What we know about the state of the permitless carry law going into effect July 1

[chipbennett]

I didn't take away from the article there are really any changes.

"Police will still be able to intervene if they have probable cause a crime has occurred. They can also take a gun away in some situations."

It is the status quo. It seems like INGO is reading that simply carrying will now be PC starting 1 July for ISP?

Carter is an embarrassment and a "hotline" is absurd. I think it is just a poorly written article with misinformation. Example, I haven't seen anything in the law that prevents police from simply asking if someone has a permit. It may be moot, but to say they are prohibited would be incorrect.

Not post-Pinner.

 

[Destro]

Not post-Pinner.

I don't understand your comment, or how Pinner is relevant to a discussion about permit-less carry?

 

[KG1]

you can extend the stop for purposes related to the stop.

for example, if an officer wants a K9, they can't extend the stop to wait for the K9.

BUT, if the officer hand types their warnings/tickets into the computer as regular practice, it takes substantially longer to do than simply scanning the barcode on the license and the registration. You can't write all your tickets fast except the ones you call a K9 for.

Checking for warrants yourself, also a covered activity as related to the stop, is going to show criminal history at the same time, it is not a separate and distinct action. If, during you warrant check you develop reasonable suspicion they may be carrying unlawfully, like a prior felony, you can extend it. The officer just needs to make it a regular practice so they can testify that it is that officers standard practice to check for warrants, and how they do it during the stop.

Extending the traffic stop for the sole purpose of determining if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm is above and beyond what is related to the stop sans other criminal activity that might involve the firearm. A simple traffic violation stop is not grounds to extend it for that purpose and all inquiries about the possession of a firearm is off limits.

 

[Destro]

Extending the traffic stop for the sole purpose of determining if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm is above and beyond what is related to the stop sans other criminal activity that might involve the firearm. A simple traffic violation stop is not grounds to extend it for that purpose and all inquiries about the possession of a firearm is off limits.

well that is not what I said so...

 

[KG1]

well that is not what I said so...

Well I guess you weren’t talking about anything related to the specific topic then of extending a traffic stop to solely determine if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Might as well have been talking about pineapple on pizza.

 

[Destro]

Well I guess you weren’t talking about anything related to the specific topic then of extending a traffic stop to solely determine if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Might as well have been talking about pineapple on pizza.

You took the time to highlight what I said, so I guess I thought it was clear.



Officers are permitted to check warrants and a drivers criminal history as long as it doesn't unreasonably delay the stop. That case law doesn't change because the driver has a gun.

 

[KLB]

I don't understand your comment, or how Pinner is relevant to a discussion about permit-less carry?

Pinner is relevant to needing to have PC of some crime other than simply carrying a gun to stop someone. It was already true before July 1st.

 

[BigRed]

Could not take Fox 59s drivel tonight. I ended up blasting the following to their e-mail address for news. fox59news@fox59.com

"Your reporting on the upcoming implementation of Permitless carry of handguns in Indiana is disingenuous at best, and inflammatory fear mongering at worst.​

​

Please stop parroting the irrational and baseless fearmongering of those who will not actually prosecute and incarcerate the criminals in Indianapolis (Hogsett, Mears), but do want to use the Permitless carry of handguns legislation as a fear mongering tactic to manipulate the ignorant.​

​

Please do interviews with Sheriff Nielsen of Boone County, or Sheriff Quackenbush of Hamilton County, or Attorney Guy Relford of Carmel regarding the law's changes and implementation. Do the community you broadcast too a useful service and ensure that our citizenry understand the law, what changes, and what doesn't as of July 1.​

​

Starting July 1st a misdemeanor titled "unlawful carry of a handgun" goes into affect. The same level charge as "carrying a handgun without a license" was, and will be applicable when law enforcement encounters a person, committing a crime, which is why law enforcement is there.​

​

It would also be useful if Fox59 would make Indiana law enforcement, and our citizens, aware of the ramifications of Pinner Vs. State of Indiana. Communicating the outcome of Pinner Vs. State of Indiana might well prevent a Police officer and his employer losing a law suit, for unlawfully targeting a citizen solely for having a handgun on their person. It would also educate a wider citizen cross section of relevant Indiana precedent which will be very useful starting July 1st.​

​

Fox 59 can and must do better than you are currently doing in reporting on firearms matters. Guns are simply inanimate objects. Start focusing on the criminals and their crimes. Your reporters all to often speak of "illegal guns". Rarely are the firearms displayed illegal. In fact very few arms are illegal in the United States. They may be unconstitutionally taxed via the NFA, but the objects are not in and of themselves "illegal".​

​

In almost all cases where Fox 59 reports the recovery or seizure of "illegal guns", what you should be reporting, is a criminal who was an unlawful possessor of firearms due to prior convictions had a firearm seized from his person and he was thus charged with illegal possession. Get the reporting correct, it is the human being who did something unlawful, not the inanimate object."​

I did plagiarize @KellyinAvon a little...

They are advertising a repeat of the BS tomorrow a.m.

 

[BigRed]

Never really made my mind up to how I feel about this.

Same here.
























Just kidding!

 

[Destro]

Pinner is relevant to needing to have PC of some crime other than simply carrying a gun to stop someone. It was already true before July 1st.

I guess I am confused though why it is being brought up.

In Pinner:
the criminal activity advanced by the State in this case is that “Defendant was carrying a handgun for which he had no license ․ or that some other criminal activity was afoot.”

Tomorrow, the act is prima facie legal so I am really trying to understand the concern that LE needs reminded about Pinner, a case in some ways moot tomorrow given the specific circumstances at play in that case.

If Indiana eliminated the need to have a drivers license, is INGO going to pound their chest about reminding LE about Delaware v. Prouse?

 

[KLB]

I guess I am confused though why it is being brought up.

In Pinner:
the criminal activity advanced by the State in this case is that “Defendant was carrying a handgun for which he had no license ․ or that some other criminal activity was afoot.”

Tomorrow, the act is prima facie legal so I am really trying to understand the concern that LE needs reminded about Pinner, a case in some ways moot tomorrow given the specific circumstances at play in that case.

If Indiana eliminated the need to have a drivers license, is INGO going to pound their chest about reminding LE about Delaware v. Prouse?

The point is the mere carrying of a handgun is not PC to conduct a stop. LE cannot stop someone carrying a gun to see if they are legally allowed to do so.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't understand your comment, or how Pinner is relevant to a discussion about permit-less carry?

You claimed that there is an INGO claim/belief that mere carry would constitute probable cause as of 01 July. Under Pinner, that is not now, and will remain as of 01 July, not the case. mere carry of a handgun, absent some evidence of unlawful activity, does not constitute probable cause for a "proper person"/"license to carry" check.

 

[Hawkeye]

Cueing the old saw: "The Lifetime CCP is going away on July 1, 2022."

 

[COOPADUP]

Cueing the old saw: "The Lifetime CCP is going away on July 1, 2022."

The lifetime is a license to carry handgun. So "CP" not CCP.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Raise Old Glory and the Gadsden Flag!! Let the celebration begin!!

 

[bwframe]

Permitless Carry Takes Effect Friday In Indiana

STATEWIDE — Tomorrow, July 1st, permitless carry goes into law. The law was passed by the state legislature earlier this year and will allow all Hoosiers to carry a handgun without a license It’s a law that has many law enforcement agencies and police organizations a little worried. “I think...

www.wibc.com

It'd be nice to know why the radio station that host's our own Gun Guy would use a picture like this in their "news" article???

 

[KellyinAvon]

Permitless Carry Takes Effect Friday In Indiana

STATEWIDE — Tomorrow, July 1st, permitless carry goes into law. The law was passed by the state legislature earlier this year and will allow all Hoosiers to carry a handgun without a license It’s a law that has many law enforcement agencies and police organizations a little worried. “I think...

www.wibc.com

It'd be nice to know why the radio station that host's our own Gun Guy would use a picture like this in their "news" article???

View attachment 208945

Excellent question. No holster, condition 3 at least or you'd shoot your arse off.

 

[Jeepster48439]

6-1/2 hours to mayhem.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

6-1/2 hours to mayhem.

 

[KellyinAvon]

6-1/2 hours to mayhem.

PANIC!!!! That is all.