The value of the lifetime permit

[T.Lex]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11271701msm.pdf

First, I think this is the shortest published decision I've ever seen.

Second, how did this person not realize a lifetime permit is better.

1. Wilsonadmitted being in possession of a handgun on March 18, 2016. The license hegave the officer expired on March 12, 2016. Therefore, Wilson possessed ahandgun without being properly licensed. Without a valid license, Wilson wasin violation of the law.
   

(Is he an INGOer?)

 

[KellyinAvon]

Kind of thin on detail, like, "What led to the encounter with police?" Was this the only crime? We need ConC and don't need prosecutors padding their stats with these cases.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What kind of hard-ass cop arrests and charges someone on something like this?

Give them a ****in' verbal and tell them to get it renewed/lifetime and move on without ****ing up someone's day/week/month/year.

 

[OurDee]

That is a hefty "Ignorance tax". Lifetime sure would have been cheaper.

 

[DaveM44]

I'd support conviction as well, though the details are important. Let's use an example: I'm pulled over for some minor thing, speeding/etc. If I'm asked to step out for a moment (remember, we're just using a what if scenario here and not getting into procedure specifics), I feel it's right to tell the officer I'm carrying, even if I'm not legally required like I would be in Ohio. Once I do that, of course the officer is going to ask if I have a permit, where's the weapon, and so on. If I'm responsible enough to do that, I'm responsible enough to check the date on my little pink card. I won't get any excuses if I drive with an expired license, why should I get any carrying a weapon with an expired license?

As permit holders and carriers of firearms, we're expected to be more responsible than the average citizen. Without any other details such as why the stop was made, what was said between them or any other matter that would help, we're forced to go by the single mistake the person made. That being so, I feel it's a right call to prosecute and convict.

 

[T.Lex]

Quick searching and, while there are many with his name, it isn't immediately obvious that he has any other significant criminal history. Perhaps one of the Indy area officers can elaborate, but it doesn't look like a situation where dude was "known to authorities" but had avoided conviction.

One prior disorderly conduct as a B misdemeanor and some moving violations.

 

[HoughMade]

I think the price difference was maybe $45-$50 between the 4 year and lifetime. Seriously, who is that cheap?

Anyhoo, was carrying without license. Admitted he was carrying. Forgetting when the expiration date was- no legal excuse.

Remember- "intentionality" may not mean what you think it means. He was carrying intentionally and he was without a valid license. Whether he was intentionally carrying and intentionally doing so without a license- not the issue.

As for the underlying story...meh. If he was pure and clean as the wind-driven snow, I'm sure his attorney tried to sweet talk the deputy prosecuting attorney. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

In sum- get the lifetime.

 

[T.Lex]

@HM (and KF, MarkC, and Fargo, and maybe Guy if he ever logs on for fun)

So here's the real question... why was this a published opinion?

 

[HoughMade]

There's really one reason I can think of: to make clear that knowledge of the expiration of the license is not an element of the crime.

Ironically, what is in footnote #2.

Accord:

As an initial matter, we do not believe that our supreme court decides important questions of law in footnotes.

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Brown, 696 N.E.2d 92, 95 (Ind. App. 1998)

 

[Vigilant]

I think the price difference was maybe $45-$50 between the 4 year and lifetime. Seriously, who is that cheap?

Anyhoo, was carrying without license. Admitted he was carrying. Forgetting when the expiration date was- no legal excuse.

Remember- "intentionality" may not mean what you think it means. He was carrying intentionally and he was without a valid license. Whether he was intentionally carrying and intentionally doing so without a license- not the issue.

As for the underlying story...meh. If he was pure and clean as the wind-driven snow, I'm sure his attorney tried to sweet talk the deputy prosecuting attorney. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

In sum- get the lifetime.

I was taught by a former FBI Director, that INTENT is very important in establishing if a crime was committed, regardless of what the written laws state?

 

[HoughMade]

I was taught by a former FBI Director, that INTENT is very important in establishing if a crime was committed, regardless of what the written laws state?

Right. He intended to carry the gun. No one slipped it into his backpack or his car without his knowledge. In that hypothetical, he would not have the intent to carry the gun. The law does not require that he intend to carry without a license. Only that he intended to carry and he did so without a license.

 

[T.Lex]

There's really one reason I can think of: to make clear that knowledge of the expiration of the license is not an element of the crime.

Ironically, what is in footnote #2.

Accord:

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Brown, 696 N.E.2d 92, 95 (Ind. App. 1998)

HA!

So... maybe its to make it transfer-bait?

I mean, there's no reason to stop now, if you're Mr. Wilson (or his attorneys). A few extra hours of work gets a transfer petition, from a published decision, on an issue of first impression. All while the Constitutional Carry issue is floating around. (Wouldn't it be interesting if there was testimony that he was carrying pursuant to one of the exceptions....)

Part of me wonders if May, Barnes and Bradford have some sort of a bet with another panel for the shortest published opinion of the year.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What kind of hard-ass cop arrests and charges someone on something like this?

Give them a ****in' verbal and tell them to get it renewed/lifetime and move on without ****ing up someone's day/week/month/year.

I hope there was something more to it, but if there wasn't I agree.

I won't get any excuses if I drive with an expired license, why should I get any carrying a weapon with an expired license?

As permit holders and carriers of firearms, we're expected to be more responsible than the average citizen. Without any other details such as why the stop was made, what was said between them or any other matter that would help, we're forced to go by the single mistake the person made. That being so, I feel it's a right call to prosecute and convict.

I've been pulled over with an expired DL, the officer told me to get it renewed and have a nice day. Oh and a verbal warning for whatever it was I was pulled over for. Same with expired tags. If it had been expired for a longer period of time I might agree with you, but less than a week? Not without more.

And welcome to INGO.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I hope there was something more to it, but if there wasn't I agree.



I've been pulled over with an expired DL, the officer told me to get it renewed and have a nice day. Oh and a verbal warning for whatever it was I was pulled over for. Same with expired tags. If it had been expired for a longer period of time I might agree with you, but less than a week? Not without more.

And welcome to INGO.

Yeah. A year? That's a problem. 6 months? Probably the same. A month? Maybe. Couple weeks? Ehh..

Less than a week? There is absolutely no reason to make a court case out of this. **** cop.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

@HM (and KF, MarkC, and Fargo, and maybe Guy if he ever logs on for fun)

So here's the real question... why was this a published opinion?

Plea for a legislative fix!

Someone get this to Jim Lucas.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah. A year? That's a problem. 6 months? Probably the same. A month? Maybe. Couple weeks? Ehh..

Less than a week? There is absolutely no reason to make a court case out of this. **** cop.

Cop?

 

[hopper68]

Yeah. A year? That's a problem. 6 months? Probably the same. A month? Maybe. Couple weeks? Ehh..

Less than a week? There is absolutely no reason to make a court case out of this. **** cop.

The whole thing could be how he interacted with the cop. Some people can talk themselves out of a ticket and others talk themselves into tickets.

 

[MarkC]

Plea for a legislative fix!

Someone get this to Jim Lucas.

This kind of aggressive but legally correct law enforcement caused a legislator from southeast Indiana to fix:

-Public intox

-Carrying of handguns w/o a license (2011 revisions)

Unfortunately, because of some behavior similar to what is being discussed in other threads, he is no longer a member.

 

[JettaKnight]

What kind of hard-ass cop arrests and charges someone on something like this?

Give them a ****in' verbal and tell them to get it renewed/lifetime and move on without ****ing up someone's day/week/month/year.

You're thinking the guy is like you - an upstanding citizen. This may not have been the case.


And the officer was technically correct - it's expired.

[video=youtube;hou0lU8WMgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The whole thing could be how he interacted with the cop. Some people can talk themselves out of a ticket and others talk themselves into tickets.

You're thinking the guy is like you - an upstanding citizen. This may not have been the case.


And the officer was technically correct - it's expired.

I'm not going to assume he was belligerent, though. I understand how behavior can lead an officer encounter one way or the other. It sounds like he did the right thing by having a license, as well as volunteering the information that he was licensed. Perhaps he didn't know it was expired.

I technically break the law every morning driving to work over 55mph on 465. It's up to the good judgement of the officers witnessing this to decide to take action or not. The officer that arrested this guy, assuming the guy's behavior was neutral, was being a ****.

Without further details of the encounter, I'm fine with my assessment of the situation.