Gun permit denied

[iChokePeople]

My internet legal partner, chez, did hit on an idea for the appeal... I submit that you could argue that it was not an inability to safely handle a handgun... It was an UNWILLINGNESS to do so.

seriously, though, I still think you're ****ed, but call mr. Relford. He's an ACTUAL attorney.

 

[DONK]

My internet legal partner, chez, did hit on an idea for the appeal... I submit that you could argue that it was not an inability to safely handle a handgun... It was an UNWILLINGNESS to do so.

seriously, though, I still think you're ****ed, but call mr. Relford. He's an ACTUAL attorney.

Will you be my lawyer? Yeah I think I am also. I will call around but it's looking like a negative ghost rider.

 

[chezuki]

I mean I guess that in my opinion, it wasn't an inability to safely handle a firearm.

In MY opinion, pointing a gun at someone is kind of the definition of "unsafe gun handling".

Perhaps it wasn't an "inability", but you certainly didn't choose to handle it safely.

 

[chezuki]

call mr. Relford. He's an ACTUAL attorney.

This.

IANAL, ICPINAL, GRIALACBYL!

 

[iChokePeople]

In MY opinion, pointing a gun at someone is kind of the definition of "unsafe gun handling".

Perhaps it wasn't an "inability", but you certainly didn't choose to handle it safely.

This plays perfectly into my legal strategy. In addressing the judge, you could explain the difference, that you are completely capable of handling a gun safely, and, as evidence, point out that you are currently carrying a gun safely and... Wait. Strike that.

 

[DONK]

In MY opinion, pointing a gun at someone is kind of the definition of "unsafe gun handling".

Perhaps it wasn't an "inability", but you certainly didn't choose to handle it safely.

If it was that cut and dry I would agree with that, and I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion, but if you ever feel like your life is in danger and you do need to pull out your gun, I hope in the end it's not 3 people's word against yours.

In my opinion "unsafe handling" would be accidental discharge.

 

[rdavis006]

INAL but I think your only chance is if it has been 5 years since the conviction and you completed the terms or your sentence, is to seek an expungement of your record. After the expungement you will be legally able to answer no to any questions regarding have you been convicted. Then you can reapply for the LTCH.

I have been through the expungment process in Ohio. I handled it myself, filed the paperwork paid the $50.00 court cost spent five mins in front of Judge and was granted been good to go ever since.

 

[KG1]

Sorry about your luck Doink. I guess you can carry a rifle but not a handgun.

 

[TheRude1]

You are screwed

 

[DONK]

INAL but I think your only chance is if it has been 5 years since the conviction and you completed the terms or your sentence, is to seek an expungement of your record. After the expungement you will be legally able to answer no to any questions regarding have you been convicted. Then you can reapply for the LTCH.

I have been through the expungment process in Ohio. I handled it myself, filed the paperwork paid the $50.00 court cost spent five mins in front of Judge and was granted been good to go ever since.

I'll have to ask the lawyer about this. This actually sounds like a good idea though. Thanks!

 

[rdavis006]

I'll have to ask the lawyer about this. This actually sounds like a good idea though. Thanks!

You're welcome be interested to know what the lawyer tells you keeps us posted

 

[Destro]

are you going to be pointing more guns at people?

 

[actaeon277]

are you going to be pointing more guns at people?

If they are coming after me with murderous intent, yes. Oh, the OP.

 

[Bunnykid68]

He is not a prohibited person to purchase why should the State prohibit him from carrying?

 

[rdavis006]

He is not a prohibited person to purchase why should the State prohibit him from carrying?

Do not disagree with this argument, however where in state statue does it say a permit will be granted to all persons not prohibited from purchasing a firearm

 

[actaeon277]

Ok. So I'm trying to look up relevant IC. But I'm on a cell, so that not working out.

I thought felony made you "improper", not misdemeanor.

 

[chezuki]

Ok. So I'm trying to look up relevant IC. But I'm on a cell, so that not working out.

I thought felony made you "improper", not misdemeanor.

From the definition of "proper person":

IC 35-47-1-7 "Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; (10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:
(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:
(A) not guilty by reason of insanity; (B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.

 

[ModernGunner]

Interesting. Hmmmm, someone on INGO (CathyInBlue?) had a thread up about finding a gun, asking if anyone on INGO lost it, must describe it, etc.

Would not that person, then, be in violation of IC 35-47-1-7? IF they have a LTCH, could they not, should they not have their LTCH revoked for violation of same?

 

[chezuki]

Interesting. Hmmmm, someone on INGO (CathyInBlue?) had a thread up about finding a gun, asking if anyone on INGO lost it, must describe it, etc.

Would not that person, then, be in violation of IC 35-47-1-7? IF they have a LTCH, could they not, should they not have their LTCH revoked for violation of same?

The thread was BBI's, who is an IMPD detective legitimately trying to reunite the firearm with its owner.

Where in IC 35-47-1-7 does it say losing a firearm is a crime?



https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/handguns/342954-anyone-indy-area-lose-handgun-lately.html