NRA Constitutional Carry Update

[tv1217]

Our Constitutional rights are more important than the safety of someone performing a job, especially one they chose to do

 

[ToddG330]

Does the legislature have the stones to override The veto of this bill?

 

[Gabriel]

Our Constitutional rights are more important than the safety of someone performing a job, especially one they chose to do

I honestly don't see how this law change could make our job more dangerous. Every street cop should know by now that criminals will carry regardless of the law. The only real argument LE has against this law is the ease (or lack thereof) of figuring out if a person carrying is a proper person or not. Admittedly it isn't something that you can look up easily on the street during an encounter. Having a permit made checking pretty simple. Personally, though, I don't give a ****. I prefer dangerous freedom over safe slavery and all that.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I honestly don't see how this law change could make our job more dangerous. Every street cop should know by now that criminals will carry regardless of the law. The only real argument LE has against this law is the ease (or lack thereof) of figuring out if a person carrying is a proper person or not. Admittedly it isn't something that you can look up easily on the street during an encounter. Having a permit made checking pretty simple. Personally, though, I don't give a ****. I prefer dangerous freedom over safe slavery and all that.

"The only real argument LE has against this law is the ease (or lack thereof) of figuring out if a person carrying is a proper person or not"

Not a real argument. Completely ignores Pinner and the host of database resources that we have given LE.

Carter is upset over the loss of kickbacks on the fingerprints.

Cops like Pat Flannelly are upset that they no longer have a bridge to get to racial minorities. The fact that Flannelly deliberately shakes down African-Americans in Lafayette is as shameful as his hiring of Nazis as cops.

 

[Yup!]

"The only real argument LE has against this law is the ease (or lack thereof) of figuring out if a person carrying is a proper person or not"

Not a real argument. Completely ignores Pinner and the host of database resources that we have given LE.

Carter is upset over the loss of kickbacks on the fingerprints.

Cops like Pat Flannelly are upset that they no longer have a bridge to get to racial minorities. The fact that Flannelly deliberately shakes down African-Americans in Lafayette is as shameful as his hiring of Nazis as cops.

If I get a lifetime permit at 18. Then start living a life of crime at 24 - but have never been caught - I guess the state considers me a proper person eh.

Trusting that the pink card exclusively means you’re safe is a fallacy. When a Cop uses that as the metric and let’s their guard down that is the real danger they face.

 

[CTBay]

Police say the permit system is the only way for frontline officers in the field to quickly know whether someone is authorized to carry a handgun in public.

Are they really this stupid? Look at their criminal history. If they’re a convicted felon, they’re not authorized. If they find drugs in their car or on their person, they’re not authorized. If they’re underage, they’re not authorized. I mean if nothing else, just ask them the same questions on the 4473.

I support Constitutional Carry. BUT its not as simple as this. Its easy to find if someone is a felon in Indiana but checking the whole country isn’t something that can happen fast. Then on top of that there is the whole domestic violence thing that super convoluted. Some domestic violence counts, some doesn’t, depends on who the victim was. So then they aren’t just looking for convictions, they have to dig into the details. NICS and ISP have days and days to figure it out for purchases and permits but officers on the side of the road don’t.

The supreme court ruled recently they cannot hold someone at a traffic stop to wait on a dog unless there is actual probable cause. They cannot hold someone to get the dog, to get probable cause with the dog. Around here they do it anyway. How long can they hold you to try and determine if you’re a proper person? Not long without violating the 4th amendment.

It will be interesting to see how they handle it. They will probably just trample the 4th Amendment like they have been doing with impunity for decades.

If they find a large sum of money they will just steal it and they don’t need to convict you of a crime. Guilty until you prove its innocent. They do that everyday. Civil asset forfeiture. It will not surprise me if the police just take guns and make people prove their legal to get them back. They do it with cash, why not guns?

 

[Yup!]

Everybody who has ever been arrested and everyone who has ever been incarcerated at one point was a proper person.

The card doesn’t expire when you commit a crime - it expires when you’re arrested/convicted of the crime.

The first arrest that takes you from proper person to not is a dangerous situation for cops.

 

[tsm]

Trusting that the pink card exclusively means you’re safe is a fallacy. When a Cop uses that as the metric and let’s their guard down that is the real danger they face.

It’s possible, but statistically not at all likely. A report from the Crime Prevention Center who looked into it a few years ago found:

“Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” Lott writes. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.”

Kind of says that an officer letting his guard down may be in greater danger in his police break room than when interacting with a permit holder! Of course, police interactions with the general public who don’t have permits is a much more risky proposition than dealing with either permit holders or fellow police, for that matter.

 

[chipbennett]

I support Constitutional Carry. BUT its not as simple as this. Its easy to find if someone is a felon in Indiana but checking the whole country isn’t something that can happen fast. Then on top of that there is the whole domestic violence thing that super convoluted. Some domestic violence counts, some doesn’t, depends on who the victim was. So then they aren’t just looking for convictions, they have to dig into the details. NICS and ISP have days and days to figure it out for purchases and permits but officers on the side of the road don’t.

This concern is moot, post-Pinner.

The supreme court ruled recently they cannot hold someone at a traffic stop to wait on a dog unless there is actual probable cause. They cannot hold someone to get the dog, to get probable cause with the dog. Around here they do it anyway. How long can they hold you to try and determine if you’re a proper person? Not long without violating the 4th amendment.

According to the Pinner decision, the answer is, "they can't hold you at all." Post-Pinner, "proper person" holds/searches, absent some evidence of a crime being committed, are unconstitutional.

 

[Yup!]

It’s possible, but statistically not at all likely. A report from the Crime Prevention Center who looked into it a few years ago found:

“Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” Lott writes. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.”

Kind of says that an officer letting his guard down may be in greater danger in his police break room than when interacting with a permit holder! Of course, police interactions with the general public who don’t have permits is a much more risky proposition than dealing with either permit holders or fellow police, for that matter.

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This concern is moot, post-Pinner.



According to the Pinner decision, the answer is, "they can't hold you at all." Post-Pinner, "proper person" holds/searches, absent some evidence of a crime being committed, are unconstitutional.

Many, including law enforcement, do not understand how powerful Pinner is for us.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pinner v. State

The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained after a search and seizure was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion to...

law.justia.com

 

[cobber]

Many, including law enforcement, do not understand how powerful Pinner is for us.

Would you be including judges too, by any chance?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Would you be including judges too, by any chance?

My client has no further comment at this time.

 

[HoughMade]

Kind of a fun footnote:

"We are equally unpersuaded by the State’s contention that reasonable suspicion was present to suggest the weapon “may not have been possessed legally” because Pinner “failed to properly secure the firearm[.]” Br. of Appellee at 16. The State cites no authority in support of this proposition and we find none. "

 

[tbhausen]

Kind of amazing how one little, seemingly-at-that-time-routine incident can have such sweeping legal ramifications. Convicted felon carrying a handgun illegally (and his legal counsel) ended up creating a positive outcome for all of us when the Court got this one right.

 

[JEBland]

Pinner v. State

The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained after a search and seizure was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion to...

law.justia.com

Thanks for that.

P.S. I think you signature has a typo if you're wanting HB /HEA 1296 to be signed.

 

[jamil]

I support Constitutional Carry. BUT its not as simple as this. Its easy to find if someone is a felon in Indiana but checking the whole country isn’t something that can happen fast. Then on top of that there is the whole domestic violence thing that super convoluted. Some domestic violence counts, some doesn’t, depends on who the victim was. So then they aren’t just looking for convictions, they have to dig into the details. NICS and ISP have days and days to figure it out for purchases and permits but officers on the side of the road don’t.

The supreme court ruled recently they cannot hold someone at a traffic stop to wait on a dog unless there is actual probable cause. They cannot hold someone to get the dog, to get probable cause with the dog. Around here they do it anyway. How long can they hold you to try and determine if you’re a proper person? Not long without violating the 4th amendment.

It's illegal to possess a firearm if you're not a "proper person". No, police won't be able to ensure every person they encounter with a firearm is a "proper person". Probably some n'er-do-wells will end up getting stopped, have a firearm, and go on to do bad things with it. Probably the news media will make a big deal of it. Probably there will be calls to please violate other people's rights so that they can feel safe. I want police to make an effort to make the determination if it's a "proper person", but, within the boundaries of case law.

 

[CTBay]

This concern is moot, post-Pinner.



According to the Pinner decision, the answer is, "they can't hold you at all." Post-Pinner, "proper person" holds/searches, absent some evidence of a crime being committed, are unconstitutional.

They don’t care about court decisions.

They do whatever the hell they want with complete disregard for law or precedent. Everyday.

They know someone has to pay a lawyer a fortune to call them on it, and most don’t have the resources. They search whom they want, when they want, for as long as they want, and take whatever they want. When they are wrong there are ZERO real consequences so why would they do anything different?

 

[chipbennett]

It's illegal to possess a firearm if you're not a "proper person". No, police won't be able to ensure every person they encounter with a firearm is a "proper person". Probably some n'er-do-wells will end up getting stopped, have a firearm, and go on to do bad things with it. Probably the news media will make a big deal of it. Probably there will be calls to please violate other people's rights so that they can feel safe. I want police to make an effort to make the determination if it's a "proper person", but, within the boundaries of case law.

In a post-Pinner world, this is already the status quo. Eliminating the LTCH requirement will have literally zero impact on this status quo.