Wonder how a LEO would respond to someone who is licensed but doesn't have it on his person.
They said that they have legal right to stop anyone open-carrying a handgun. This is false.
When they make mistakes, they need to be held accountable for them.
First one in
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.
With that being said LEO have every right to stop you and ask to see your LTCH in the state of Indiana.
Thanks for another black eye for us that OC
They make you sit in a Subway booth while they call in your DL info and see if you're licensed, all the while lecturing you on how stupid OC is and berating you.
How do I know? Oh, no reason.
Then that absolutely sucks, doesn't change the fact you need to present evidence of lawful carry when challanged.
First one in
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.
With that being said LEO have every right to stop you and ask to see your LTCH in the state of Indiana.
Thanks for another black eye for us that OC
How does that work knowing we don't have to be in physical possession of the LTCH?
I'll just leave this here.They make you sit in a Subway booth while they call in your DL info and see if you're licensed, all the while lecturing you on how stupid OC is and berating you.
How do I know? Oh, no reason.
Legally speaking, while it's fine and dandy for a LEO to have an opinion or preference for private OC vs CC, professionally, he has no authority to share that opinion as legal advice, whatever that opinion may be, as that would constitute:IC 35-47-11.1-2
Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political subdivision may not regulate:
[…]
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and
[…]
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.
IC 35-47-11.1-3
Voidance of political subdivision ordinances, measures, enactments, rules, policies, and exercises of proprietary authority
Sec. 3. Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity:
[…]
(2) that pertains to or affects the matters listed in section 2 of this chapter;
is void.
Reciting the LTCH Lic. No. from the upper left hand corner is just as verifiable or disputable as presenting the physical artifact.How does that work knowing we don't have to be in physical possession of the LTCH?
The relevant langauge from IC 35-47-2-1(b)(2)(A) is "has the consent of the owner". It does not require a written document, or indeed, a physical artifact of consent in any fashion. The owner merely calling out to the police saying, "I gave him consent to carry in here." should have utterly short-circuited their JBTery.If the owner of the business gives you [STRIKE]written[/STRIKE] permission to be on their property then you wouldn't have even needed a Indiana handgun kings permission slip to carry a gun and could have just stated that as they took you out of the business.
Completely misses my point. What constitutes evidence if we don't have to carry the physical license? Why not just arrest people for carrying and then let them provide their evidence in court regardless?They way I read it is that you can present your LTCH and 'undo' the charges after the fact. Up until that point, you would be charged with the crime and subject to any/all that another who committed the same crime would be.
I see nowhere in the IC where the officer is responsible to look it up or call it in for you. If they do that, thank them. They don't have to. It is still your responsibility.
I would rather not create that much extra work for myself and again it comes down to what's the point? Lets work toward changing the laws that allow this to happen instead of creating more work for those stuck with enforcing the cobbled mess that our legislators have created.
I have my LTCH on me while armed.
Yes, I know. So would providing name, birth date, and SSN, I presume. I'm just wondering how people want to explain the boondoggle that was created by not requiring the physical possession of the LTCH knowing the criminal absolute of carrying a firearm sans exception, and the legal authority of LE to confirm said exception.Reciting the LTCH Lic. No. from the upper left hand corner is just as verifiable or disputable as presenting the physical artifact.
Did the cops accomplish anything through this stop, other than making at least two young men more anti LEO? Did they make the street safer? Did the protect and serve, or did they harass and embarass?
That being said, thanks to all the good LEO's out there that do indeed make the streets safer every day.