When I applied for my LTCH...

[Sanguine Samurai]

... OK ATM. You talked me into it. I live in Huntington (it was the city P.D. not the county sheriff's dept.). The funny thing is he handed me a copy of the IC pertaining to firearms as he told me that. I was ignorant, at the time, to the fact OC was legal, so I didn't really feel threatened. It wasn't until after the fact I read what he gave me. Didn't find anything about CC or OC, and went searching for the truth and found INGO. So for that atleast.

 

[AFA1CY]

OK.... Lets see here..... From the Huntinhton PD web site.....

Color added

Date of Record: February 23, 2009

Legal Issues​

An Indiana License to carry a handgun can be either "Qualified", or "Unlimited". A qualified license is issued for hunting and target practice, and is called a Hunting & Target permit. An Unlimited license is issued for the purpose of the protection of life and property, and is called a Personal Protection permit.
Both of these permits are essentially the same in that they allow the licensee to carry a handgun on his person or in a vehicle. The difference is in when the handgun can be carried. A Hunting &Target permit only allows the licensee to carry the handgun while going to or returning from hunting or target shooting activities. The Personal Protection permit allows you to carry the handgun on a 24 hour basis, 7 days a week.
The holder of either of these licenses may carry the handgun loaded or unloaded. The handgun may be carried on the person concealed. and in the permit holders vehicle. However, common sense must prevail in these situations We would strongly recommend that you carry the handgun in a manner that conceals it from casual view. The sight of a handgun can cause people to panic in certain situations. This could result in a dangerous confrontation with police, and subsequent revocation of your permit.
If the handgun is to be carried on the person, it should be carried in a holster that is designed for the specific model of handgun in use that can be concealed by the clothing being worn. If carried in a motor vehicle, it should be kept somewhere secure, so that it remains out of sight.
You also need to know that there are certain situations where you may not carry a handgun, and man" more where you should not. It is a violation of Indiana law to be on school property with any firearm unless you are a law enforcement officer or security person hired by the school. (It would be permissible to transport someone to or from school while having a handgun in your vehicle. provided you had a valid Personal Protection permit. You may have a problem if you had only a Hunting & Target permit). Any property owner has the right to deny anyone access, and this could certainly be the case for persons carrying handguns. You should therefore, be aware that you may be in violation of laws when entering certain businesses. You should also keep in mind that carrying a handgun can, at times, be more of a liability than an asset. For example, you may want to think twice about carrying your handgun in situations where you may become intoxicated. Lastly keep in mind that your permit is issued by the State of Indiana. It will be honored in some states, but not in most. If you are traveling out-of-state, make sure you check with the jurisdictions you will enter or leave the handgun at home.
The laws for the State of Indiana pertaining to handguns and licenses to carry can be found in the Indiana Code. A copy of the code can be found in any public library in Indiana. These laws will be found in IC 35~47-2. which is Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 47, Chapter 2.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Sounds like there's something in the water down in Huntington.

I was thinking about buying a house in Huntington, not now. I OC in Fort Wayne all the time, except well when leaving my apartment and never had any problems. I was asked for my LTCH in KT Guns by a New Haven cop once, but that was it. I OC on my motorcycle all the time.

I think this guy who lives in Huntington needs to contact ISP, Mr. Daniels and The Indiana Attorney General about this.

State Attorney Generals get done, they got me back 600 dollars + interest that was scammed from me by some shoppers rewards when I got a credit card from a website because it saved me 30% on a multi thousand dollar purchase, but I got scammed.

But seriously this guy who told you this needs to be put in his place by ISP and IAG

 

[Sanguine Samurai]

Sorry I inadvertantly changed your mind about moving to Huntington. Excluding the whole current OC situation, it is a decent, relatively safe place to live IMHO.

With all due respect AFA1CY: The excerpt you gave still outlines the opinion of the HCPD and not the law outlined in IC 35-47-2 referanced at the end of said exerpt. What exactly constitutes a "certain situation" anyway? Carring my firearm while minding my own business?

 

[ATM]

I think AFA1CY is just highlighting their written opinions for us.

Makes it even easier to challenge, which I plan to do. I'll try to contact them in the next few days.

I'm sure Huntington is nice. This just needs corrected.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
In response to Bill of Rights: This crap economy has hit me pretty hard as of late. Bills, bills, bills and no over time, so money is scarce. As soon as I can find the funds I will defenately ask the advice of a lawer.
...

Oh man, do I hear you here! There's always too much month left at the end of the money! Check around for lawyers anyway; some might take it on a contingency basis or you might even find one that would do it pro bono. If nothing else, contact Bryan Ciyou, Esq. I think he's in Indy. If you contact him, do so with the point made clearly, up front, that while you'd like him to do the job, you understand that he likely cannot with the payment arrangement you would have to make, but rather you're contacting him to get a recommendation, if he has one, of an attorney that would do a good job and work on contingency. (I don't mean to talk down to you, but on the off chance you don't know, "contingency" means that they take their fee as a portion of whatever the case wins in damages.)

Good luck!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

I had a phone conversation with the Huntington PD Asst. Chief today. After I convinced him I was just an average Indiana citizen initiating a dialogue (and he wasn't being recorded ) we had a very reasonable chat.

In a nutshell:

I brought up the reported strong bias for concealment bordering on legal misinformation which matches the language found on their website. He assured me that he knew the ISP are soley responsible for issue and revocation of LTCH. Claimed he didn't write the website info and that the applicant must have gotten the wrong impression about what would happen after a warning.

His primary claim is that OC is not at all common in that area, that he's personally never seen it in 30+ years of LE, he would advise against it, would expect a bank teller to hit the alarm if an open carrier ever entered, etc. but that he would research further to verify if it was acceptable.

I had countered that it is common for license holders to practice this right elsewhere in the state, that Indiana law is silent on the method of carry issue, OC in banks is no cause for alarm when people do it in other cities,

...and that activists are frequently drawn to visit such areas and to draft more formal complaints when local issues go unresolved.

I followed up (after he accepted my offer to do so) with an email containing some links and quotes for his inquiry into the subject (including among others, IN code, ISP references and, of course, INGO. )
I also requested a response with the department's conclusion.

I made no effort to change his personal opinion but very much directed the conversation and follow up email with the first department value listed on their website in mind:

"The consistent and equitable enforcement of the law."


I hope the informal route is well met and will produce results.

Will update after the standard popcorn wait...

 

[finity]

I had a phone conversation with the Huntington PD Asst. Chief today.

Reps for taking the initiative to get this resolved.

Hopefully some good will come of your efforts.

 

[Vince49]

I had a phone conversation with the Huntington PD Asst. Chief today.

Thanks! Great job!

 

[IndySSD]

I had a phone conversation with the Huntington PD Asst. Chief today. After I convinced him I was just an average Indiana citizen initiating a dialogue (and he wasn't being recorded ) we had a very reasonable chat.

In a nutshell:

I brought up the reported strong bias for concealment bordering on legal misinformation which matches the language found on their website. He assured me that he knew the ISP are soley responsible for issue and revocation of LTCH. Claimed he didn't write the website info and that the applicant must have gotten the wrong impression about what would happen after a warning.

His primary claim is that OC is not at all common in that area, that he's personally never seen it in 30+ years of LE, he would advise against it, would expect a bank teller to hit the alarm if an open carrier ever entered, etc. but that he would research further to verify if it was acceptable.

I had countered that it is common for license holders to practice this right elsewhere in the state, that Indiana law is silent on the method of carry issue, OC in banks is no cause for alarm when people do it in other cities,

...and that activists are frequently drawn to visit such areas and to draft more formal complaints when local issues go unresolved.

I followed up (after he accepted my offer to do so) with an email containing some links and quotes for his inquiry into the subject (including among others, IN code, ISP references and, of course, INGO. )
I also requested a response with the department's conclusion.

I made no effort to change his personal opinion but very much directed the conversation and follow up email with the first department value listed on their website in mind:

"The consistent and equitable enforcement of the law."


I hope the informal route is well met and will produce results.

Will update after the standard popcorn wait...

Outstanding.... good show sir, GOOD SHOW INDEED!!

+rep inc after my allotment resets (apparently I went hog-rep cookie-wild in the AAR Box O Truth thread yesterday afternoon and my cookie reserves have not yet been refilled)

 

[lawrra]

I also live in Huntington. I OC often, and have never had an issue with any HPD officers or sheriff deputies. I have heard stories of misinformation or these so called warnings. I lived outside of the city when I applied for my LTCH so I went through the sheriff's department. I was out the door with my completed application and fingerprints within a half hour. No interview. No BS. Just sign here, initial here, send all of this here. I am aware that some officers seem to have their own agenda, but I have yet to meet them.

 

[Sanguine Samurai]

Hello neighbor, It is interesting to here the point of view of someone who went throught the Sheriff's Dpt.. If my application went like that I probably wouldn't have worried about it either.

 

[Cemetery-man]

OOps!

 

[ATM]

I called this morning wondering if I was going to get a response but he is on vacation.

Lucky dog. I'll check back in a few days.

 

[Sanguine Samurai]

Yeah, a vacation would be nice. Thanks for the update.

 

[ATM]

email response from Huntington PD

I had requested follow-up and received this email yesterday. (Name changes in blue.)

ATM,
I have talked with the city attorney regarding our conversation and attached is his opinion on the issue at hand. I can tell you we will make the changes he has recommended, but will continue to express our opinions as well. I hope that this will clarify our position and satisfy your concerns as well.

Sincerely,

Asst. Chief of Police
XXX

Attached was a pdf scan of City Attorney's letter which I attempted to convert to text and correct.

Dear XXX:

As a follow-up to our recent conversation I have reviewed the e-mail materials from Mr. ATM and the website materials for the City Police Department, specifically the “legal issues” portion of the “Handgun Regulations” section of that website.

As I understand the situation, Mr. ATM has expressed concern about whether or not the City Police Department accurately expresses, in that website, the law with respect to “concealed” or “open” carrying of a permitted handgun.

First of all, clearly the state law on this subject does not impose either a blanket prohibition on “open carry” or a total requirement of “concealed carry". While there may be strongly stated preferences for open carry on the one hand and demonstrable public policy and safety issues favoring a concealed carry on the other hand, the fact is that the law in Indiana makes no such distinction: a permit issued under Indiana law is a permit to carry, without designation of where or how the weapon is to be carried.

Precisely because there is no legal requirement or pronouncement on the subject I would suggest that both the Huntington City Police Department (and most of the law enforcement agencies which take a similar position) and Mr. ATM have a right (indeed both may consider it a duty or responsibility) to express views related to the subject. Certainly, just as Mr. ATM is privileged to express his view that ” open carry” is somehow his preference (and an allowable one) the Police Department is entitled to express its preference as well. What the Police Department may not do under these circumstances is to require a particular method of carry.

After review of the “Legal Issues" portion of your website I would suggest that, for purposes of clarification, the following language changes might be appropriate (but not required):

A. With respect to the third (unnumbered) paragraph it might appropriately be revised to read as follows (added language is indicated):

"The holder of either of these licenses may carry the handgun loaded or unloaded. The handgun may be carried on the person concealed or unconcealed and in the permit holder’s vehicle. However, common sense must prevail in all situations. We would strongly recommend that you carry the handgun in a manner that conceals it from casual view. The sight of a handgun can cause people to panic in certain situations. This could result in a dangerous confrontation with police, and subsequent revocation of your permit."

B. With respect to the fourth (unnumbered) paragraph it might appropriately be revised to read as follows (stricken language is indicated):

"If the handgun is to be carried on the person, it should be carried in a holster that is
designed for the specific model of handgun in use [strike]that can be concealed by the clothing being worn[/strike]. If carried in a motor vehicle, it should be kept somewhere secure, so that it remains out of sight.”

C. I would suggest that the first word in the second line of the fifth (unnumbered)
paragraph be changed from “man” to “many”. This is apparently only a typographical error and does not address any of the issues now being discussed.

With these clarifications I see no reason from a legal perspective why the Department would have any need to take further action with respect to its policy or preferences. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

YYY
HuntingtonCity Attorney

A step in the right direction. I could ask for more but this was handled adequately and I am happy for a bit of progress.

The legality should be clear now and I hope any future opinions on the matter no longer come across as interpretations of the law.

 

[lawrra]

Nice work I feel that this,

This could result in a dangerous confrontation with police, and subsequent revocation of your permit.

, is still a bit forward and would only occur due to the ignorance of the officers on scene.

 

[Sanguine Samurai]

WOW ATM I was starting to think they blew you off. Reading your last post just made my day . I say it is a LEAP in the right direction. Thanks a million. Looks like I have an excuse to buy an OWB holster now. Rep for you sir! (when I am able to that is)