Transport to a Range

[TwinSix]

I have not received my permit yet, and i was wondering if ANOTHER licensed individual could accompany me with MY handgun to a range? The statutes read like Tai stereo instructions... Any comments?

 

[pudly]

Technically, you would be in violation as soon as they handed a gun to you at the range. In fact, at least a couple of ranges do check that you have your LTCH.

Screwy yes, but that's the current law. You can be underage accompanied by a licensed adult and shoot, but not an adult without a license. Best to just get your LTCH. If you have already started the process, the wait is much less than it used to be, so be patient.

The core of the restrictions is in sections 35-47-2-1 to 35-47-2-2 of the Indiana Code.
Indiana Code 35-47-2

 

[kludge]

+1

Technically it is a violation. Technically a lot of things are.

 

[dhnorris]

what if he has an 1895 broomhandle? or an 1873 peacemaker?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I realize that I am saying this from a position of having a LTCH, but I call bs on the "technical" violation of handling a handgun at a range without one.

It's an A misdemeanor or C felony to fail to have a permit and carry a handgun. The law was clearly written to require a permit to "carry" a handgun. It was not passed to prevent a non-LTCH holder from touching, holding, oogling, purchasing, fondling, or shooting a handgun. If this "technical" violation were real, the police could arrest someone at Gouger Mountain who touches a handgun, without a license, while evaluating one for purchase. If convicted that person could face up to five years in prison. For touching a handgun? I don't buy it.

There is not differentiation in statute between touching and shooting. None. I would like to see one court case where someone was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun on a range when a LTCH holder was present. Just one. Until then AFAIAC this is an Internet myth.

Now, just because I say this doesn't mean you should do it. A simple call to your local prosecutor is quick, easy and free insurance policy.

 

[beararms1776]

I agree with all the above. I wouldn't shoot it without the license. It just wouldn't be worth risking your license while you wait. I agree with ^ on the retail store policies. What's okay for one, doesn't mean it's okay for the other. To answer the question though, yes your friend can transport your gun as long as they have a LTCH.

 

[pudly]

I would like to see one court case where someone was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun on a range. Just one. Until then AFAIAC this is an Internet myth.

That is why I used the term "technically". It certainly isn't common, however the Indiana Code is no myth. The OP asked if having a friend transport the gun would keep them out of trouble and the answer is no. They could just as well take the gun without any licenses at all and not get in trouble, but is it worth it to potentially get caught and risk that they not be able to get the license in the future due to a conviction on a gun charge? Not at all.

Follow-up: I just checked Ciyou's Indiana Handgun Law, 2nd ed. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on that specific topic. It does cover actual vs. constructive carry (where you aren't physically carrying but have control, like in a car), but not use at a range. Maybe the next edition will.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That is why I used the term "technically". It certainly isn't common, however the Indiana Code is no myth. The OP asked if having a friend transport the gun would keep them out of trouble and the answer is no.

That's just not true.

You own a gun. I have an LTCH, you have no LTCH. If I carry your handgun how can you possibly run afoul of the statute? Ownership of the handgun is not an element of the statute whatsoever.

On the range, you are not carrying. You are holding, and shooting. This is absolutely no different than if you are holding a handgun in a retail store. While you are holding or shooting, the LTCH holder has constructive possession of the handgun, just like in a retail store the retail cleark (who by virtue of his position automatically has an LTCH) has constructive possession of the handgun, even though for those view brief moments you have physical possession. You are in temporary possession for the limited time you are shooting. I don't believe that it rises to the level of carrying as contemplated in the statute.

Now if you picked it up, placed it under your shirt and carried it to the car, then there's a violation.

They could just as well take the gun without any licenses at all and not get in trouble, but is it worth it to potentially get caught and risk that they not be able to get the license in the future due to a conviction on a gun charge? Not at all.

Equally untrue. If you carry a weapon, do not fit into an exempted class, you are guilty of an A misdemeanor or C felony. You may not get caught (which is what I think you meant), but you are still guilty of a crime.

It's the same as if you go to an NFA shoot, and shoot someone else's machine gun, SBR, short shotgun, suppressor, or other NFA firearm. Under your theory as soon as a non-stamp owner touches the firearm they are in illegal possession of an unlicensed NFA firearm and subject to a 10 year prison sentence and $250K fine. In that case as long as the stamp holder is present even though you have physical possession of the NFA firearm they maintain control over the weapon so there is no transfer. If they hand you the NFA firearm and then leave, there is an illegal transfer and you're both in a world of hurt.

 

[pudly]

I don't believe that it rises to the level of carrying as contemplated in the statute.

Now if you picked it up, placed it under your shirt and carried it to the car, then there's a violation.

So carrying under your shirt is relevant to the term carrying? How many steps before it is considered carrying vs not? Please cite any cases where that has been clarified.

To the OP. Discussions like this are precisely why you can find dozens (maybe even a hundred) quotes of "just get the LTCH" on this site. It is far easier to just be legal than trying to figure out how every prosecutor, LEO, and/or judge would interpret these cases.

 

[jon5212]

If you go to a range and you have a LTCH anyone else can shoot your gun as long as you're there. I take my wife to the range and she doesn't have a LTCH but I do.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So carrying under your shirt is relevant to the term carrying? How many steps before it is considered carrying vs not? Please cite any cases where that has been clarified.

Because putting a handgun under your shirt and walking away is in fact carrying. Holding and shooting is not carrying. I've never even heard of anyone being charged under these circumstances.

To the OP. Discussions like this are precisely why you can find dozens (maybe even a hundred) quotes of "just get the LTCH" on this site. It is far easier to just be legal than trying to figure out how every prosecutor, LEO, and/or judge would interpret these cases.

Agree 100%.

I'm NOT arguing against getting an LTCH. I'm simply pushing back on sea lawyers and Internet myths. If someone has case law establishing that holding is carrying it, I would love to see it and admit I'm wrong.

 

[groovatron]

SemperFiUSMC brings up a good point about NFA firearms. In fact, IC specifically states that anyone who operates a loaded machine gun, commits a class B felony. There are exemptions, but the code reads pretty clear to me. I have found no such code realting to the handling or discharge of handguns.


IC 35-47-5-8
Machine gun
Sec. 8. A person who owns or possesses a machine gun commits a Class C felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.3; P.L.123-2002, SEC.43.

<A name=IC35-47-5-9>IC 35-47-5-9
Operating loaded machine gun
Sec. 9. A person who operates a loaded machine gun commits a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.4; P.L.123-2002, SEC.44.

<A name=IC35-47-5-10>IC 35-47-5-10
Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns
Sec. 10. The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States, National Guard of Indiana, or Indiana State Guard, when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display, testing, or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing, assembling, conducting research on, or testing machine guns, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles, or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing, or having applied to possess, machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article. (8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.

 

[public servant]

It's *his* gun he's wanting someone with a LTCH to take along to the range for him. Once he picks up *his* gun, he's carrying it.

 

[beararms1776]

It's *his* gun he's wanting someone with a LTCH to take along to the range for him. Once he picks up *his* gun, he's carrying it.

If it belonged to someone else and he was just shooting it...I'd see it differently.

So a licensed person can not transport his gun?

 

[public servant]

So a licensed person can not transport his gun?

Yes...they can. But it's still *his* gun. He'll be the one [STRIKE]in possession of[/STRIKE] carrying it at the range.

 

[public servant]

pos·ses·sion

–noun
1. the act or fact of possessing.

2. the state of being possessed.

3. ownership.

4. Law . actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

pos·ses·sion

–noun
1. the act or fact of possessing.

2. the state of being possessed.

3. ownership.

4. Law . actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.

Except that the prohibition is not against possession, it's against carrying. If the legislature had meant possession the law would saw possession. Instead, it says carry.

 

[groovatron]

Except that the prohibition is not against possession, it's against carrying. If the legislature had meant possession the law would saw possession. Instead, it says carry.

Exaclty.....hence the term LTCarryH. The guy would still be in "possession" at his house wouldn't he? That's not illegal.

 

[rimfire_crazed]

Seriously - this needs to be in "required reading" when signing up for INGO. Make reading and comprehending the statute a requirement that must be verified before allowing a user to sign up.

You are not a lawyer. The police officer who may or may not cite you is not a lawyer. Jim Bob Gunshop Owner is not a lawyer no matter what they say. The only people who are lawyers are LAWYERS AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS. You never know what side of the issue the prosecutor will fall until it happens. Why cause yourself all the trouble. Pay the "fee" or "unconstitutional poll tax" or "lease your rights back from the gubbamint" and GET THE STUPID LICENSE.

We have it too good in Indiana - compared to the rest of the nation, handgun licensing is downright lax. There is no registration, and we can carry how we see fit. The only catch is that we have to cough up the money for the license - and given that the cost of the license is less than half of an "entry level" handgun - we can afford it. All of the griping about changing the laws has the potential to become REALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. We're all kicking a hornets nest. See what kind of anti-gunners come out of the woodwork with competing legislation trying to FURTHER RESTRICT YOUR RIGHTS. It will not be pretty.

 

[public servant]

Except that the prohibition is not against possession, it's against carrying. If the legislature had meant possession the law would saw possession. Instead, it says carry.

You are correct. I probably should have stuck with "carry". I, in no way, meant to imply it was illegal for him to possess a handgun without a license. I intended to stress that it is still *his* handgun. Sorry for not being more clear.

However the exceptions to carrying it without the LTCH are spelled of clearly:

IC 35-47-2-2
Excepted persons
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this chapter does not apply to:
(1) marshals;
(2) sheriffs;
(3) the commissioner of the department of correction or persons authorized by him in writing to carry firearms;
(4) judicial officers;
(5) law enforcement officers;
(6) members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves while they are on duty;
(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;
(8) employees of the United States duly authorized to carry handguns;
(9) employees of express companies when engaged in company business;
(10) any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms or the agent or representative of any such person having in his possession, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of that business; or
(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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

It says nothing of being loaded and being outside the "secure wrapper" if it's outside one's dwelling or fixed place of business. Now you can twist those however you'd like. But they remain pretty clear...IMO, of course.