Beware!

[Scutter01]

I have a question. Is it okay for police to pull people over simply to check if they have a license? I don't think so, but I'm not sure about that. If so, then can anyone explain why sweeps of gun ranges looking for violators is okay? Is it strictly about the politics?

In Indiana, it's illegal to posses a firearm (off your property) without a license. Having a license is a defense against that. Therefore, if an officer sees you with a firearm, you're committing a crime until you show that you're not. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are exempt from the prohibition.

Case law may disagree. Certainly, there's plenty of discussion about whether an officer really does have the right to demand your license just for having a firearm in your possession.

 

[Arm America]

In Indiana, it's illegal to posses a firearm (off your property) without a license. Having a license is a defense against that. Therefore, if an officer sees you with a firearm, you're committing a crime until you show that you're not. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are exempt from the prohibition.

Case law may disagree. Certainly, there's plenty of discussion about whether an officer really does have the right to demand your license just for having a firearm in your possession.

Guilt before proof of compliance or innocence?
Not in America??

 

[pudly]

In Indiana, it's illegal to posses a firearm (off your property) without a license. Having a license is a defense against that. Therefore, if an officer sees you with a firearm, you're committing a crime until you show that you're not. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are exempt from the prohibition.

My point was not about whether there was a violation. It is also illegal to drive without a license. My question is about the ethics and politics of selective license enforcement. How about if the cops hung out at the entrance to every store and asked to see the drivers license that allowed you to get there?

 

[Joe Williams]

I've seen this for some other states but don't recall seeing case law applicable to Indiana yet.

More than one federal judge has ruled in that manner. Some have ruled the other way. Won't be settled until one of the cases makes it to the USSC.

 

[ihateiraq]

More than one federal judge has ruled in that manner. Some have ruled the other way. Won't be settled until one of the cases makes it to the USSC.

if i remember correctly, armymp volunteered himself to be that test case. we should be hearing about him any day now....

 

[singlestacksig]

More than one federal judge has ruled in that manner. Some have ruled the other way. Won't be settled until one of the cases makes it to the USSC.

does not need case law..
the Indian code states;

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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

 

[jbombelli]

In Indiana you have to produce a LTCH if asked for it by a LEO. If you do not you can and will be arrested. If you do have one your record will be purged when it is showed to the officer or courts.

Its in the IC

Thanks. But that's NOT what I asked, is it?

I already know that. I was referring to something I *thought* I read here on INGO stating they can't just walk up and demand it without reason, and simply HAVING a handgun wasn't sufficient reason. It was akin to pulling over anybody they want who's driving a car to check and see if they have a valid driver's license, when no other violation was observed to justify the stop in the first place.

But again, that's why I *asked* instead of stating it as fact. Maybe it hasn't BEEN decided yet, and I just recall reading debates on the matter.

Now... if you're a lawyer who would know and want to answer the question I actually asked, feel free.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yes, but the question isn't about the legal necesity for an LTCH. It's about the legality of an officer stopping a person carrying a handgun, absent evidence of any other crime being committed, merely to check for the license. Does the fact that we are carrying a handgun give the officer reasonable articulable suspicion to detain you and conduct a Terry Stop, which is what stopping you to check LTCH is? IOW, does the mere presence of a handgun give the officer the right to stop you and check your papers, or must the officer have a reasonable suspicion that you do not have the LTCH. Federal courts have ruled both ways in different jurisdictions, so until one of those cases winds it's way up, the only solution is to continue suing officers engaged in such conduct to force a ruling.

does not need case law..
the Indian code states;

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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

 

[ryknoll3]

In Indiana, it's illegal to posses a [STRIKE]firearm[/STRIKE] handgun (off your property) without a license. Having a license is a defense against that. Therefore, if an officer sees you with a [STRIKE]firearm[/STRIKE] handgun, you're committing a crime until you show that you're not. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are exempt from the prohibition.

Case law may disagree. Certainly, there's plenty of discussion about whether an officer really does have the right to demand your license just for having a [STRIKE]firearm[/STRIKE] handgun in your possession.

Fixed it for you.

 

[ihateiraq]

Fixed it for you.

housed.

 

[furbymac]

to fix this when said cop pulls up to the range everyone set all their pistols down and step away from them and he has no reason to ask for ltch then you don't have to show one

 

[Roadie]

OK, so I am confused. This would mean that anyone that takes say, their son, to the range, even if dad has an LTCH, son cannot shoot?

Or does the Officer only confiscate if nobody in the group has an LTCH?

 

[kludge]

The issue at hand is that 90% of the people in Indiana think they can lock the handgun in the trunk and go to the range, just like in 90% of the rest of the states in the Union.

Heck, half of all cops think that is the law (rough estimate, non-scientific anecdotal evidence).

So the question was posed... does having a handgun at the range constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime is being committed?

Does open carry?

Does driving an automobile give probable cause that the person is driving without a license? Or insurance?

Or do you have to break some other law first before the cop can pull you over?

 

[kludge]

OK, so I am confused. This would mean that anyone that takes say, their son, to the range, even if dad has an LTCH, son cannot shoot?

Or does the Officer only confiscate if nobody in the group has an LTCH?

Children at the range are specifically exempted.

Adults should be so lucky.

Technically there is nothing in the law protecting any adult at a range who is shooting without LTCH. Even your buddy or wife and you, who has a LTCH are standing right next to him/her.

The law says "on or about your person".

I wrote my reps about this and a couple years ago got a bill written by Sen. Drozda to cover people taking firearms safety or hunter safety classes, written similarly to the exemption for children, going to and from and while at the class, but it went nowhere.

Technically if your buddy is over at your house and you show him your gun, and you hand it to him, it is "on or about his person" and he is not on his property.

Makes you start thinking about unintended consequences.

And that the people writing laws should think more about what they are doing to the average law abiding person when they do so.

 

[88GT]

Children at the range are specifically exempted.

Adults should be so lucky.

Technically there is nothing in the law protecting any adult at a range who is shooting without LTCH. Even your buddy or wife and you, who has a LTCH are standing right next to him/her.

The law says "on or about your person".

I wrote my reps about this and a couple years ago got a bill written by Sen. Drozda to cover people taking firearms safety or hunter safety classes, written similarly to the exemption for children, going to and from and while at the class, but it went nowhere.

Technically if your buddy is over at your house and you show him your gun, and you hand it to him, it is "on or about his person" and he is not on his property.

Makes you start thinking about unintended consequences.

And that the people writing laws should think more about what they are doing to the average law abiding person when they do so.

When illustrated in this light, IN residents are only slightly better off than IL then.

 

[Zephri]

Honestly this is one of those laws that nobody knows about when getting into this hobby until some one tells them or until something like this happens.

Yes I went to the range and shot my pistol without a ltch, and no I never knew this law even existed until I saw it on these forums.

This is really one of those sneaky pointless laws relating to a hobby that needs to go.

 

[ATM]

This is really one of those sneaky pointless laws relating to a hobby that needs to go.

I think you are giving way too much credit. I believe they were absolutely oblivious rather than sneaky (which requires thought.)

I do agree that most of the gun law needs to go. Not just be rewritten or added to, but repealed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is it that the wise person says on INGO?

It's something like . . . GET THE LICENSE!

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

Sounds to me like the CO's are profiling. Papers please.

 

[ATM]

the wise person

Wise guy maybe.