Open or concealed carrying interaction with LEOS? any body want to add on?

[Kurr]

Also please see here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/150154-your-opinion-unlicensed-carry.html

And here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...opped-open-carry-without-license-madison.html

There is an exception for carrying a handgun without license in the State, ("Partial Constitutionality"!! One step at a time I guess.)

 

[HoughMade]

I'm old an slow so it's CC for me. Surprise is an edge, just like SA, and I'll take every advantage I can.

There's only one Catwoman, and I thought we settled this already.

YES!!!

 

[HoughMade]

BADWOLF, welcome! If you put out a pamphlet on the law, you might put a lot of attorneys out of work. They make a living interpreting the law, putting up smoke screens and dragging things through the legal process. I would sure hate to see one holding a sign at my next exit saying, "Will litigate for food!"

I say do it! I'm not all that nervous about my livelihood.

Pro Se​ litigants have actually made me a lot of money.

 

[jamil]

I'm old an slow so it's CC for me. Surprise is an edge, just like SA, and I'll take every advantage I can.

There's only one Catwoman, and I thought we settled this already.

YES!!!

Agreed.

But I have to admit Halle Barry filled out the catsuit pretty well.

 

[HoughMade]

Agreed.

But I have to admit Halle Barry filled out the catsuit pretty well.

View attachment 40320

Honorable mention.

 

[BADWOLF]

I say do it! I'm not all that nervous about my livelihood.

Pro Se​ litigants have actually made me a lot of money.

So your a civil rights lawyer? And yes I would have a lawyer represent me in court and I have a sneaking suspicion that he would be using the case law cited and more as my defense. And any judge would have to give weight to any case law by other states and take any case law by a U.S. appellate court or SCOTUS as law.

 

[HoughMade]

So your a civil rights lawyer? And yes I would have a lawyer represent me in court and I have a sneaking suspicion that he would be using the case law cited and more as my defense. And any judge would have to give weight to any case law by other states and take any case law by a U.S. appellate court or SCOTUS as law.

I have litigated civil rights cases representing both plaintiffs and defendants. I have no issue with the content you provided. I didn't check the cites, but they look accurate on first reading. Besides the pleasant digression about Julie Newmar, my only point in this thread is that extended conversations with law enforcement officers- in the midst of an encounter where he is questioning the legality of carrying a firearm- is not, in my opinion, the best plan. There are other contexts that did not start out as an adversarial encounter where an extended conversation may be both appropriate and helpful.

 

[jamil]

Okay, now that that's settled, can we get back to talking about catwoman?

 

[Rookie]

extended conversations with law enforcement officers (for any reason) is never a good idea.

That's better.

 

[Rookie]

Okay, now that that's settled, can we get back to talking about catwoman?

 

[indiucky]

Okay, now that that's settled, can we get back to talking about catwoman?

No...Kirk already gave me a warning about being weird and turning a serious legal question into a debate about Catwoman is just wrong....With that being said I truly think Eartha Kitt was the best Catwoman...I really thought she was going to kill Batman on more than one occasion...The gal just drips danger and sensuality...

IMHO ofcourse...

 

[indiucky]

Don't get all weird, we have new guests here. Behave.

"When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.."

Hunter S. Thompson

 

[ATM]

I'll just quote one of your responses because the others hinge on the same assumptions of national case law application which I am contesting.

IC 35-47-2-24 Refers to information or indictment ( aka detainment or arrest ) then and only then are you required to hand over your licence to carry and prove your exemption. But for a LEO to detain a person in any state in the U.S. they must meet the burden of Terry v. Ohio which is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or will commit a crime. And he can not use the fact that a person is carring a handgun as probable cause as outlined in the cited case law because carring a handgun or firearm illegally is not the default or norm.

You are making the mistake of attempting to apply case law from states where the simple carry (or at least open carry, in most states) of a handgun is not a crime as it is here in Indiana.

In a state where carrying a handgun is not codified as a crime, an officer may not presume that the carrier is a felon as the default status (which would make possession a crime).

In a state with a law like Indiana has, an officer need not assume felony status of the carrier to arrive at criminal activity, only that they are carrying a handgun which is itself a crime.

They may detain to check for exception to the crime and arrest if exception is not proven by the carrier. Again, they can't get away with this in a state where simply carrying is not itself an arrestable crime.

If SCOTUS decides to rule on carry licenses in the future similarly to what they already have with drivers licenses, their ruling will become applicable here. Until then, Indiana carriers maintain the burden of proving they are excepted from the Indiana crime of handgun carry and officers need allege nothing further than reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a handgun to detain/arrest.

 

[foszoe]

And now I have a new way of thinking about it.

I'll just quote one of your responses because the others hinge on the same assumptions of national case law application which I am contesting.



You are making the mistake of attempting to apply case law from states where the simple carry (or at least open carry, in most states) of a handgun is not a crime as it is here in Indiana.

In a state where carrying a handgun is not codified as a crime, an officer may not presume that the carrier is a felon as the default status (which would make possession a crime).

In a state with a law like Indiana has, an officer need not assume felony status of the carrier to arrive at criminal activity, only that they are carrying a handgun which is itself a crime.

They may detain to check for exception to the crime and arrest if exception is not proven by the carrier. Again, they can't get away with this in a state where simply carrying is not itself an arrestable crime.

If SCOTUS decides to rule on carry licenses in the future similarly to what they already have with drivers licenses, their ruling will become applicable here. Until then, Indiana carriers maintain the burden of proving they are excepted from the Indiana crime of handgun carry and officers need allege nothing further than reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a handgun to detain/arrest.

 

[patience0830]

Awwwwwww

abolished and repaced with what? Please elaborate....

Ignore him. Inside joke.

 

[HoughMade]

Ignore him. Inside joke.

An inside joke limited to the 38,000+ INGO members who joined more than a week ago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As stated in my response to ATM yes carring a handgun in Indiana is illegal with out a licence, just like driving a car is also illegal in Indiana with out a licence. But courts have already ruled that if an LEO sees an individual with a holstered firearm he has to assume he is carring legally absent any other reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or will commit a crime. Because being a felon ( aka not carring legally ) is not the default.

I believe you are confusing a decision from the federal 4th Circuit with an Indiana court. Black was applying North Carolina law. North Carolina does not make it a crime to open carry a handgun. Indiana does make it a crime to open or conceal carry a handgun.

Indiana does not care if you are a felon or not as it a crime for the felon or the non-felon to carry a handgun.

Now I will say if a LEO is calm & courteous and not being a total prick then yes I would try to be pleasant & helpful. But if he was being a prick then I would follow the law to the T, then file a civil rights lawsuit and take their house, vehicles, job & savings and put them on the street, without hesitation.

Mount Qualified Immunity is a rugged beast and valuation of deprivation of a civil right is a squishy concept to say the least.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No...Kirk already gave me a warning about being weird and turning a serious legal question into a debate about Catwoman is just wrong....With that being said I truly think Eartha Kitt was the best Catwoman...I really thought she was going to kill Batman on more than one occasion...The gal just drips danger and sensuality...

You really need yoga.

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

I was pulled over for speeding by a state trooper.
I handed him my drivers license and my carry permit.
he asked me where it was.
I told him.
he said do not make any movements towards it.
i said NO.
he thanked me .
he gave me a warning ticket.
We both said have a great day.

 

[BADWOLF]

I believe you are confusing a decision from the federal 4th Circuit with an Indiana court. Black was applying North Carolina law. North Carolina does not make it a crime to open carry a handgun. Indiana does make it a crime to open or conceal carry a handgun.

Yes in Indiana it is a crime to carry with out a licence. But because it is illegal to carry with out a license, a police officer must assume that if an individual is carrying that he has a licence to do so Absent any other probable cause to initiate a Terry stop. In Indiana it is a crime to drive a vehicle on public roads with out a licence. But an officer must assume that if he sees someone driving by him down the street that he has a licence to do so Absent any other probable cause for a Terry stop, such as speeding, not observing a stop sign, taking a swig out of a bottle of Jack, crossing over the center line. Because if this was the case every patrol car you would drive by would have sombody pulled over checking to see if they had a license to drive. Because ever single person behind the wheel of a vehicle would be suspect of driving without a license. And what a burden on police departments that would be. Only once a police officer has witnessed a crime or had a crime reported does Terry v. Ohio give him legal power to detain someone to gather information and decide whether to ticket or arrest the individual.

Indiana does not care if you are a felon or not as it a crime for the felon or the non-felon to carry a handgun.

In Indiana all my assertions are based on consensual contact and I think a lot of the confusion is people do not understand the difference between ( consensual contact / detainment / arrest ) each one is different. I also think that the majority of people think that if an officer approaches you that you are being detained when that is far from the truth.

Mount Qualified Immunity is a rugged beast and valuation of deprivation of a civil right is a squishy concept to say the least.