I tried the search feature, but perhaps I was not using the correct key words...
I'm quite certain I read a link posted on this site referencing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling where in their opinion it was noted that merely possessing a handgun (legally) was not in and of itself sufficient for a leo to consider the citizen "dangerous".
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
I'm quite certain I read a link posted on this site referencing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling where in their opinion it was noted that merely possessing a handgun (legally) was not in and of itself sufficient for a leo to consider the citizen "dangerous".
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.