Officers just disarmed me in Subway, lectured and took my DL.

[ArcadiaGP]

You were OCing, and didn't have physical possession of your LTCH.

That puts up big red flags to your ability to carry, at least initially.

They didn't look at me walk in OC'ing and say "Oh man, we got a badass here with no LTCH on his person. He MIGHT be doing something illegal."

 

[TheReaper]

If they saw him driving, you might have been able to make this point.

Sorry, no charge possible inside Subway.

LOL, go back and read, he ADMITTED to them that he drove there. They very well could have cited him and sounds like they should have.

And it's clear that you have no knowledge of certain aspects of Title 9.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

LOL, go back and read, he ADMITTED to them that he drove there. They very well could have cited him and sounds like they should have.

Sounds like they should have? Why, because I was rude and impolite and non-compliant?

You may not like me or me OC'ing, but I'll be damned if you'll imply I wasn't cooperating the entire time.

 

[TheReaper]

LOL, I'm saying that after all of this pissing and moaning, looks like they should have cited you, you were going to **** and moan anyway. Also, why didn't you file a complaint like all the others were trying to get you to do?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

LOL, I'm saying that after all of this pissing and moaning, looks like they should have cited you, you were going to **** and moan anyway. Also, why didn't you file a complaint like all the others were trying to get you to do?

I didn't know complaining about confrontational and power-trip officers (after the interaction) was worth a citation.

Show the IC, if you would.

Because apparently I deserve it, in your twisted mind.

 

[TheReaper]

I didn't know complaining about confrontational and power-trip officers (after the interaction) was worth a citation.

Show the IC, if you would.

Because apparently I deserve it, in your twisted mind.

It all boils down to the fact that you were caught on a suspended license and embarrassed and now you want to trash the officers even though they gave you a break, it's not rocket science. Take responsibility for your own actions and move on.r

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It all boils down to the fact that you were caught on a suspended license and embarrassed and now you want to trash the officers even though they gave you a break, it's not rocket science. Take responsibility for your own actions and move on.r

Let me hit these bold points, 1 by 1.

You're telling me how I felt, putting words into my mouth. I was never embarassed.

I acknowledged earlier that they could have cited me, and they didn't. I'm not trashing the positive outcome. I'm calling attention to their handling of it.

I did, I very openly admit my mistakes on this situation, and that it was my fault. You're missing the entire point, and you're not even addressing what you've been saying. My OC without an LTCH was a red flag to them, apparently? Why? How could they glance at me and KNOW I had no LTCH and I was worth questioning?

You feel free to move on. The revival of this thread has nothing to do with me, but I will defend myself when being libelled.

I was nothing but respectful to them. I said my "sir's", etc. I smiled the entire time. I caused NO issues. I did not lie to them.

They, on the other hand, were confrontational. They disarmed me irresponsibly with people all around. They questioned my "pride" and past training. They claimed THEY can handle safety, and that I don't need to. They were disgusted that I would try to correct them on "the law", because they were "the law"

 

[TheReaper]

Let me hit these bold points, 1 by 1.

You're telling me how I felt, putting words into my mouth. I was never embarassed.

I acknowledged earlier that they could have cited me, and they didn't. I'm not trashing the positive outcome. I'm calling attention to their handling of it.

I did, I very openly admit my mistakes on this situation, and that it was my fault. You're missing the entire point, and you're not even addressing what you've been saying. My OC without an LTCH was a red flag to them, apparently? Why? How could they glance at me and KNOW I had no LTCH and I was worth questioning?

You feel free to move on. The revival of this thread has nothing to do with me, but I will defend myself when being libelled.

I was nothing but respectful to them. I said my "sir's", etc. I smiled the entire time. I caused NO issues. I did not lie to them.

They, on the other hand, were confrontational. They disarmed me irresponsibly with people all around. They questioned my "pride" and past training. They claimed THEY can handle safety, and that I don't need to.

Because they are allowed to ask ANYONE carrying a firearm in public if the have a LTCH. That's not rocket science either.

 

[Ted]

I have tired to addressing these points over and over. This is how I see it:

The OP may have been legal when carrying, but he wasn't smart when doing so.

The police didn't do anything unlawful either, and were properly utilizing their authority to assure that the OP was within the law. The police often make assessments upon people and their actions; when they conduct an investigation upon the potential for criminal conduct.

If the police were out of line with their commentary, that is a discussion for another thread.....and has little bearing upon the use of authority and discretion that the police used when they engaged in this stop.

Don't like what occurred? Then work to change the law.

 

[public servant]

I didn't know complaining about confrontational and power-trip officers (after the interaction) was worth a citation.

It's coming in the mail.

 

[MikeDVB]

Is he supposed to just take your word for it and allow you to remain armed? Consider the consequences of that action too.

Yes.

You were OCing, and didn't have physical possession of your LTCH.

The law no longer requires physical possession.

That puts up big red flags to your ability to carry, at least initially.

It also puts up red flags that he may prefer off-white paint as apposed to white for the walls in his house, but I don't see them knocking down his door to find out.

I love how the OP is still pissing and moaning about this when the officers didn't even cite him for the suspended license.

It's not against the law to have a suspended license - it's just against the law to drive with one.

Unless they see him driving, there's nothing to cite him for.

This is why a lot of officers don't give warnings anymore, because of this type of guy right here. You give them a warning and they still **** and moan for weeks!

If you walk up to me in a restaurant, run my license, and then tell me it's suspended and try to write me a ticket I'm going to look at you funny and then call my attorney.

 

[Ted]

Yes.

The law no longer requires physical possession.

 

[TheReaper]

Yes.

The law no longer requires physical possession.

It also puts up red flags that he may prefer off-white paint as apposed to white for the walls in his house, but I don't see them knocking down his door to find out.

It's not against the law to have a suspended license - it's just against the law to drive with one.

Unless they see him driving, there's nothing to cite him for.

If you walk up to me in a restaurant, run my license, and then tell me it's suspended and try to write me a ticket I'm going to look at you funny and then call my attorney.

If you were smart enough to go back and read the thread, the OP ADMITTED to the police that he drove there, they don't have to witness it especially if it's an infraction....good grief you people just don't get it. Educate yourselves.

 

[shadohman]

I have tired to addressing these points over and over. This is how I see it:

The OP may have been legal when carrying, but he wasn't smart when doing so.

The police didn't do anything unlawful either, and were properly utilizing their authority to assure that the OP was within the law. The police often make assessments upon people and their actions; when they conduct an investigation upon the potential for criminal conduct.

If the police were out of line with their commentary, that is a discussion for another thread.....and has little bearing upon the use of authority and discretion that the police used when they engaged in this stop.

Don't like what occurred? Then work to change the law.

That is the point of contention, The law was changed, you no longer have to have physical possession of your LTCH while carrying and yet you are arguing that if you don't like the current law change it. Shouldn't you be for requiring LEO's to follow the law.

 

[lovemywoods]

Just a gentle in-thread warning.

This thread has more than 400 posts so far.

There has been some borderline name calling and heated exchanges.
I suggest we let this thread go dormant. I'm not sure further debate will be productive.

I'm confident there will be future incidents where these issues can be discussed again.

 

[Ted]

That is the point of contention, The law was changed, you no longer have to have physical possession of your LTCH while carrying and yet you are arguing that if you don't like the current law change it. Shouldn't you be for requiring LEO's to follow the law.

There is little harm in disarming the individual, whilst awaiting verification that the person is in fact licensed.

Unless I am mistaken, Terry v. Ohio is still law.

 

[stephen87]

If you were smart enough to go back and read the thread, the OP ADMITTED to the police that he drove there, they don't have to witness it especially if it's an infraction....good grief you people just don't get it. Educate yourselves.

Ummm, I believe for an infraction, it must be witnessed by the LEO. We get it, some just say he was stupid by not having his LTCH on him. That's your opinion or whomever posted it. I disagree that it's stupid to not carry it, but it makes stops a little easier if you do carry it.

There is little harm in disarming the individual, whilst awaiting verification that the person is in fact licensed.

Unless I am mistaken, Terry v. Ohio is still law.

I agree that there is little harm while verifying one is issued a LTCH. Terry v Ohio is not the law though. I don't think it actually has anything to do with laws and more to do with what police can stop for. RAS is not a law.

 

[TheReaper]

Ummm, I believe for an infraction, it must be witnessed by the LEO. We get it, some just say he was stupid by not having his LTCH on him. That's your opinion or whomever posted it. I disagree that it's stupid to not carry it, but it makes stops a little easier if you do carry it.


I agree that there is little harm while verifying one is issued a LTCH. Terry v Ohio is not the law though. I don't think it actually has anything to do with laws and more to do with what police can stop for. RAS is not a law.

Ummm...you are completely WRONG on this.

 

[stephen87]

How about instead of telling me I'm wrong, you show me. For traffic infractions, I'm 95% certain it must be witnessed by an officer. Point me to something that shows otherwise. I'll admit I'm wrong when I am, but just saying I am does nothing.

 

[TheReaper]

How about instead of telling me I'm wrong, you show me. For traffic infractions, I'm 95% certain it must be witnessed by an officer. Point me to something that shows otherwise. I'll admit I'm wrong when I am, but just saying I am does nothing.

IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.