcing. That is how I take it. I guess if I get sued, my FOP attorneys will either say I was right, or wrong.

And yes, my lawyer would have a field day with you. Not because of a personal suit, but because you decided to violate my civil rights in opposition to IN law, IN case law, the IN Constitution and the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If you disarm me, you'd better have a warrant or be able to explain to a judge why I was being dangerous (I'm cooperating, and recording you). Good luck with all that.

This has nothing to do with disarming. I'm merely talking about simply asking about firearms even after a LTCH is displayed (and we'll even go so far as to say verified since now the system is tied in with the BMV inquires).

you got some proof of this ABSURD claim?

There are definitely criminals out there with LTCHs. There are also what some folks would call "hot heads" with LTCHs as well. It was said to me that it was common for the one or two younger (18/19 yoa) gang members with no criminal record to get the license in order to carry all the weapons for a car load of gang members. Reports were that it wasn't uncommon to be dealing with four or five younger gang affiliated/members and that one person would have three or four handguns on just their person. An ingenious way to keep your buddies out of jail on a carrying w/o a license charge and/or felon in possession type charge.

 

[Rookie]

IC 35-47-14 covers seizure of firearms. I don't see anywhere that allows you to seize a firearm based on gut feelings.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Your quoted IC specifically says a NONLICENSED person.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(b) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 3-7-13-5 or IC 33-28-4-8, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body in the person's dwelling or on the person's property or fixed place of business.


STEP 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street

STEP 2: Cop asks to see LTCH

STEP 3: Guy shows cop LTCH

STEP 4: Cop says have a nice day.

Any deviation from above is going to have trouble for someone...

Scenario 2:

(assumes CC)
Cop pulls guy over for speeding. LTCH pops up when he runs plates/license. Cop asks guy about weapons. Guy is silent as he should be. Stop over, cop hands guy ticket/warning.

(Assumes OC)
Cop pulls guy over for speeding. Cop sees LTCH info. Cop SEES gun and asks for LTCH to verify. Cop asks if any other weapons etc. Cop instructs guy to leave gun where it is and keep hands visible. Cop hands guy ticket/warning.

(problem)
Cop pulls guy over for speeding. Sees LTCH info, orders driver out and frisks him, takes gun, runs numbers. Cop gives gun back, gives (multiple) tickets. Guy goes to court, charges dropped.

 

[Benny]

Your quoted IC specifically says a NONLICENSED person.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
(b) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 3-7-13-5 or IC 33-28-4-8, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body in the person's dwelling or on the person's property or fixed place of business.


STEP 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street

STEP 2: Cop asks to see LTCH

STEP 3: Guy shows cop LTCH

STEP 4: Cop says have a nice day.

Any deviation from above is going to have trouble for someone...

Ouch...He must have missed that little tidbit when reading the IC.

At least he can still change a car battery.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ouch...He must have missed that little tidbit when reading the IC.

At least he can still change a car battery.

 

[rhino]

Why are you ignoring me rhino. I'm a nice guy.(usually)

I'm not ignoring you!

Even though I'm not a nice guy (usually).

 

[rhino]

How can you expect rhino to answer your question if he's ignoring you? Seriously?!

I thought about not responding to this ... as if I didn't see it! Hah!

 

[Hammerhead]

Really?



(Underline emphasis is mine). Maybe you didn't say it, but I thought that was the who thing we were discussing: An officer on a traffic stop discovers a person with a LTCH, can they ask about firearms after that?



Are you saying in conjunction with a traffic stop? If a person is walking down the sidewalk OCing in a thigh rig, I don't know of any state case law (based on Indiana's handgun carry law) that says an officer can't secure that weapon while investigating for a possible violation under IC 35-47-2-1.



So a person needs a law degree to understand every single law on the books? Does this this apply to say auto maintenance as well? A person can't possible change out a car battery unless they are a trained electrician? Can't change their own oil unless they have ASE certified? Remember, when lawyers go to court, it is usually to argue a case against another lawyer who will argue the opposite. Basically, for every lawyer you have that will claim a, b, and c on some issue, there is likely a lawyer who will claim x, y, and z on the exact same issue.

It appears that the state database for LTCH holders has now been tied to the same databases that are inquired upon when an officer runs a person's driver's license or ID record from the BMV. So basically, if there are 1,000 traffic stops a day in Indiana. If folks believe an officer asking about weapons is a violation of rights, then lawyers should be advertising this fact 24/7. Who wouldn't want such slam dunk civil rights violation cases?



??? The Washington ruling had an officer remove a person from a car with a handgun. Handcuff said person. Had said handcuffed person moved away from the vehicle. The court said given the above, there was no longer an "officer safety" reason for the officer to go into the vehicle and retrieve the gun. I personally agree with that ruling. I don't agree with the following comment:

The point of the Washington case is that a motorist who admits to the presence of a firearm within the vehicle, presents a valid LTCH to to officer, and is otherwise cooperative - is not subject to a search of his person or the vehicle for the firearm, because there was no basis for the "reasonable belief" required for such a search.

The above gives partial information. Washington was removed from the vehicle and placed in handcuffs and told to stand back from the passenger compartment. Incidents like this need to have all the facts put out there. If I was just reading the above, I would be under the impression that what happened in Washington was: Driver pulled over, admits to a weapon in vehicle, gives LTCH to officer (even say officer runs LTCH and confirms it is valid), officer gets into vehicle (maybe driver is still in vehicle, maybe asked to step out) to obtain the firearm. Doesn't really fit with what really happened. If you pull a person out, that is strike one on the need to go into the vehicle and secure the firearm. If you then go further and handcuff the person, strike two.



They may not get paid posting here, but have they said publicly they will take such cases pro-bono since they are such a slam dunk in terms of a civil rights violation?



I disagree with you on this. We will just have to agree to disagree. The entire context of asking has to do with the underlying infraction being enforced...the seat belt enforcement act. She didn't see a gun, she saw a bulge, and absent anything else, had no right to even ask. The court just said that even if they did OK the asking about the bulge, as soon as he presented the license, she should have stopped digging given the restrictions of the underlying infraction that she was enforcing. That is how I take it. I guess if I get sued, my FOP attorneys will either say I was right, or wrong.

You're not read it right. I'm going to say again, at least three lawyers here have told me repeatedly that I have read this correctly. The first and third sentences are connected. Their wording is sloppy, but they were saying exactly how I explained it. It's not because of the underlying seat belt act. "This case is not one of them." It's because for any other stop where reasons might exist for further inquiry, the inquiry stops once a LTCH is presented. The questions about my firearm have been answered. I'm legally allowed to carry it. Absent some other PC or RAS, there's nothing else to ask. Run the numbers? Sorry my property is my property. Get a warrant. "Officer safety?" Nope, they referenced Washington, Terry, and Baldwin which brings in cooperation and "armed and dangerous." Stop fishing.


This has nothing to do with disarming. I'm merely talking about simply asking about firearms even after a LTCH is displayed (and we'll even go so far as to say verified since now the system is tied in with the BMV inquires).

It does have to do with any further inquiry, including disarming. You've verified that I can carry a handgun legally. You going to give me a hassle for my cell phone or any other of my property that I'm legally allowed to carry? Then why my sidearm? Let's not forget the fact that you can ASK anything in the world you like. My legally valid LTCH is the answer to "Do you have any weapons." I don't have to answer anything else, and you have a large burden of proof to do anything else with my sidearm under the law.

There are definitely criminals out there with LTCHs. There are also what some folks would call "hot heads" with LTCHs as well. It was said to me that it was common for the one or two younger (18/19 yoa) gang members with no criminal record to get the license in order to carry all the weapons for a car load of gang members. Reports were that it wasn't uncommon to be dealing with four or five younger gang affiliated/members and that one person would have three or four handguns on just their person. An ingenious way to keep your buddies out of jail on a carrying w/o a license charge and/or felon in possession type charge.

Easiest solution? I'm going to only answer questions I'm legally required to, not inform about my carry status and only provide my LTCH (even though it's now validated with my DL). If you proceed further, you're the one that'll have to answer for it under the laws you've been informed about.

My suggestion? Stop worrying about those of us that cooperate and are legally licensed carriers. These laws are protections for us. You've been warned. (I don't mean that in an angry or threatening way.)

 

[Indy317]

Your quoted IC specifically says a NONLICENSED person.

Licenses aren't stapled on people's head. There is no way to know if a person is complaint with the law until they can get into their wallet, briefcase, book bag, etc.. I tend to think in such an instance, courts would side with LEOs that they can secure the handgun until such time the license is produced.

STEP 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street

STEP 2: Cop asks to see LTCH

STEP 3: Guy shows cop LTCH

STEP 4: Cop says have a nice day.

Why can't it be:
Step 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street.
Step 2: Cop asks to see LTCH.
Step 3: Guy pulls gun and shoots cop dead

Since it can be the above, I don't mind if LEOs are allowed to secure the weapon. If it comes to a point where courts rule LEOs aren't allow to secure such an item that can cause almost instant death or serious bodily injury, then should LEOs/departments/municipalities should be given full immunity for not investigating any calls where the only information is "person with a gun?" What is the amount of danger LEOs should have to face vs. reasonable under the circumstances. I guess we could always have LEOs watch the person for a bit, but there might not be an LEO available, or they may have more important things to do.

Scenario 2:

(assumes CC)
Cop pulls guy over for speeding. LTCH pops up when he runs plates/license. Cop asks guy about weapons. Guy is silent as he should be. Stop over, cop hands guy ticket/warning.

As it should be.

(problem)
Cop pulls guy over for speeding. Sees LTCH info, orders driver out and frisks him, takes gun, runs numbers. Cop gives gun back, gives (multiple) tickets. Guy goes to court, charges dropped.

Why would the charges be dropped in this situation? What does running a stop light have to do with an officer removing the person, frisking the person, taking the gun, and/or running the numbers?

Ouch...He must have missed that little tidbit when reading the IC.

At least he can still change a car battery.

Are all LEOs clairvoyant or something? How does one tell if a a person OCing with a gun stuck in their waistband has a LTCH? There is no forehead tattoo requirement that I know of.

You've been warned. (I don't mean that in an angry or threatening way.)

Then what are you warning me of?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Indy317,

I have had the pleasure of being in many scenarios with cops lately and I have run into about as many types as I can think of and I was only disarmed once. The charges were dropped because the cops were incompitant. It wasn't that having a suspended drivers license has anything to do with a gun but it DOES have to do with the officer performing their duties properly. I was able to show they did not and charges were dropped.

In every single instance were my gun was known to an officer in an official way they asked for a LTCH first. That is what you do since there IS NO CRIME IF THEY HAVE A LICENSE. No crime means no further reason to continue "questioning" about the weapon. Meaning they can say my 1911 is pretty and they really really wish their department would issue them all they want but they cannot be justified taking it for "officer safety."

In fact I would propose new legislation aimed specifically at preventing cops from taking weapons apart from arresting and handcuffing a person suspected of a crime. It is SO much safer when you don't coonfinger guns you are not familiar with.