Handgun carry laws

[mozart3100]

Laws, as applied to handgun carry, are ambiguous at best and downright ridiculous at worst. Here is my problem: Indiana Law states that it is unlawful for me, having no Indiana License to Carry, to transport, in a car, a handgun to a shooting range. Does Federal Law as cited in 18 U.S.C.26A, 27 CFR 178.38, and in this forum by W9ZEB, abrogate the Indiana statute? In other words, can I lawfully transport my handgun in my car to a gun range; or how can I learn to shoot if I can't remove the gun from my home?

 

[Scutter01]

I believe the federal law you're referring to is the Peaceable Journey law, and only applies when passing through (and not stopping in) a given state.

That said, Indiana statute does allow for unlicensed transport with certain conditions. Otherwise, there'd be no way to bring a gun home from the place of purchase, for example.

IANAL, YMMV.

 

[NateIU10]

The Federal law, like scutter said, is referring to traveling through other states. Having no carry permit only allows you to transport VERY limited, which is why they have the Hunting/Target Practice permit. Many here have said that police will not enforce the law, but it is illegal.

 

[BloodEclipse]

The way I read the law is that you can transport a handgun from a dealer after purchase to your home or place of business. After that you can transport it back to a dealer or gunsmith for repair. Other than that you need a License.

 

[SavageEagle]

You CAN take it to a gun range to practice if you take it with someone who has a LTCH. Otherwise I would never have stepped foot on Atterbury's Range with my Sigma.

 

[SavageEagle]

Oh, they have to be the one's transporting and handling it until you get on the range I believe though.

 

[Scutter01]

The way I read the law is that you can transport a handgun from a dealer after purchase to your home or place of business. After that you can transport it back to a dealer or gunsmith for repair. Other than that you need a License.

The statute has three clauses, and they're all predicated on the handgun being contained in a secure wrapper:

IC 35-47-2-2
Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
Any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper:
1) from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or
2) to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or
3) in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

(some formatting added by me)

Others have argued that it means only to a gunsmith, but they always seem to ignore the third clause. The law allows you to carry unlicensed in both your home and your workplace, so you have to be able to transport unlicensed as well. An arresting officer would have no way of determining whether you were on your way to work or to a range. The language is clear to me. Provided it's transported in a secure wrapper (vis.: disassembled and stored in a locked hard-shelled case), then you can transport it to/from the range, etc. Again, IANAL, but I have yet to see anyone present case law to me where someone has been convicted of unlicensed carry when following those rules.

That said, just get a license. It's only a month's wait and it makes the whole argument moot. If you can afford the handgun in the first place, you can certainly afford the license fee and waiting another 30 days isn't the end of the world.

 

[melensdad]

Well I've been in this argument before and I believe (without the benefit of a legal degree so it is nothing more than my opinion) that the law MAY be interpreted as allowing transport from your home to a PRIVATE gun range located in a business. I'm not sure that it WILL be interpreted that way and I would not want to stand up in court to defend my position.

I see no way to legally transport a gun to a public land range without a license.

This falls into the problem of INTENT of the lawmakers versus WORDING of the law. I'd be willing to bet that if the State Police wanted to spend a few days at some of the public shooting ranges checking for licenses of people who come to practice they would find that they could generate some revenue by issuing "tickets" for non-compliance of the law because of the way the law is worded.

I got my first carry license many years ago simply because I could not figure out the law and getting the carry license resolved the issue completely. I recommend it to everyone I know who has a gun. Even the people who never take the gun off their own property.

With regard to the PEACEABLE JOURNEY LAW, it should be noted that you must cross state lines for that to apply, AND I'm pretty sure the gun must be legal in the STARTING POINT of the journey and at the DESTINATION POINT of the journey. It is designed for transport and travel not for for carry purposes.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why not just get the license?

 

[Bigum1969]

I'd agree. Get the LTCH.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In other words, can I lawfully transport my handgun in my car to a gun range;

Yes, if you go get the license.

. . . or how can I learn to shoot if I can't remove the gun from my home?

Get the license.

Laws, as applied to handgun carry, are ambiguous at best and downright ridiculous at worst.

No, the laws are very clear--get a license.

Indiana Law states that it is unlawful for me, having no Indiana License to Carry, to transport, in a car, a handgun to a shooting range.

Correct, so, get a license.

Does Federal Law as cited in 18 U.S.C.26A, 27 CFR 178.38, and in this forum by W9ZEB, abrogate the Indiana statute?

Yes, if that person is from outside Indiana driving through Indiana and his transport of the firearm (pistol) complies with the FOPA. If you live in Munice and want to go to the range you should . . . get a license.

Enough of this beating around the bush--get a license.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ok, so my dad and I went to atterbury to shoot. Apparently I didn't need a license because I was with my father who has his license. So is this really legal or did we make a big no no? I'm sure he called around and asked about this before we went, but he didn't say and I didn't ask. I don't see in the laws where it would state any of this so I'm asking you. Is this lawful? And yes, I'm in the process of getting my license so none of that just get a license stuff! LOL

 

[melensdad]

Nothing prevents your father from transporting more than one gun to the range.

 

[SavageEagle]

ok, i guess what I'm trying to ask is it ok that I was shooting on the range without a license since my dad has one and was with me?

 

[melensdad]

Yes. Anyone, under the supervision of a lawful owner, can shoot a gun for training. My daughter is 13, she has "her" guns. Legally she cannot 'own' them, nor can she have access to them without supervision. But in the presence of an adult she can shoot them. I can take non-gun owners to a range, same thing applies. I transport the guns, the guns are under my supervision, someone else can learn how to use them, train with them, etc.

 

[SavageEagle]

That's awesome. Now If I could just get my appeal done so I can get my Baby Eagle... And it was fun shooting my dads SKS. I'm looking forward to owning one myself. I already told my fiance she could buy me an AR for my combined B-day and X-mas present! LOL

I'm just glad that's legal cause I was worried I would get my dad in trouble, but I figured it was alright. THanks for the clarification!