Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)

[Bill of Rights]

...odious...

Sorry, but I have to laugh whenever I see this word.

It reminds me of this guy:

 

[AmmoManAaron]

That was my point - it isn't in IC, but it is a word. A word people sometimes use to describe MWAGs in the real world.

Post-Pinner, a new angle may open: let's legislative support the ISC opinion. That would be an avenue that wouldn't necessarily need horse-trading. Antis could be thrown under the "no respect for the courts" bus.

^^^This seems like a good idea, no horse trading risks and throwing antis under a bus is always fun ^^^

 

[MarkC]

As for the public intoxication law, the General Assembly amended the law in 2012 to require more than merely being intoxicated in a public place or place of public resort.

[FONT=&amp]SECTION 1. IC 7.1-5-1-3, AS AMENDED BY SEA 274-2012, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 3. [/FONT](a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9), if the person:
(1) endangers the person's life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
(b) A person may not initiate or maintain an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer's failure to enforce this section.

(FROM SEA 97, 2012)

Therefore, applying Pinner, I would think there's an argument that merely being intoxicated and in possession of a handgun is not sufficient to allow a Terry stop.

As a matter of enforcement policy, most officers that I worked with wouldn't make an arrest for PI unless the individual was presenting some kind of problem. However,the General Assembly decided to fix that for us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So someone wrote a law that (mostly) only punishes actual harm done or threatened, i.e. AOJ? UNPOSSIBLE!!

Thanks, Mark, for giving the cite and translating it from lawyerspeak to English.

This is a good trend and one we should be encouraging at the Statehouse during the legislative session: Make the laws address actions that are mala in se, rather than create mala prohibita laws. (and repeal the latter!)

Blessings,
Bill

As for the public intoxication law, the General Assembly amended the law in 2012 to require more than merely being intoxicated in a public place or place of public resort.

[FONT=&amp]SECTION 1. IC 7.1-5-1-3, AS AMENDED BY SEA 274-2012, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 3. [/FONT](a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9), if the person:
(1) endangers the person's life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
(b) A person may not initiate or maintain an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer's failure to enforce this section.

(FROM SEA 97, 2012)

Therefore, applying Pinner, I would think there's an argument that merely being intoxicated and in possession of a handgun is not sufficient to allow a Terry stop.

As a matter of enforcement policy, most officers that I worked with wouldn't make an arrest for PI unless the individual was presenting some kind of problem. However,the General Assembly decided to fix that for us.

 

[HoughMade]

Wouldn't PI or criminal recklessness with a firearm cover these cases, Hough?

As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.

Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.

 

[T.Lex]

As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.

Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.

Pointing a Firearm is a different crime, and as I recall, there's a difference as to whether the gun was loaded or unloaded.

Hey - what about SVFPF. (Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm.) That crime is in a kinda strange place as it relates to RAS.

Officer, "The guy looked like a guy I arrested before who had a felony, so when I saw him with a gun, I handcuffed him."

On its face, it seems reasonable. But....

 

[chipbennett]

As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.

Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.

But, invariably, it will be responsible gun owners who are impacted by the laws in question.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So a combination of crim reck and pointing a firearm cover the misuses that actually need addressed, along with the possible addition of attempted battery, for the guy with a hand on his holstered gun during an argument.

The mere possession of a scary (to SOMEone) item is not cause for legal entanglements. Unless you're looking for billable hours, that is.

Only teasing, guys. I don't at all doubt your ethics.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.

Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.

Hough, you got me curious, so I went and looked.

IC 35-42-2-2 Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (b), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (a) is:

(1) a Level 6 felony if:
​

(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
​

(2) a Level 5 felony if:​

(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
​

​

Per 35-42-2-2(b)(1)(A), it looks like the hypothetical intoxicated rectal orifice who merely starts a fistfight while armed with a handgun could be charged with crim reck, even if he never drew it. I learned something new. Thanks for the incentive to look!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

So a combination of crim reck and pointing a firearm cover the misuses that actually need addressed, along with the possible addition of attempted battery, for the guy with a hand on his holstered gun during an argument.

Oof, I'm not even comfortable with your last one.

That can't be attempted battery unless you think putting a hand on a holstered weapon is a substantial step toward committing battery.

I also don't think crim reck would cover intoxicated weapon possession (although conceptually it would, IMHO).

 

[SteveM4A1]

But, invariably, it will be responsible gun owners who are impacted by the laws in question.

Exactly.

This is another solution in search of a problem.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Oof, I'm not even comfortable with your last one.

That can't be attempted battery unless you think putting a hand on a holstered weapon is a substantial step toward committing battery.

I also don't think crim reck would cover intoxicated weapon possession (although conceptually it would, IMHO).

That's why I said "possible".

I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the quote, but IIRC, one of the Founders (Jefferson, maybe?) said that we need to look at the ways a law could be misused or abused when writing it, rather than just at the intended use of it.

An example of even a poor intent is the law requiring a LTCH. It, like most others, was written to keep "the wrong people" from carrying. At the time, "the wrong people" might have only been those who concealed a handgun, but more likely, it was those of one given ethnicity or another. Today, that law is misused and abused to prevent ANYONE except the government employee who depends on it for his paycheck from carrying a handgun. Even the good guys are restrained from doing so by a law that should never have applied to them (or anyone else) in the first place.
A law requiring seat belts was never going to be a primary offense, and was intended (ostensibly) to promote the use of safety equipment and prevent traumatic injuries. It's now abused to create revenue in a statewide campaign: "Click it or ticket!"

Laws that are intended to throw a sop to the antis, such as described, PFWI, for example, WILL be abused and misused against us. It's not a question of whether it will happen, only when.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

Among the responsible, carrying community, no. But this provision of the Constitutional Carry bill is not about the responsible carrying community. It's about the fact that people who carry a gun and who get drunk while doing that, often, do not have a license and the "carrying with a license" law can be used to intervene. No need for a license, no basis to intervene with a guy is drunk and carrying, without this provision.

I'm all for Constitutional Carry, but let's not act like it won't result in people who were carrying illegally and doing irresponsible things continuing to carry and people who didn't get a license because of the cost, certainly won't pay for training, but will carry anyway.

And? The right to keep and bear arms extends to every law-abiding citizen, sounds like, much to your disdain.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And? The right to keep and bear arms extends to every law-abiding citizen, sounds like, much to your disdain.

Easy, Greg. Hough is one of the good guys. It's not disdain you're seeing, it's familiarity and regular interaction with the less savory members of our society. Doing that for any length of time will make ANYone a little jaded.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[brotherbill3]

Reposting from wrong place ... since it is more relevant here and this is where I thought I was posting in the first place.

AND

On a "Slightly More Relevant" note and return to the tracks:

There are a few "legislative council" interim committee that have been populate for the current "interim" session:

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/committees/interim

Nothing on our particular focus here - but stay tuned I suppose.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Rep Lucas was on Guy's show this evening. Keep an eye out for the summer study committee info, I'm looking forward to getting lost in the Indiana Government Building again.

 

[brotherbill3]

Rep Lucas was on Guy's show this evening. Keep an eye out for the summer study committee info, I'm looking forward to getting lost in the Indiana Government Building again.

Podcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.

 

[lonehoosier]

Podcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.

The Gun Guy Show | 93.1 WIBC

 

[KellyinAvon]

Podcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.

I listen to Guy's show on this device called a "radio". There's no link to click but the power setting must be in the "ON" and the device must be tuned to 93.1 MHz I am aware of podcasts, I'm just old-school about radio shows. And before the comments come pouring in, my radio does not have vacuum tubes.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have a hard time catching the signal here.