What kind of LTCH do I need?

[SavageEagle]

SO we all agree that the best course of action is to get your LTCH

Nope. Best course of action is to gather at the state house everyone with a LTCH and throw them on the ground on the sidewalk and burn them and tell them we refuse to ask permission any longer.

But that's a pipe dream because too many LTCH holders relish the idea of infringement. So in order for this to happen, well, it's a pipe dream at this point.

So I guess for the time being, yes, I'll agree with your post.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

One or two problems with that. The IN code was enacted before 1986, it was 1983 iirc.

And the Indiana State Constitution was written in 1851, which in article 32 specifically states:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State".

Also since your so big on legislative intent, what was the intent of that provision of the 1986 FOPA? Was in interstate or intrastate transport?

They specifically stated it's intent: "necessary to restore fundamental fairness and clarity to our Nation's firearms laws". however the lawmakers intent with the "safe passage clause" was to address problems with interstate transport, their intent was not to clarify or supersede a poorly written Indiana statute, However with that said, it does still have that effect.

And yes it clarified at least one thing for me, that you have no idea what in the heck your talking about.

I've tried to explain all of this the best that I could, I am not responsible if you or anyone else can still not understand it.

You stated that you knew it was because of neglect that the law does not state what you think it should. You stated you knew it was because of the interstate transport clause of the 1986 FOPA. I pointed out that couldn't be true because the state law predates the FOPA. If you want to argue that the law as it is, is unConstitutional under the IN Constitution I will agree with you.

Do you have anything other than what you think to back up what you state? I will admit I don't but that is because any lawyer understands that any defense raised under what you say would be shot down in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. The Feds do not have any constitutional powers to regulate intrastate transportation of firearms. So no it does not have the effect that you state it does.

It has been explained to you as best that I and others can. We are not responsible if you can not understand it.

 

[RichardR]

You stated that you knew it was because of neglect that the law does not state what you think it should. You stated you knew it was because of the interstate transport clause of the 1986 FOPA. I pointed out that couldn't be true because the state law predates the FOPA. If you want to argue that the law as it is, is unConstitutional under the IN Constitution I will agree with you.

Do you have anything other than what you think to back up what you state? I will admit I don't but that is because any lawyer understands that any defense raised under what you say would be shot down in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. The Feds do not have any constitutional powers to regulate intrastate transportation of firearms. So no it does not have the effect that you state it does.

It has been explained to you as best that I and others can. We are not responsible if you can not understand it.

I stopped caring about 2 hours ago man.

Seriously I don't care if you or anyone else thinks it is "illegal" to transport a firearm in the exact manner prescribed by both the Federal & Indiana statutes which regulates transport of firearms.

But hey, maybe next time I'll say something like "water is wet" & then you can argue with me for 6 hours how it isn't.

 

[finity]

§ 178.38 Transportation of firearms.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of any law or any rule or regulation of
a State or any political subdivision
thereof, any person who is not otherwise
prohibited by this chapter from
transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm shall be entitled to transport a
firearm for any lawful purpose from
any place where such person may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to
any other place where such person may
lawfully possess and carry such firearm
if, during such transportation the firearm
is unloaded, and neither the firearm
nor any ammunition being transported
is readily accessible or is directly
accessible from the passenger.

I do not know how I can explain it any better, so if you are still confused then I am afraid that I simply cannot say anything further that would help you understand.

I'm not sure where you got that quotation above but it is not completely correct.

Here is the correct one with the link so you can look at it yourself - again:

U.S. Code

Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms


-STATUTE-


Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or


regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any


person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from


transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to


transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he


may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place


where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during


such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the


firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible


or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such


transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle


without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the


firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container


other than the glove compartment or console.

The above quote & link are from the official US House code website.

Notice the bolded text above that is conspicuously missing from your "quote". It specifically says "interstate".

I'm not even sure if that was an honest omission on your part or an intentional one to try to bolster your (wholly incorrect) argument.

If he disagreed with you, you'd just say that he didn't know what he was talking about.

This is real simple, I'll try explaining it one last time, in real simple terms so that even a small child could understand it.

A.) Here in Indiana you are allowed to legally purchase & own a handgun without a LTCH.

B.) Here in Indiana you are allowed to possess that legally owned handgun at three places, your residence, your fixed place of business & a place of repair, all without a LTCH.

C.) Here in Indiana you are allowed, under both the Indiana statute & Federal statute to legally "transport" that handgun to & from those 3 places at which you are allowed to lawfully possess that handgun, all without a LTCH.

Now see how simple & easy that is to understand?

A.) true

B.) true

C.) Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad...unless you can be arrested for being WRONG about it!

That is correct, there is no requirement in the statute mandating that the handgun has to actually be repaired when it gets there nor does the statute require that the handgun be damaged or non-functional.

Hey! Finally a post I can fully agree with you on.

Yup.

I've been carrying over 20 years.

It's a good thing you've got the LTCH because otherwise you would more than likely have been arrested for illegally carrying a handgun by now.

I stopped caring about 2 hours ago man.

Seriously I don't care if you or anyone else thinks it is "illegal" to transport a firearm in the exact manner prescribed by both the Federal & Indiana statutes which regulates transport of firearms.

But hey, maybe next time I'll say something like "water is wet" & then you can argue with me for 6 hours how it isn't.

I personally don't care if YOU care. I just don't want anybody else taking your WRONG advice & getting in trouble because of it.

Let me say this again so there is no confusion on anyone's part (aside from your's):

RichardR IS WRONG!

You CANNOT transport a handgun between your home & business, or two physically seperate properties (businesses or residences) without a LTCH being in your possession!

Federal law does not override state law for INTRA-state transportation of firearms only INTER-state transportation IAW the US Constitution.

There have been cases where people have been prosecuted for people doing what RichardR is suggesting is legal!

DON'T DO IT!!! Just get the LTCH!!!

 

[finity]

Edit to my above post:

I now see where the quote comes from.

It is the ADMINISTRATIVE RULES for the BATFE. It is not the FOPA '86.

Here is the link:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr178.38.pdf

(Note: the above has been superceded in 2005 - it is now found at

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

page 45 - under section 478.38)

It is not FEDERAL LAW. It is based on federal law.

I guess you could read the above to mean that there is no federal law with which you could be charged for transporting a firearm without a license as long as you meet the criteria set forth in the CFR above.

But that does not change the wording, the intent or applicability of the FEDERAL LAW (18 USC Sec. 926A) covering INTERSTATE transportation of firearms.

I retract & apologize for my statement above questioning your honesty.

 

[INGunGuy]

I am bumping this thread as the issue has not been resolved. I personally dont care if I am wrong, or if RichardR is right or wrong. I say that to carry from home to work abd back home is unlawful in the state of Indiana without a LTCH. I guess one could surmise that if they worked at a gunsmith, then yes they could carry from home to work and back home as it fulfills the requirement to carry from/to a gunsmith. That is not what we are talking about, we are talking about the legalities of carrying without a LTCH from home to work and back.

INGunGuy

 

[RichardR]

Well the Indiana statute clearly states you may lawfully transport a handgun without a LTCH to the 3 specific places:, your residence, a fixed place of business & a place of repair.

However it was poorly written in a way that definitely gives the impression that there is some sort of order to which the transport must take place, however regardless, the intent of the statute is clear.

I can not imagine the intent was that a lawful owner of a handgun would be required to have to transport their firearm from their residence, to the parking lot of a place of repair, prior to transporting their firearm to their fixed place of business.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well the Indiana statute clearly states you may lawfully transport a handgun without a LTCH to the 3 specific places:, your residence, a fixed place of business & a place of repair.

However it was poorly written in a way that definitely gives the impression that there is some sort of order to which the transport must take place, however regardless, the intent of the statute is clear.

I can not imagine the intent was that a lawful owner of a handgun would be required to have to transport their firearm from their residence, to the parking lot of a place of repair, prior to transporting their firearm to their fixed place of business.

IN code clearly states that you may lawfully transport a handgun without a LTCH to your property or fixed place of business from place of purchase or repair, and to a place of repair. It also allows transport when moving from fixed place of business or property to another. Notice the word moving not traveling.

And I don't believe the intent was to make an owner drive to the parking lot of a gunsmith between business and home. The intent was to prohibit transporting a handgun without an LTCH except under very limited circumstances. And is the parking lot of a gunsmith a place of repair or would you actually have to take it into the shop?

 

[RichardR]

TimJoe,

My problem with the statute is the incomplete sequence in which transport to & from those allowable places are listed, I do not believe it was intentional to prohibit (by exclusion of the from/to residence to fixed place of business in the text of the statute) the transport of a handgun by it's owner to/from his residence & their fixed place business, both of which are places the handgun owner may lawfully possess & carry a handgun without an LTCH & both of which are listed in the incomplete sequence just not together.

So IHMO it could only be an unintended error in the drafting of the statute.

 

[finity]

Well the Indiana statute clearly states you may lawfully transport a handgun without a LTCH to the 3 specific places:, your residence, a fixed place of business & a place of repair.

However it was poorly written in a way that definitely gives the impression that there is some sort of order to which the transport must take place, however regardless, the intent of the statute is clear.

I can not imagine the intent was that a lawful owner of a handgun would be required to have to transport their firearm from their residence, to the parking lot of a place of repair, prior to transporting their firearm to their fixed place of business.

They didn't INTEND for the owner of a handgun to carry the gun to a gunsmith parking lot just to transport it back to their business. They INTENDED to prohibit carrying a handgun without a LTCH anywhere. They were then reasonable enough to realize that there were times that you may NEED to transport a handgun & they provided exceptions to the law in VERY LIMITED circumstances.

Just because there was a loophole that they didn't close completely doesn't change the INTENT of the law.

In stating the exceptions to the law, you left out half of the requirements. From the place of purchase to your residence, from the place of purchase to your fixed place of business, to a place of repair & back to your residence or fixed place of business. You completely left out the fact that if you move (residence or business ), you can take your handgun with you to new place

 

[RichardR]

They didn't INTEND for the owner of a handgun to carry the gun to a gunsmith parking lot just to transport it back to their business.

The intent was to allow lawful transport to/from the places a handgun owner was legally allowed to posses & carry a handgun without an LTCH.

 

[finity]

The intent was to allow lawful transport to/from the places a handgun owner was legally allowed to posses & carry a handgun without an LTCH.

Nope.

You're only allowed to possess a handgun in 2 places without a LTCH per the IC, your home or your business. A gunsmiths shop is not one of those 2 places.

 

[RichardR]

Nope.

You're only allowed to possess a handgun in 2 places without a LTCH per the IC, your home or your business. A gunsmiths shop is not one of those 2 places.

LOL umm no.

You legally assume possession of the handgun at the place of purchase when you buy it & you are in possession of a handgun when you take it to a place of repair & then again when you pick it up.

Let me say this again, one last time: "the intent of the statute is to allow the lawful transport to/from the places a handgun owner is legally allowed to posses & carry a handgun without an LTCH."

It is really that simple.

 

[finity]

LOL umm no.

You legally assume possession of the handgun at the place of purchase when you buy it & you are in possession of a handgun when you take it to a place of repair & then again when you pick it up.

Let me say this again, one last time: "the intent of the statute is to allow the lawful transport to/from the places a handgun owner is legally allowed to posses & carry a handgun without an LTCH."

It is really that simple.

Um, no.

You are only legally allowed to possess a handgun in two places per the IC. Your home & your business. That's it. Anything else is an EXCEPTION to that law.

My position is backed up by a simple, literal & common reading of the IC. Your argument is based on your opinion of what the legislature INTENDED. Without a legislative history stating that intent your opinion is fairly useless & just that, only your opinion.

 

[RichardR]

Finity,

You have to be trolling me or you have been smoking crack.

There is no way anyone could seriously argue that the buyer of a handgun doesn't take both legal & physical possession at the completion of the sale at a place of purchase.

Or that a handgun owner is not in both legal & physical possession of it when they take it to a place of repair to drop off & then again when they pick it back up.

Or that the intention of the statute is NOT to allow lawful transport of a legally owned handgun to & from where the handgun is lawfully allowed to be possessed by the owner of the handgun.

 

[finity]

Finity,

You have to be trolling me or you have been smoking crack.

Oh here we go with the "troll" charge.

You know, you could be the "troll" here, as well.

You argue for an incorrect reading of the IC in opposition to even lawyers who know the law better than you. Your interpretation is in the minority. Why do you think that might be?

There is no way anyone could seriously argue that the buyer of a handgun doesn't take both legal & physical possession at the completion of the sale at a place of purchase.

Not trying to argue that at all.

Or that a handgun owner is not in both legal & physical possession of it when they take it to a place of repair to drop off & then again when they pick it back up.

Again, not at issue.

Or that the intention of the statute is NOT to allow lawful transport of a legally owned handgun to & from where the handgun is lawfully allowed to be possessed by the owner of the handgun.

Ok here is where I disagree.

You say that the person is legally allowed to possess the handgun at the place of purchase.

Ok. Let's say someone purchased a handgun at a small gun shop - one that doesn't do any repairs just to keep it simple. He takes it home. The next day he brings it back to the place of purchase. Is it still legal for him to possess it at that place?

No. He has ALREADY transported it to his home. Taking it back to the place of purchase (lacking a gunsmith on premises) is not an exception by the IC. Therefore he is not legally allowed to have it there. The ONLY REASON he was allowed to have it there ORIGINALLY in opposition to the IC is because of the limited exception to allow him to take him home after he buys it.

If there is ONE EXAMPLE of when your argument fails then it is not a valid argment. This is one example therefore your argument fails.

The example you used of taking it to & from a place of repair is already specifically allowed as an exception to the IC. That is not a valid example either.

You talk about the INTENT. Prove it. Show ANYWHERE that the intent of which you speak has been discussed by the legislature. Or even the courts.

Until then the only way you can talk about intent is by stating your OPINION & not FACT.

Until then the only prudent thing to do is to follow the common, literal wording of the IC. To suggest that someone do otherwise is bad legal advice.

Nowhere in the IC does it say that it is ok to transport a handgun back & forth between your business & residence without a LTCH. Be Smart. Don't do it!!