Officers just disarmed me in Subway, lectured and took my DL.

[infiremedic07]

My bad, I read your original post wrong. I thought it said that it was illegal to carry into Subway.

You are correct though, without the license it is illegal to carry. If you have the license, but left it at home, the provision allows all charges to be dropped due to you being legal.

I just don't see how we make the leap to saying that you do not have to carry your LTCH from a provision that is there to protect you if you forget it at home sometime.

 

[Hohn]

Unholstering and unloading someone else's sidearm in a room full of people that said officer is unfamiliar with, when the person is cooperative and not acting afool.

The guy gave ID. They could've merely stated "don't touch it" and all would've been well.

Someone was obviously on a power trip.

Power trip?
C'mon. These cops have no idea who you are. In this case, all they know is some dude OCing doesn't even have his LTCH on him. When they run him, the license comes back suspended.

The cops perhaps could have handled this better. But the whole thing is moot if the OP gets his poop in a group.

No LTCH on person and suspended license makes it tough to wrap yourself in "law-abiding citizen."

JMO

 

[infiremedic07]

Let me say for the record I think these LEO were jerks and should have behaved better. I am not trying to defend them. I just don't think that the OP was right either.
People are saying that we do not have to carry the pink card and I just don't see it. Without the pink card, if you are carrying a handgun in an area not listed in the IC as an exemption then you are committing a crime. At which point you are subject to search and identification until YOU can prove you have a licence.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Power trip?
C'mon. These cops have no idea who you are. In this case, all they know is some dude OCing doesn't even have his LTCH on him. When they run him, the license comes back suspended.

The cops perhaps could have handled this better. But the whole thing is moot if the OP gets his poop in a group.

No LTCH on person and suspended license makes it tough to wrap yourself in "law-abiding citizen."

JMO

Yeah, because none of us here ever break any laws.

 

[CathyInBlue]

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter.The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

I can see that you are not required to carry it. I thinks this provision is there to protect you much in the same way that the law concerning drivers licences is. That you can be in trouble for not having it but once you prove that you are legal then the discussion ends.

And if the officer has knowledge that the "defendant" is exempt, and he still tries to run him in, then the officer's guilty of false arrest.

And unless you're trying to claim that the mere presentation of the LPPS would be accepted as proof by the LEO, he's going to disbelieve it and call in the numbers anyway, which means the verbal recitation of the Lic. No. is equivalent to the presentation of the LPPS. If he would accept the mere presentation of the LPPS as proof, without confirmation, then surely the recitation of the Lic. No. is no less proof because it invites confirmation.

Yeah, because none of us here ever break any laws.

Certainly not me. I'm as pure as the driven snow.

 

[Hohn]

Yeah, because none of us here ever break any laws.

We're not talking about 4 over in a 55 here, sir.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We're not talking about 4 over in a 55 here, sir.

Yes we are. The law is what it is. And many others, some of which we may not even be aware of

 

[infiremedic07]

And if the officer has knowledge that the "defendant" is exempt, and he still tries to run him in, then the officer's guilty of false arrest..

And you stand a good chance of getting a signifigant windfall at the taxpayers expense

And unless you're trying to claim that the mere presentation of the LPPS would be accepted as proof by the LEO, he's going to disbelieve it and call in the numbers anyway, which means the verbal recitation of the Lic. No. is equivalent to the presentation of the LPPS. If he would accept the mere presentation of the LPPS as proof, without confirmation, then surely the recitation of the Lic. No. is no less proof because it invites confirmation.

Not trying to claim anything....are you claiming that all LEO's will not accept it at face value? I vehemently disagree. I know that most of the LEO that I interact with will go no further than to ask for your LTCH.
I still do not see the validity to the argument that you don't have to carry your licence based on the provision that if you don't have it with you at that time you are still protected. If you feel that you are well enough protected from being detained and questioned purely because you have your number memorized then I feel that you are skirting the law only to cause contention if you are stopped. IMO. What if you happen to slip up and give them the wrong number. Then you could possibly be charged with giving false information. Better to have it and have them call it in than to try to recite it by memorization.
But if it is what you choose to do then great but that is a far cry from being able to definatively say that you are not supposed to carry your licence.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So where does carrying a handgun in subway fall in the list of places that it is legal to carry in. As far as I can tell it does not fall under those guidelines unless the person has a licence. Therefore it is not lawful to have the gun.

(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;

Subway is private property.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Or the LEO with the swiss-cheese brain/dyslexia/short term memory issues fat fingered it into the keyboard. The incompetency of others is not my responsibility.

And I can't forget my LTCH Lic. No. It was a great year, a great car, and a great gun.

 

[infiremedic07]

(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;

Subway is private property.

SO had they asked "Do you have permission to carry that here?" Would that have made a difference? The result would have been the same. Unless in fact he had permission which was not stated as being the case here.
The arguments here are not convincing me that you do not have to carry your LTCH and I don't mind being convinced.

 

[LANShark42]

(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;

Subway is private property.

Is that express consent or implied consent. Because I'm doubting he had the express consent of the owner/operator of that subway...

 

[long coat]

The arguments here are not convincing me that you do not have to carry your LTCH and I don't mind being convinced.

Read the IC. Here it is.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.

Indiana Code 35-47-2

It has been posted in the first few pages. It used to say something about you had to have the license on you.

 

[sarlakk]

While I believe it is true that you do not have to have your LTCH on you while carrying, I feel like it should come as no surprise that a process like this would follow should you carry without it. It seems that common sense would dictate that if you don't have your LTCH on you, you should automatically expect that the LEO would see the situation as a MWAG scenario, and render things safe until they can establish that you are a legal LTCH holder (which in my opinion, would mean the need to establish ID, one way or another, either by DL or LTCH number recitation).

So, I can see how a situation like this would arise, but I do think the officers took things to the extreme with their attitude and ignorant questioning, as described.

I am curious, though, if anyone might list what reasoning drives one to not carry their LTCH ("aside from any accidentally left behind scenario")? (I respect your right to choose not to, and will not argue your reasons. I am just not able to formulate a reason myself, but I admit that may just be born of my own ignorance -- if their is already a discussion about the subject on this forum, feel free to disregard my question)

 

[infiremedic07]

Read the IC. Here it is.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.

Indiana Code 35-47-2

It has been posted in the first few pages. It used to say something about you had to have the license on you.

I also believe that originally that if you did not have it you could be prosecuted regardless if you had been issued one. This was a major step forward in maintaining our rights. That being said the mandatory clauses were removed to prevent the prosecution of forgetful dunderhead. The law states that you have the burden of proof that you are legal to carry and that legal proof is the LTCH.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I also believe that originally that if you did not have it you could be prosecuted regardless if you had been issued one. This was a major step forward in maintaining our rights. That being said the mandatory clauses were removed to prevent the prosecution of forgetful dunderhead. The law states that you have the burden of proof that you are legal to carry and that legal proof is the LTCH.

No one here is, was or is going to dispute this. In fact we have already discussed this and moved on with the exact same IC posted and examined. It seems like you are the dense one who is behind in class.

I hope we have this settled and can return to the previous argument of the week...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Is that express consent or implied consent. Because I'm doubting he had the express consent of the owner/operator of that subway...

I would think that the owner would have to decide. IMO an open business that is accepting you as a customer would be implied consent until proven otherwise.

 

[infiremedic07]

No one here is, was or is going to dispute this. In fact we have already discussed this and moved on with the exact same IC posted and examined. It seems like you are the dense one who is behind in class.

I hope we have this settled and can return to the previous argument of the week...

Wow TF...dense? I was only continuing the discussion on the last couple pages of whether or not you actually had to carry the pinkie!
For the record I have never been or ever will be the dense one in the class. Unless I am thrust into a group of physicists. But even then as a nuclear reactor operator for the better part of a decade, I might be able to somewhat keep up.

Tell me again what the previous argument of the week is?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Wow TF...dense? I was only continuing the discussion on the last couple pages of whether or not you actually had to carry the pinkie!
For the record I have never been or ever will be the dense one in the class. Unless I am thrust into a group of physicists. But even then as a nuclear reactor operator for the better part of a decade, I might be able to somewhat keep up.

Tell me again what the previous argument of the week is?

I forgot the smiley at the end. Argument of the week was a joke

 

[japartridge]

They can ask you to dance to, but you dont have to. You only have to give ID (by law) if you have broken an ordnance or infraction.

Thank you... now I don't have to inform him!