Carrying a Pistol on Private Land With Owner's Permission - New Bill?

[Wabatuckian]

Hello,

If a person wants to give another person permission to carry a pistol on his land, with or without a permit, I believe it should be allowed by law.

For example, if I want to allow a friend, who is not currently licensed, to carry one of my pistols in my house or on my land, or in the woods on my land, then I believe I should have that authority - after all, it is my land.

From what I can tell, current legislation does not support an individual choice to allow this.

If ya'll agree, would you like to sponsor a bill, as a board project?

Josh

 

[45calibre]

you can already do that actually

 

[45calibre]

i tried looking for the code but i didnt find it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I've found no such code, and don't remember anything like that going back to 1998.

There's nothing supporting it.

Josh

 

[45calibre]

i remember reading it, unless im trippin.

 

[MrsGungho]

I remember seeing it somewhere too, just not sure where.

 

[cowboy23]

would support that as a bill makes sense to me i mean if u own land u can have a person come and hunt it without a hunting lisc. so y not let them carry

 

[T-rav]

If the law is silent on it it is legal.

 

[Wabatuckian]

If the law is silent on it it is legal.

The law is not silent, however.

One must have a license to carry with the following exceptions:

IC 35-47-2-2
Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by him in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business;
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in his possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business; or
(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

The only thing that comes remotely close to allowing this would be "or in moving from one dwelling or business to another." However, I cannot see how this would be covered as it would be interpreted as moving - as in, rent a U-Haul and move.

It must be in a secured container, anyway.

I would like to see a law clearly stating that a person may carry on private land other than his own (as clarified in Sec 2-11).

There is no provision for carry on private land other than ones' own, with or without permission, and in fact, Sec 2-11 forbids the practice. This is how I read it.

Even if it is somehow legal (it is NOT), I would like to see a bill passed affirming the right to carry in this instance, in the spirit of our castle doctrine (the law was silent on retreat prior to this) and protecting those of us who choose to leave a firearm in a vehicle at work (again, the law was silent).

We need more pro-gun laws, and not settle for the silence of the law. Nature abhors a void, and that's just a place for anti-gunners to put one of their laws.

Josh

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Lawful or not, If I dont want weapons of any kind on my property, then my desire will be respected, or else.

Same goes for when I walk another Man's landed. I am obligated to follow HIS laws of HIS land.

I know if I had problems, my pigs would not ever go hungry. har har har lol

 

[Bill of Rights]

I suppose you could, at certain times of the year, claim the person was hunting , but IIRC, to hunt with a handgun, you still must hold a LTCH or be a member of one of the excepted groups.

IANAL, but I feel comfortable saying that barring those statutory exemptions, a person currently carrying a handgun on land he does not own or on which he is gainfully employed (specifically, his fixed place of business) would be in violation of the IC, as it stands at this time.

We could find a legislator to sponsor such a bill and introduce it to the legislature for consideration, sure. If someone wants to move forward with this, you could begin drafting the legislation now, and possibly considering who would be good choices to sponsor it, but I would suggest waiting to contact the legislator until after the election in November: If Pat Bauer is still Speaker, you can expect any pro-gun legislation to meet the same fate it met prior to last session: Assignment to a committee that never meets, so it never comes to the floor for a vote.

The only reason the two bills we wanted passed last term was to provide some pro-gun political cover for the dems who would have kept F ratings, and apparently, neither bill will really have much effect on anything:

IN is an employment at will state, so no, you can't be fired for violating an anti-gun policy, but you can still be fired because your hair has faded from when you were hired, or because the boss just da*n well feels like it.

Further, one of our INGO attorneys has opined that the media can still publish our LTCH info as long as they obtained it prior to the passage of the law. I don't agree with that estimation, but I'm not schooled in the law, and his reasoning did make sense. I can only hope that a court would see things differently, or that the media outlets just don't want to risk it and try to fight that fight.

As for the antis fighting that fight, I think that such a bill would be needlessly repetitive. It would be like having a law that says you are not permitted to commit battery against someone and then passing a law to say that you are not permitted to kill someone by committing battery: Both acts are already unlawful.

Just my .

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Eprobertson1]

I personally would rather see the law state that you need not have a permit to carry anywhere. After all the only persons that are worried about having a permit are the law abiding citizens and having a permit to carry is like being told that you may now leave the class to go to the bathroom.
Sorry, Just my morning rant.

 

[Hornett]

^ ^ Agree with this.

However, I am much more incensed about the whole "no guns at a school" thing.
The law does allow you to drop someone off, but if you have to go in to the office, say to drop off a backpack that was forgotten, you have no recourse than to park off the school grounds and walk or commit a crime.
It's a trap for any gun owner that has kids.
Not to diminish the OP or thread jack but,
I haven't read any reports of people being arrested for allowing others to shoot on their land, but I have read of poor saps trapped and arrested by the school property laws.

 

[ryknoll3]

I would like to see the law changed to allow carry without a permit, but assuming that doesn't happen....

I think it SHOULD be changed to allow you to take your handgun off of your property without a license. It's really ridiculous that someone can buy a handgun to protect their house and family, but God-forbid you would ever want to practice to become proficient (or at least not a danger to yourself) you have to go through the permitting process.

 

[lashicoN]

Hello,

If a person wants to give another person permission to carry a pistol on his land, with or without a permit, I believe it should be allowed by law.

For example, if I want to allow a friend, who is not currently licensed, to carry one of my pistols in my house or on my land, or in the woods on my land, then I believe I should have that authority - after all, it is my land.

From what I can tell, current legislation does not support an individual choice to allow this.

If ya'll agree, would you like to sponsor a bill, as a board project?

Josh

You don't own your property though, that's the thing. If you owned it, it couldn't get seized by the state when you decide to stop paying taxes on it. When the state charges you to live on land, they own that land. When the state tells you what you cannot grow on the land, they own that land. When the county must grant you permission to build a garage, you definitely don't own your own property. They just try to make you think you own it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

One step at a time, folks.

I like the way some of you think, but we didn't get our rights infringed upon in big steps. They were slowly eroded since the Civil War or so.

It'll take at least that long to get them back.

Let's think token victories right now, because it will put the antis on the defensive. If they're busy fighting new bills introduced by us, they're not going to be introducing their own, for the most part.

Get our power back first, then we will be in a better position to dictate to the government what they will and will not do.

In other words, we need to make them think that we're distracted by the small issues. The trick is to build the small issues up so that we are a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Josh

 

[jeremy]

Why not just follow Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska and do away with the whole BS License/permit process...
That would be something I would be willing to support.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Jeremy,

That would not yet work because it's a source of revenue for the state.

I've noticed that if a bill won't cost the state income, then they're more likely to pass it.

At $100 a pop, and 300000 of us licensed, would you care to guess how much money the state has made?

No, that's too big yet...

Josh

 

[Squirt239]

I would much rather support a bill that states something to the effect of, "if you are legally allowed to purchase a firearm you are legally allowed to carry said firearm." I don't remember reading anywhere in the 2nd Amendment where it says, "The right to keep and bear arms, except handguns...then you'll need to ask permission from the state."

 

[SSGSAD]

Hello,

If a person wants to give another person permission to carry a pistol on his land, with or without a permit, I believe it should be allowed by law.

For example, if I want to allow a friend, who is not currently licensed, to carry one of my pistols in my house or on my land, or in the woods on my land, then I believe I should have that authority - after all, it is my land.

From what I can tell, current legislation does not support an individual choice to allow this.

If ya'll agree, would you like to sponsor a bill, as a board project?

Josh

I have read the posts, and you still have to transport the said firearm, to the property, so you still would need, a LTCH, unless, next door to each other...