Taking the wife to the handgun range or friend who has no LTCH...

[schafe]

But not sole possession if the license holder is in close proximity.

There is some case law discussion which would likely apply beyond the simplest reading of the code.

Not trying to be a smart aleck, but here is my laymans take.....Seriously, what a stretch!

My hands= legal possession , your unlicensed hands= violation(illegal possession). To me this is not a simple reading, but a literal reading. Seems straightforeward to me.
So does the case law you refer to involve someone holding the gun, or found in a vehicle with multiple occupancy.....ie.,the old closer to him than to me defense?

 

[rmabrey]

 

[StandingReady]

That's kind of my point about the ambiguity of what is not clearly stated in the letter of the law, but not necessarily in the spirit of it. Your friend, in your scenario, would still be in possession of a firearm w/o a permit, sitting at a restaurant (in violation of the chapter).

The children are exempt under most circumstances, but so are adults in some...
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A child who is attending a hunters safety course or a firearms safety course or an adult who is supervising the child during the course.

What I am talking about is being on a target range, static, for target practice. I would think it would be hard to charge someone with this if they were shooting at a range.
Let's say you moved into a subdivision, and you have a permit, but obviously cannot shoot on your property. You also don't know anyone who has property you can use, so you go to Willow Slough or JP. A friend of yours, who has never fired a handgun, decides he/she wants to learn how it's done. You take your friend, who is over 18, and after explaining the safety rules allow him/her to shoot a cylinder/mag of ammo at the target. Has he/she broken that law? I think you would be hard pressed to find a prosecutor who would prosecute under those circumstances.
Would you then technically be in violation of the statute if you took a gun you owned (without having a carry permit) to a gun store to trade it in? At some point you have to handle it without it being in a secure wrapper. How about handling a gun at a gun store that you are considering purchasing? You don't need a permit to buy/own here in Indiana, but you are technically in possession of it in someone else's place of business, in possession of a handgun without a permit. That is not covered by the repair exemption.
I personally know of an adult who was prosecuted for having an unloaded firearm holstered and on his hip as he was leaving his friend's house. He had no ammo for it with him, but it was not in a secure wrapper, and the statute doesn't state that just being unloaded is sufficient. Each situation is different.
I'm just saying that it is highly unlikely that someone would be prosecuted under the statute for target shooting, especially if the person they are with has a LTCH and has allowed them to try the firearm out (without there being extenuating circumstances such as the person without the LTCH does something reckless or intentionally dangerous, then this charge might be added for "effect"). Call your local prosecutor and ask them what their position is on the scenario. Being at a range, especially with an articulable set of facts of how the firearm was legally transported (in custody of LTCH owner, or unloaded and in a secure wrapper) would probably be ok, IMHO. Personally, I haven't had to go to a range in a long time, as I have property to use, so I don't know if the range masters generally even ask for people to show permits.
Indiana is pretty good about recognizing the hunting/shooting heritage, I would think some common sense would prevail under certain circumstances.

 

[StandingReady]

BTW, there is a lot to be said about the discretion available to the officers who initially respond to such situation, as well as to the prosecutors who choose to or not to prosecute. There are a lot of cases in which the act that is committed is overtly illegal, but the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute (Lake County is a great example). Some of these situations could easily be decided either way, based on perception of the facts and the officer's/prosecutor's disposition toward the act. Even something technically (or as Shafe said, literal) illegal could be construed as allowable based on discretion. I think ATM and I are on the same page in this regard.

 

[ATM]

Not trying to be a smart aleck, but here is my laymans take.....Seriously, what a stretch!

My hands= legal possession , your unlicensed hands= violation(illegal possession). To me this is not a simple reading, but a literal reading. Seems straightforeward to me.
So does the case law you refer to involve someone holding the gun, or found in a vehicle with multiple occupancy.....ie.,the old closer to him than to me defense?

There is a difference between simple possession and exercising dominion as discussed here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_...ml#post1188063

regarding: No.?49S05-9908-CR-440. - HENDERSON v. STATE - IN Supreme Court

Not that actual case itself as much as the discussion.

The circumstances surrounding this case suggest a question of first impression:  whether one can have constructive possession of a firearm when someone else has legal, actual, and simultaneous possession of the same weapon.   We rarely encounter possession cases in which anybody on the scene actually has a lawful permit.   It leads us to examine whether knowledge and proximity are always enough in instances of constructive, non-exclusive possession.

More at the source.

 

[schafe]

There is a difference between simple possession and exercising dominion as discussed here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_...ml#post1188063

regarding: No.?49S05-9908-CR-440. - HENDERSON v. STATE - IN Supreme Court

Not that actual case itself as much as the discussion.



More at the source.

From where I sit, and having given them a very quick read, those cases seem to involve situations where the suspect does not physically have a handgun in his hands. How can those cases be extrapolated to this discussion without a huge stretch? My brain hurts!!

 

[ATM]

From where I sit, and having given them a very quick read, those cases seem to involve situations where the suspect does not physically have a handgun in his hands. How can those cases be extrapolated to this discussion without a huge stretch? My brain hurts!!

The LTCH holder in close proximity would not physically have the handgun in his hands, either. But by the same legal means used historically to establish constructive possession, he is still in (non-exclusive) control of the handgun.

If this is true, the unlicensed person who does physically have the handgun in his hands is not exercising exclusive control or dominion over the handgun which may be necessary to make the charge stick.

Lack of an exact fit in case law is to be expected since nobody has found a case of this situation ever being prosecuted in Indiana.

 

[schafe]

The LTCH holder in close proximity would not physically have the handgun in his hands, either. But by the same legal means used historically to establish constructive possession, he is still in (non-exclusive) control of the handgun.

If this is true, the unlicensed person who does physically have the handgun in his hands is not exercising exclusive control or dominion over the handgun which may be necessary to make the charge stick.

Lack of an exact fit in case law is to be expected since nobody has found a case of this situation ever being prosecuted in Indiana.

So, if I understand correctly, the mere presence (proximity) of a license holder is sufficient to establish, in laymans terms...."co possesion", even though the unlicensed person holding the handgun, is physically capable of immediately shooting the licensee, or someone else? Wow! Now I know why I studied electronics in college, instead of law. I figured out why my brain was hurting....it's full, and needs to dump something

 

[ATM]

...even though the unlicensed person holding the handgun, is physically capable of immediately shooting the licensee, or someone else?

If they shoot the licensee, they are likely now considered to be in sole possession of a handgun without a license which is illegal.

Bad move, if you ask me.