What we know about the state of the permitless carry law going into effect July 1

[BigRed]

For many Indiana conservatives that just means not-democrat. It‘s a way of getting elected when you know your county/district will not vote for a candidate with a D next to his/her name on the ballot.

Indeed.

An ignorant population is more easily coerced.

 

[jamil]

You are being awfully positive X, this thread should be full Doug Carter hate and venom. Even though WE WON!!!!

Okay.

 

[jamil]

BOO!!!! Not booing you Bill, just the image of Dougie and all his histrionic BS.

So is the above change acceptable?

 

[Denny347]

Dear God, they are teaching them all wrong. What a complete Mongolian Charlie Foxtrot.

How so? While we had our own lawyers create a Power Point, it essentially says the same thing.

 

[Pepi]

Never really made my mind up to how I feel about this. I know a lot of people that will be carrying guns that really shouldn't. How do I know that? Because they are forking crazy.

 

[Denny347]

Never really made my mind up to how I feel about this. I know a lot of people that will be carrying guns that really shouldn't. How do I know that? Because they are forking crazy.

Frankly, a prohibited person on a traffic stop should advise the officer they are legally allowed to possess the handgun. The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming that information. Unlike before, where a BMV check as part of the stop would reveal the existence of a LTCH. Unless there is a protective order in place. That will show up on a BMV check and then they are kinda fooked. I am curious since ISP will still maintain the current LTCH database, and I'm sure it will still show up on a BMV check, if a previous LTCH denial is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is a prohibited person and can now be investigated as such? It's a pretty low evidentiary bar.

 

[KLB]

if a previous LTCH denial is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is a prohibited person and can now be investigated as such? It's a pretty low evidentiary bar.

Is it though? Aren't there a lot of reasons they could have been denied that had nothing to do with being a prohibited person?

 

[KG1]

Frankly, a prohibited person on a traffic stop should advise the officer they are legally allowed to possess the handgun. The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming that information. Unlike before, where a BMV check as part of the stop would reveal the existence of a LTCH. Unless there is a protective order in place. That will show up on a BMV check and then they are kinda fooked. I am curious since ISP will still maintain the current LTCH database, and I'm sure it will still show up on a BMV check, if a previous LTCH denial is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is a prohibited person and can now be investigated as such? It's a pretty low evidentiary bar.

Lemme pull a slight Denny here if I may. Pretty sure a prohibited person cannot legally possess a handgun.

 

[Hawkeye]

Lemme pull a slight Denny here if I may. Pretty sure a prohibited person cannot legally possess a handgun.

There you go again. Please stop bringing facts into the discussion!

 

[KellyinAvon]

In about 38 hours and 15 minutes ConC will be the law of the land in the Great State of Indiana. Waiting for the antis to start having the vapors and getting verklempt.

 

[KG1]

In about 38 hours and 15 minutes ConC will be the law of the land in the Great State of Indiana. Waiting for the antis to start having the vapors and getting verklempt.

Better prepare for an influx of panic attacks and hyperventilation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Lemme pull a slight Denny here if I may. Pretty sure a prohibited person cannot legally possess a handgun.

Yes, he is saying that the best course of action would be for them to lie. They can't extend the stop to check if they are lying without cause.

 

[KG1]

Yes, he is saying that the best course of action would be for them to lie. They can't extend the stop to check if they are lying without cause.

I might be inclined to give Denny the benefit of the doubt and he wasn't advising a prohibited person to do that.

Perhaps maybe he should've worded it differently for arguments sake such as "what's to stop a prohibited person from advising an officer that they are legally allowed to possess a handgun?" " The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming that information"

I'm guessing that is the point he was trying to make.

 

[Destro]

An officer COULD make it a regular habit to personally check MyCase themselves for each traffic stop/encounter to check for warrants along with dispatches check, since not all warrants make it into NCIC/IDACS. Such a check is going to show a good chunk of criminal history and and could provide information that they are a prohibited person, and allow further investigation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I might be inclined to give Denny the benefit of the doubt and he wasn't advising a prohibited person to do that.

Perhaps maybe he should've worded it differently for arguments sake such as "what's to stop a prohibited person from advising an officer that they are legally allowed to possess a handgun?" " The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming that information"

I'm guessing that is the point he was trying to make.

I'm not saying he is giving advice to a prohibited person. But I agree that is what point I took his post to make.

An officer COULD make it a regular habit to personally check MyCase themselves for each traffic stop/encounter to check for warrants along with dispatches check, since not all warrants make it into NCIC/IDACS. Such a check is going to show a good chunk of criminal history and and could provide information that they are a prohibited person, and allow further investigation.

Which would extend the traffic stop, which they are not allowed to do.

 

[KG1]

Which would extend the traffic stop, which they are not allowed to do.

Yep. It's like Denny said. The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming whether or not a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Now I am not a LEO but I'm gathering that it is standard procedure to check with dispatch for outstanding warrants in the system but anything outside of that would indeed be an action causing an extended traffic stop for something unrelated to the traffic stop.

The officer can't say to himself "I'm gonna do some digging around through other sources to determine if someone is prohibited from possessing a firearm"

 

[Destro]

Yep. It's like Denny said. The officer is not allowed to extend the traffic stop for the sole purpose of confirming whether or not a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Now I am not a LEO but I'm gathering that it is standard procedure to check with dispatch for outstanding warrants in the system but anything outside of that would indeed be an action causing an extended traffic stop for something unrelated to the traffic stop.

The officer can't say to himself "I'm gonna do some digging around through other sources to determine if someone is prohibited from possessing a firearm"

you can extend the stop for purposes related to the stop.

for example, if an officer wants a K9, they can't extend the stop to wait for the K9.

BUT, if the officer hand types their warnings/tickets into the computer as regular practice, it takes substantially longer to do than simply scanning the barcode on the license and the registration. You can't write all your tickets fast except the ones you call a K9 for.

Checking for warrants yourself, also a covered activity as related to the stop, is going to show criminal history at the same time, it is not a separate and distinct action. If, during you warrant check you develop reasonable suspicion they may be carrying unlawfully, like a prior felony, you can extend it. The officer just needs to make it a regular practice so they can testify that it is that officers standard practice to check for warrants, and how they do it during the stop.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Raise Old Glory and the Gadsden Flag!! Let the celebration begin!!

 

[chipbennett]

The people against it, using bad arguments, are still going to be against it, and use the same bad arguments.

In Marion County, Mears might actually have to do some real, difficult work, bringing solid prosecutions against violent criminals, for the violent crimes they have committed. Here, let me shed a few tears for him...

 

[chipbennett]

State Police preparing troopers for what they can and can't ask with new gun law

Police will still be able to intervene if they have probable cause a crime has occurred.

www.wthr.com

FTA:

"It's very limiting. It's very limiting in what we're going to be able to do," said ISP Superintendent Doug Carter.

Carter told lawmakers he was against the law before they passed it. One of his concerns: Officers won't be able to tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy.

"What I do have issues with is limiting our ability to determine a proper person," Carter said. "That's the biggest issue here because it worked."

It worked? Really?!? Post-Pinner, it worked?!? "Bad guys" were no longer carrying firearms?

And, how is it difficult to tell a good guy from a bad guy? Protip: the bad guy will be the one committing crimes and harming innocent people.

I'd call Carter a clown, but why besmirch clowns?