To carry without the LTCH

[finity]

IANAL

A person without a LTCH, carrying their firearm at their fixed place of business, or their home, would be required to secure their handgun enroute as required under the applicable statute. There is nothing within the language of the statute that limits, or otherwise states the quantity of a person has the ability to do so.

There is also nothing within the language of the statute which requires a place of repair to be a place of business.

Is there an applicable judicial opinion upon the subject that I am not aware?

There is no provision AT ALL for being "enroute" between your home & business without the LTCH.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this post.

OK, here is another little twist.

IANAL etc. etc.....

Say I own two homes (one in the city and one on the lake). I could transport a handgun between the two homes I own if indeed I spent time dwelling in each of them.

Or, I own two places of business (Rich's Peanut Butter & Jelly resturants). I spend Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at resturant A, and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at resturant B. I could transport a handgun between businesses.

No. There is nothing that allows you to transport between two DIFFERENT residences or businesses (even if they are yours) without a LTCH. If that was the case then there would be no argument over carrying between your house & your business as the end result would be the same.

If you have to carry off your property FOR ANY REASON other than the listed exceptions then you need a LTCH.

there is an exception ;
IF you are a full member of a CMP club you can go to YOUR club for target practice..

(7) regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state who are at or are going to or from their place of assembly or target practice

this does not apply to public ranges..

Does the CMP really count for being exempted from the LTCH requirement?

If so then that would obviously only be for back & forth to target practice. Anywhere else a LTCH would be required.

 

[JBusch8899]

There is no provision AT ALL for being "enroute" between your home & business without the LTCH.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this post.

The current state law allows one to carry without a LTCH at one's fixed place of business, and their home and outside property.

If one is required to not leave their firearm at work, then one must transport it in the manner described in the IC, back to their place of residence.

 

[kludge]

Does the CMP really count for being exempted from the LTCH requirement?

If so then that would obviously only be for back & forth to target practice. Anywhere else a LTCH would be required.

I'm not going to volunteer to be a test case. You'll have an affimative case to prove - prove that the CMP = the United States. No thanks.

The current state law allows one to carry without a LTCH at <snip> and outside property.

So how do you suppose your going to legally get the handgun from your residence to said outside property, or back, without the LTCH?

Scenario: you are OC at your property - no laws being broken, but a random cop drives by and sees you walking your property while OC. Cop stops to have a chat.

"Sir do you have a handgun license?"

"Officer, this is my property, no license is required."

"May I see some ID please? Thank you.... This is not your residence?"

"No, officer."

"Very well, I'll be waiting right over there."

And he parks his patrol car across the street and waits for you to leave.

Now what? How are you going to get home without breaking the law?

If one is required to not leave their firearm at work, then one must transport it in the manner described in the IC, back to their place of residence.

I disagree. Please quote the code that allows you to do this.

The law allows you to transport a handgun from the place of purchase to your fixed place of business or to your dwelling. Not from your dwelling to your place of business and back.

 

[JBusch8899]

It's not vague. He's misinterpreting the statute and case law proves that fairly frequently. He's wrong and he's going to pay the price sooner or later. The "moving" section is referring to physically relocating your home or business to a new building. In other words, you can pack up all your stuff in a moving van and go live somewhere else without needing a license to transport your handgun.

home, back and forth to a fixed place of business is still a no-no.

Essentially, "too much transportation".

You get the trip from the place of purchase to either A) home OR B) fixed place of business.

Once at either location, save for a relocation of home or business, it's gotta stay there. (unless going to a gunsmith for work or to a common carrier to ship it for said repair)

There is no provision AT ALL for being "enroute" between your home & business without the LTCH.

No. There is nothing that allows you to transport between two DIFFERENT residences or businesses (even if they are yours) without a LTCH. If that was the case then there would be no argument over carrying between your house & your business as the end result would be the same.

If you have to carry off your property FOR ANY REASON other than the listed exceptions then you need a LTCH.

........So how do you suppose your going to legally get the handgun from your residence to said outside property, or back, without the LTCH?

Scenario: you are OC at your property - no laws being broken, but a random cop drives by and sees you walking your property while OC. Cop stops to have a chat.

"Sir do you have a handgun license?"

"Officer, this is my property, no license is required."

"May I see some ID please? Thank you.... This is not your residence?"

"No, officer."

"Very well, I'll be waiting right over there."

And he parks his patrol car across the street and waits for you to leave.

Now what? How are you going to get home without breaking the law?

------
I disagree. Please quote the code that allows you to do this.

The law allows you to transport a handgun from the place of purchase to your fixed place of business or to your dwelling. Not from your dwelling to your place of business and back.

First, the typical disclaimer: IANAL, therefore the following is not legal advice.

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

IC 35-47-2-2
Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:..........

(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

Issue 1: As you will note from the stated Indiana code above, that a LTCH is not required in the following instances:

• person's dwelling
• on the person's property
• fixed place of business

Issue 2: Transporting from one's fixed place of business, residence or other real property, only require to be accomplished as unloaded and in a secure wrapper.

What many incorrectly believe in the text:

or in moving from one dwelling or business to another

that the word "moving", is necessarily the definition of the relocation of said business or residence. It is not. The phrase "in moving", refers to the conveyance from one's business or residence to either of both. Further note, that there is no stated quantity of times that a person my do so.

Bryan Ciyou's book, Indiana Handgun law, has addressed this point by summarizing the law as such:

......(T)he exception of carry inside of one's dwelling, or on one's real property.......the only other allowance for carry without a license......would be at one's fixed place of business. .......because this may necessitate transportation to and from work, which would only be legal if placed within a secure wrapper.

Additionally, and according to your argument above, the supposition that a person could not transport a firearm from their real property to their automobile, if they first left said property to their conveyance.

It only need to be placed in proper context, as many people reside or work in an apartment building in which a lease would be considered a contractual interest for the purpose of a residence or fixed business, requiring egress of one's said business or residence through common areas that one holds no contractual interest, and possibly across a public way of a sidewalk, or street, or even a public parking ramp to their automobile.

So long as the firearm is unloaded and in a secure wrapper to do so, the pragmatic instances of such, is a legitimate and mitigating factor of the law as strictly stated.

 

[JBusch8899]

Does the CMP really count for being exempted from the LTCH requirement?

If so then that would obviously only be for back & forth to target practice. Anywhere else a LTCH would be required.

According to the text of the law as quoted in the post above, would appear on it's face to be permissible.

However, a private club, meeting the criteria of a fixed place of business; would also seem to meet the individual exemption stated under law.

 

[Bill of Rights]

JBusch, you are welcome to make that argument to the judge. I wish you luck with it (no sarcasm, I mean this sincerely.)

(Edit: It reminds me of the conversation I had with an attorney, wherein I ran by him my thought regarding the provisions of 35-47-9-1(2), in which it specifies that a person employed or authorized by a school or the owner of a property being used by a school for a school function to provide security or for any other purpose may lawfully be armed on those premises. The text of the law supports my position, however, he opined that the court would not do so. I disagree with the fact, but I have to agree with his opinion, which is to say that I don't like the fact that the court would rule against me if I chose to do that, but I have to acknowledge that they probably would do so.)

Kludge:

Personally, I'd either make a phone call to someone with a LTCH or I would empty the firearm, lock it in a case, and invite the officer to follow me as I took it to a place of repair (my local range, as it turns out). There is nothing in statute that requires the firearm to be repaired there. If there is something in case law, I'm unaware of it but would welcome the information if so.

As to the CMP, two things come to mind:
1) without question, they are authorized to receive firearms from the US gov't. Happens all the time and their website (www.odcmp.gov) acknowledges this. A (person) member of a club that is a (club) member of the CMP would be exempted specifically in statute.
2) The Revolutionary War Veterans' Association (RWVA) which sponsors the many Appleseed events nationwide is a CMP-member club. While all of our shooters and indeed, all of our instructors are not members, those who are might enjoy this protection as well, however, since we shoot at no fewer than six ranges in Indiana alone, I would wonder what they might call our place of assembly.

I have my Lifetime LTCH, but I need to become a card-carrying member of RWVA, too. Maybe when I have enough saved to afford my M1 (still have to decide whether to do a carbine or a Garand.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JBusch8899]

JBusch, you are welcome to make that argument to the judge. I wish you luck with it (no sarcasm, I mean this sincerely.)

(Edit: It reminds me of the conversation I had with an attorney, wherein I ran by him my thought regarding the provisions of 35-47-9-1(2), in which it specifies that a person employed or authorized by a school or the owner of a property being used by a school for a school function to provide security or for any other purpose may lawfully be armed on those premises. The text of the law supports my position, however, he opined that the court would not do so. I disagree with the fact, but I have to agree with his opinion, which is to say that I don't like the fact that the court would rule against me if I chose to do that, but I have to acknowledge that they probably would do so.)

As even attorneys are human (barely) , they certainly are capable of being mistaken. As Bryan is well versed in criminal and firearms law, with a fair amount of successful experience in litigating such matters, I would trust his opinion as such.

However, you are correct that there are many judges which don't correctly apply the law as legislated. Such members of the judiciary otherwise choose to allow their arrogance of power to place personal opinion over the rule of law and relegating their decisions to be overturned upon appeal, but not before placing the poor soul through thousands of dollars in legal expense.

 

[finity]

If one is required to not leave their firearm at work, then one must transport it in the manner described in the IC, back to their place of residence.

this the second reference you've made to not being allowed to leave your gun at work. What specific situation are you talking about? Why would you not be able to leave your gun at work?

 

[JBusch8899]

this the second reference you've made to not being allowed to leave your gun at work. What specific situation are you talking about? Why would you not be able to leave your gun at work?

I contract employ a part time employee without a LTCH. As I don't possess a secure place for him to access his firearm when I am not present, his leaving his firearm at the work location is as such, impractical.

Additionally, I do not wish to be held responsible for his firearm. I have enough to be responsible, without that being added.

As a owner of a number of firearms myself, I don't particularly care for others handling my firearms, unless I invite them to do such. I respect others by applying my same standards to myself as well.

 

[finity]

I contract employ a part time employee without a LTCH. As I don't possess a secure place for him to access his firearm when I am not present, his leaving his firearm at the work location is as such, impractical.

Additionally, I do not wish to be held responsible for his firearm. I have enough to be responsible, without that being added.

As a owner of a number of firearms myself, I don't particularly care for others handling my firearms, unless I invite them to do such. I respect others by applying my same standards to myself as well.

Ok.

It seems that the contract employee should come with a requirement to have a LTCH so that wouldn't become an issue. I obviously don't know why the employee doesn't have the LTCH but if he is handling firearms on a employee/contractual basis then I think he really needs to get one for his own protection. If he can't for some reason then that opens up an entirely different can of worms.

Also, there is some debate if a person can carry on private property that is not their own without a LTCH. I can see how the wording of the law might give an overzealous cop/prosecutor grounds to charge you with a crime but I also think that if the cop has no other reason to come onto the property you should be OK. If they come onto my property JUST to check licenses then that is WAY over the line into being a police-state.

 

[JBusch8899]

It seems that the contract employee should come with a requirement to have a LTCH so that wouldn't become an issue. I obviously don't know why the employee doesn't have the LTCH but if he is handling firearms on a employee/contractual basis then I think he really needs to get one for his own protection. If he can't for some reason then that opens up an entirely different can of worms.

Also, there is some debate if a person can carry on private property that is not their own without a LTCH. I can see how the wording of the law might give an overzealous cop/prosecutor grounds to charge you with a crime but I also think that if the cop has no other reason to come onto the property you should be OK. If they come onto my property JUST to check licenses then that is WAY over the line into being a police-state.

If I were capable of hiring him as such, he would be a regular employee. As he is authorized by one with a vested interest in the fixed property, namely myself, there is little concern of his possession of a handgun on company property.

His denial of a LTCH is on appeal, but there are no disqualifying factors for him to possess one either. However, as I've known him for some time, I'm confident that there are no character issues regarding his ability to possess a firearm.

While opinions of the law certainly do vary as evidenced by the thread, the strict interpretation of the least intrusive meaning of a law, has and continues to be the original intent of the framers. Objective enforcement and application, over the subjective nature of man.

 

[kludge]

Issue 2: Transporting from one's fixed place of business, residence or other real property, only require to be accomplished as unloaded and in a secure wrapper.

What many incorrectly believe in the text: that the word "moving", is necessarily the definition of the relocation of said business or residence.

FWIW, yes, that's the meaning I infer.

It is not. The phrase "in moving", refers to the conveyance from one's business or residence to either of both. Further note, that there is no stated quantity of times that a person my do so.

So by this logic, if I am going on an overnight trip, and I don't have a LTCH, and I spend the night in a hotel (temporary lodging by the code's definition), I am "moving"?

Wow. I'd REALLY hate to be that test case. If they meant "conveying" or "carrying" or "transporting" why did they chose the word "moving" in the code??? It's far to ambiguous.

What if my other property did not have a place of "lodging" and I'm just going walking on my non-contiguous-to-my-dwelling piece of property, am I still "moving"?

I have the book below; I don't rember reading that particular quote, but it is food for thought...

Bryan Ciyou's book, Indiana Handgun law, has addressed this point by summarizing the law as such:

......(T)he exception of carry inside of one's dwelling, or on one's real property.......the only other allowance for carry without a license......would be at one's fixed place of business. .......because this may necessitate transportation to and from work, which would only be legal if placed within a secure wrapper.

 

[JBusch8899]

......if I am going on an overnight trip, and I don't have a LTCH, and I spend the night in a hotel (temporary lodging by the code's definition), I am "moving"?

Wow. I'd REALLY hate to be that test case. If they meant "conveying" or "carrying" or "transporting" why did they chose the word "moving" in the code??? It's far to ambiguous.

What if my other property did not have a place of "lodging" and I'm just going walking on my non-contiguous-to-my-dwelling piece of property, am I still "moving"?

I have the book below; I don't rember reading that particular quote, but it is food for thought...

Why would the state tell one where they can keep their handgun, if they own and possess it lawfully? If someone has only one handgun to protect himself, is he supposed to choose to be disarmed at work, or home? The law is worded to allow transportation. The word "moving" that people are fond of using, is actually the phrase, "in moving", meaning "to convey".

Why the legislature worded it that way, I don't know. If they meant "relocation" or "relocating", why didn't they enunciate those words instead?

Ciyou has addressed those other concerns of temporary lodging in his book as well. I suggest that you might reread chapter one.

And of course, IANAL.

 

[finity]

Why would the state tell one where they can keep their handgun, if they own and possess it lawfully?

I don't know if you've noticed but they do that all the time.

If someone has only one handgun to protect himself, is he supposed to choose to be disarmed at work, or home?

Unfortunately, I don't think the state is particularly concerned how you protect yourself or what you have to do to be able to follow the law.

The law is worded to allow transportation. The word "moving" that people are fond of using, is actually the phrase, "in moving", meaning "to convey".

Why the legislature worded it that way, I don't know. If they meant "relocation" or "relocating", why didn't they enunciate those words instead?

Indeed. Maybe they chose to use the common lingo in their law.

mov·ing (m

v

ng)
adj. 1. Changing or capable of changing position: a moving target.
2. Relating to or involved in a transfer of furnishings from one location to another: moving expenses; moving van.
3. Causing or producing motion.
4. Involving a motor vehicle in motion: a moving violation.
5. Arousing or capable of arousing deep emotion: a moving account of the tragedy.p

Reading the IC the way you suggest would also negate the need for ANYBODY to need a LTCH if they carried unloaded in a secure wrapper. The law as written doesn't specify that it has to be YOUR residence or business just A residence or business. Every time I carry (or leave my house at all) I'm going from one residence or business to another. Do you think that the law was written to allow ANYONE to carry an unloaded handgun in a secure wrapper (i.e. a zippered fanny pack?) ANYWHERE they want?

Seeing as there have been people arrested & convicted of carrying an unloaded secured handgun without a license (even a couple of people here) then your reading isn't supported by case law.

 

[JBusch8899]

Seeing as there have been people arrested & convicted of carrying an unloaded secured handgun without a license (even a couple of people here) then your reading isn't supported by case law.

I've never read, nor heard of any person arrested and convicted of regularly transporting their handgun in the manner prescribed by law, to and fro between their residence and fixed place of employment.

Please provide the relevant judicial opinions.

 

[JBusch8899]

.....The law as written doesn't specify that it has to be YOUR residence or business just A residence or business.......

Except as the statute is interpreted in Winters v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1279.

 

[JBusch8899]

By the way everyone, I'm obtaining almost all of my information from Bryan Ciyou's guide, "Indiana Handgun law".

There is a huge wealth of information in it, with a extensive works cited section.

Every gun owner should purchase one for themselves. It's cost is less than a box of handgun ammunition.

 

[Bill of Rights]

FWIW, yes, that's the meaning I infer.



So by this logic, if I am going on an overnight trip, and I don't have a LTCH, and I spend the night in a hotel (temporary lodging by the code's definition), I am "moving"?

Wow. I'd REALLY hate to be that test case. If they meant "conveying" or "carrying" or "transporting" why did they chose the word "moving" in the code??? It's far to ambiguous.

What if my other property did not have a place of "lodging" and I'm just going walking on my non-contiguous-to-my-dwelling piece of property, am I still "moving"?

I have the book below; I don't rember reading that particular quote, but it is food for thought...

Second edition, page 26, and the full quote is:

"With the exception of carry on the inside of one's dwelling, or on one's real property, which would not include carry outside of one's apartment, the only other allowance for carry without a License(aside from specific legal standing exempting one from the requirement of licensing, such as with police powers), would be at one's fixed place of business. However, this is likely problematic, because this may necessitate transportation to and from work, or leaving the handgun unattended, and the exception is undeveloped.

Any person desiring to carry a handgun with any type of frequency outside of one's dwelling is inviting unnecessary legal risk without a handgun License. Now with the ability to obtain a lifetime License (Chapter 2), every owner of a handgun should seriously consider obtaining same as a risk-reduction mechanism. The cost is low, and the potential benefit is high."

I agree with you, JBusch, I would trust his opinion as such.

Context... Context means everything.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

I've never read, nor heard of any person arrested and convicted of regularly transporting their handgun in the manner prescribed by law, to and fro between their residence and fixed place of employment.

Please provide the relevant judicial opinions.

As I've said; you can't add things to the law that aren't written there to change the terms of the debate to make your interpretation more likely. You have to only go with what it ACTUALLY says & interpret those words.

The law as you quoted doesn't say anything about carrying "to and fro between their residence and fixed place of employment".

Let me post it again so we can both see it together once more:

(11) any person while carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or to a place of repair or back to his dwelling or fixed place of business, or in moving from one dwelling or business to another.

It says "...or in moving from one dwelling or business to another". There is NOTHING there about carrying between YOUR home & YOUR business or especially your place of employment.

To go by your reading I could carry without a LTCH from my house (which is one dwelling) to another of my houses (if I owned more than one) or to my friends house across town or across the state (both of which are "another dwelling"). I could also go from my house to the Speedway on the corner (which is one business) then go to the Home depot (which is another business) then stop off at my friends house then returm home completely legally as long as I carried in a fanny pack unloaded (note: there is no definition of a "secure wrapper" in the IC).

I actually can see why you might think that the law allows you to carry between A dwelling & another or A business & another or between two business, etc. I don't think that was the intent & i don't think you'll get away with it in court (especially noting BoR's Ciyou quote above). Good luck to you if you try.

Here is the thread I was referencing above: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._self_defense/25254-asking_for_your_help.html

You'll notice in the thread that 2 people had the same thing happen to them.

And where is that thread that used to be a sticky about the ISP's take on carrying to the range without a LTCH? Was it moved or can I just not find it?

 

[JBusch8899]

This whole thread seems a bit hinky to me.

We all agree that one can carry a firearm without a license within one's home, outside property, and at one's fixed place of employment.

We are also able to agree of transporting a handgun to and from a place of repair.

Is there a statutory limit on the number of times that a person can transport his firearm to or from any of the above locations? Does the statute enumerate the number of times in a fixed period of time that one may be able to remove his firearm from one physical location to another? If not, is there even a subjective standard that dictates such a number?

If no transport is permitted, how does one actually get his handgun from home, to his work? How does one remove his handgun to his residence when he resigns from his place of employment? What if one's employer refuses his employee to leave his firearms at his place of employment, but requires his employee to be armed?

I worked a number of years for a contract security firm, that employed Special Deputy Sheriffs that were capable of carrying their firearm at work, and during their scheduled hours only. When they completed their shifts, the handguns were unloaded and placed in their respective automobile trunks, as their limited police powers were only in force during their hours of employment.

I contract directly with a security guard now, who is required to do the same action.

Certainly the legislative intent of the statute was not meant to inhibit the commerce of individual employment. It was merely intended that one would be able to securely transport a firearm to a location, where one could legally possess and have immediate access to a loaded firearm.