Going Armed In Terror Of The Public

[E5RANGER375]

Ordinary statutory construction would cause the statute to be read so that a violation of sub 1,2, or 3 by itself is adequate. If there was an "and" at the end of sub 1, then it would read how you are interpreting it.

Per sub 1, mere possession by a non exempt person outside your home is a B Misdemeanor.

Since there is an 'or' there instead of an 'and' there is no requirement that anything mentioned in sub 3 be done to violate the statute.

Best,

Joe

will you put that in laymans terms so i dont have to go kidnap a lawyer to interpret it for me

 

[Fargo]

on the scaner issue. how owuld anyone be able to prove you werent involved in news gathering information?? that sentence is listed by itself, so it means you dont have to be affiliated with a liberal news paper. news gathering can be for your personal use. just have you a notebook with a pen attached to it via 550 cord and your good to go. im not gonna let it keep me from having a handheld scanner in my car if i wanted to (which i dont. not that it matters) , but im also not gonna have 10 retarded antenas hanging off my car either, lol.

Not really. The big "and" (I blew it up for ease of location) down below means that you have to meet all 3 requirements of sub 8. You have to be a newsgatherer AND you have to be employed by a qualified newspaper AND you have to have furnished your name to the chief of a LE agency in your employers county.

(8) a person:
(A) who is regularly engaged in newsgathering activities;
(B) who is employed by a newspaper qualified to receive legal advertisements under IC 5-3-1, a wire service, or a licensed commercial or public radio or television station; and
(C) whose name is furnished by his employer to the chief executive officer of a law enforcement agency in the county in which the employer's principal office is located;

I also don't know of an exception for transport between home/business.

Best,

Joe

 

[Fargo]

will you put that in laymans terms so i dont have to go kidnap a lawyer to interpret it for me

LOL, I'll try:

IC 35-44-3-12
Unlawful use of a police radio; exemptions; "police radio" defined
Sec. 12. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) possesses a police radio;
(2) transmits over a frequency assigned for police emergency purposes; or
(3) possesses or uses a police radio:
(A) while committing a crime;
(B) to further the commission of a crime; or
(C) to avoid detection by a law enforcement agency;
commits unlawful use of a police radio, a Class B misdemeanor.

If you do the thing listed in red, all by itself, you have broken the law.

If you do the think in purple all by itself, it is against the law

If you do the thing in blue all by itself, it is against the law.

These 3 things have nothing to do with each other. They are completely separate ways you can break the law if you knowingly or intentionally do them and are not an exempt person.

The reason they don't have anything to do with each other is because of the big green "or".

Best,

Joe

 

[E5RANGER375]

Not really. The big "and" (I blew it up for ease of location) down below means that you have to meet all 3 requirements of sub 8. You have to be a newsgatherer AND you have to be employed by a qualified newspaper AND you have to have furnished your name to the chief of a LE agency in your employers county.




Best,

Joe

Im talking about letter "A" theres no "and" in it

 

[INGunGuy]

LOL, I'll try:

IC 35-44-3-12
Unlawful use of a police radio; exemptions; "police radio" defined
Sec. 12. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) possesses a police radio;
(2) transmits over a frequency assigned for police emergency purposes; or
(3) possesses or uses a police radio:
(A) while committing a crime;
(B) to further the commission of a crime; or
(C) to avoid detection by a law enforcement agency;
commits unlawful use of a police radio, a Class B misdemeanor.

If you do the thing listed in red, all by itself, you have broken the law.

If you do the think in purple all by itself, it is against the law

If you do the thing in blue all by itself, it is against the law.

These 3 things have nothing to do with each other. They are completely separate ways you can break the law if you knowingly or intentionally do them and are not an exempt person.

The reason they don't have anything to do with each other is because of the big green "or".

Best,

Joe

Joe,

By way of your explanation, BY JUST POSSESSING a police radio you would be in violation of IC 35-44-3-12

I understand how you are attempting to explain the IC, but when I look at the way it is written, you have the ":" after 1,2,3 and before A,B,C so for a regular joe-blow this would mean that you MUST do A,B or C to be in violation of the statute.

INGunGuy

 

[Roadie]

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An Ohio sheriff has suspended the concealed weapons permit of a man carrying a gun who was arrested in North Carolina after allegedly telling authorities he wanted to see the president.


Coshocton County Sheriff Tim Rogers said Tuesday he sent a notice of suspension to Joseph Sean McVey, informing him he was suspending McVey's concealed-carry handgun license.

Rogers cited McVey's arrest Sunday on a misdemeanor charge of going armed in terror of the public.

A sheriff's office report from January released to The Associated Press indicates McVey had a permit to carry a .40-caliber handgun.

McVey, whose mother lives in Asheville, N.C., was arrested at that city's airport after Obama's plane left. He is being held under a $100,000 secured bond.

So, the Sheriff yanked his permit for the "Going Armed in Terror blah blah" charge, even though that charge was dropped to just Public Nuisance.??

 

[Bubba]

Wait... being guilty of lawfully carrying a handgun is cause to revoke one's permit to carry a handgun? Ohio sucks.

 

[E5RANGER375]

just a way for barney to get in the news by yanking it

 

[Fargo]

Joe,

By way of your explanation, BY JUST POSSESSING a police radio you would be in violation of IC 35-44-3-12

I understand how you are attempting to explain the IC, but when I look at the way it is written, you have the ":" after 1,2,3 and before A,B,C so for a regular joe-blow this would mean that you MUST do A,B or C to be in violation of the statute.

INGunGuy

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, unless of course you fall into one of the exemptions.

I agree that this, and many other, statutes are very confusing to follow. However, I'm pretty sure I'm reading this one right and I have seen folks arrested for nothing more than possession outside their home.

It is a charge usually used on getaway drivers as well as cop-wannabees who aren't quite to "impersonating a public servant" but are stupid enough to carry a scanner.

You know, a white trade in crown vic with a computer mounted inside and cuffs hanging from the rearview driven by someone whose rap sheet won't let them get the LEO job they so desire...

Best,

Joe

 

[LawDog76]

I

Can I get a cite on that? It is illegal here in Indiana to have a scanner in a car but I have never heard of any federal pre-emption of it.

Thanks,

Joe

The FFC ham radio license getting you around the scanner law is BS. You need the correct License, You need to obtain the tech or tech plus license. A novice radio license does not cover the band which Police and fire are using.