Indiana Constitutional Carry-Summer Study thread (2017)

[churchmouse]

I'm not entirely sure I want to give any politician new ideas about ways to raise taxes...as opposed to their heads exploding they might start thinking of ways to make it happen.

Fees on editorial content...fees on sites that post editorial content...local and state taxes on people posting editorial content...how may we tax thee? Let me count the ways.

This has already been considered.

 

[T.Lex]

I would counter that the LTCH law has not stopped a single crime (aside from crimes attendant to/created by the LTCH statute itself), and has not prevented a single criminal from possessing a firearm, much less from using said firearm in the commission of a crime.

Ah - right. That's a fine, but fair, parsing of my words.

Indeed, it stops a crime that is either in progress or imminent. An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin. Officer asks if the shotty is his. He admits it is. Dude gets charged with theft and CHWOL.

Now, both were A misdemeanors, so the CHWOL didn't necessarily add anything. But it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS for one thing, and determines that the miscreant is CHWOL. (I'm sure those cases are out there, too; I also know that it happens by talking to officers who've been involved in that situation.)

So, going back to my assertion - it is a narrow tool: the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody or prolong a search) who the officer already has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry, that narrow tool would be removed. At a policy level, that's something that needs to be balanced against the Indiana constitution (which is more direct than the federal one) and "common" sense.

I'm not taking aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry. Rather, I'm simply allowing that they have a small, narrowly focused point.

 

[Thor]

This has already been considered.

That's why Lucas' sham bill worries me. Sure it's to make a point about how silly requiring a permit to exercise a right listed as protected in our Bill of Rights is but I'm sure some might look at that and see reason, money and control. I could imagine a future D administration submitting it with intent.

TEA Party group, sorry your first amendment application is still pending (yes we cashed your check and no you can't have a refund)...BLM/Antifa, right this way gentlemen.

 

[KLB]

Ah - right. That's a fine, but fair, parsing of my words.

Indeed, it stops a crime that is either in progress or imminent. An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin. Officer asks if the shotty is his. He admits it is. Dude gets charged with theft and CHWOL.

Now, both were A misdemeanors, so the CHWOL didn't necessarily add anything. But it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS for one thing, and determines that the miscreant is CHWOL. (I'm sure those cases are out there, too; I also know that it happens by talking to officers who've been involved in that situation.)

So, going back to my assertion - it is a narrow tool: the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody or prolong a search) who the officer already has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry, that narrow tool would be removed. At a policy level, that's something that needs to be balanced against the Indiana constitution (which is more direct than the federal one) and "common" sense.

I'm not taking aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry. Rather, I'm simply allowing that they have a small, narrowly focused point.

Wasn't that settled by Pinner?

 

[T.Lex]

Wasn't that settled by Pinner?

No.

There was no RAS for anything with Pinner (other than, maybe kinda sorta CHWOL). Pinner decided the issue of whether possession of a handgun, without more, was RAS for CHWOL.

Another example would be pulling someone over for a generic moving violation, there's a handgun visible from the window, officer asks if the driver has a permit and the driver admits he does not. Now there's RAS to arrest, limited search of the vehicle to find the drugs and maybe even the dead body in the trunk.

 

[chipbennett]

Ah - right. That's a fine, but fair, parsing of my words.

Indeed, it stops a crime that is either in progress or imminent. An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin. Officer asks if the shotty is his. He admits it is. Dude gets charged with theft and CHWOL.

Now, both were A misdemeanors, so the CHWOL didn't necessarily add anything. But it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS for one thing, and determines that the miscreant is CHWOL. (I'm sure those cases are out there, too; I also know that it happens by talking to officers who've been involved in that situation.)

So, going back to my assertion - it is a narrow tool: the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody or prolong a search) who the officer already has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry, that narrow tool would be removed. At a policy level, that's something that needs to be balanced against the Indiana constitution (which is more direct than the federal one) and "common" sense.

I'm not taking aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry. Rather, I'm simply allowing that they have a small, narrowly focused point.

Doesn't the officer already have RAS that lug nuts are being stolen? Wouldn't that RAS be sufficient to perform an investigatory detention related to the actual crime suspected of being committed? ("Who is your cousin? Does he own this car?" etc.)

 

[T.Lex]

Doesn't the officer already have RAS that lug nuts are being stolen? Wouldn't that RAS be sufficient to perform an investigatory detention related to the actual crime suspected of being committed? ("Who is your cousin? Does he own this car?" etc.)

Yes. But, don't get distracted. The next paragraph was the more important one.

 

[KLB]

No.

There was no RAS for anything with Pinner (other than, maybe kinda sorta CHWOL). Pinner decided the issue of whether possession of a handgun, without more, was RAS for CHWOL.

Another example would be pulling someone over for a generic moving violation, there's a handgun visible from the window, officer asks if the driver has a permit and the driver admits he does not. Now there's RAS to arrest, limited search of the vehicle to find the drugs and maybe even the dead body in the trunk.

Is there any compelling reason to actually answer that question in your scenario?

 

[T.Lex]

Is there any compelling reason to actually answer that question in your scenario?

Like, the driver admitting he doesn't have a permit?

Well, I've never understood it either, but people admit to that stuff. All the time. (Ok, maybe not "all" the time, but WAY more than you think prudent criminals would.)

From the driver's perspective, either he does or he doesn't. If he does, then he affirms that he does, and the next question is, "Can you show it to me" and he does. End of RAS for anything other than the traffic stop.

If he doesn't, he can either say that he does, then the next question about having it becomes problematic. If he says nothing or changes the subject, that'll probably be suspicious itself, and might be enough for a reasonable officer safety issue (particularly in these troubled times).

Mostly, though, people in stressful situations do irrational things. Like admit to crimes.

 

[2A_Tom]

Ah - right. That's a fine, but fair, parsing of my words.

Indeed, it stops a crime that is either in progress or imminent. An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin. Officer asks if the shotty is his. He admits it is. Dude gets charged with theft and CHWOL.

Now, both were A misdemeanors, so the CHWOL didn't necessarily add anything. But it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS for one thing, and determines that the miscreant is CHWOL. (I'm sure those cases are out there, too; I also know that it happens by talking to officers who've been involved in that situation.)

So, going back to my assertion - it is a narrow tool: the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody or prolong a search) who the officer already has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry, that narrow tool would be removed. At a policy level, that's something that needs to be balanced against the Indiana constitution (which is more direct than the federal one) and "common" sense.

I'm not taking aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry. Rather, I'm simply allowing that they have a small, narrowly focused point.

FIXED.
Ah - right. That's a fine.

An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin.

A misdemeanor, it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS

So, the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody) the officer has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry.

I'm not aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes. But, don't get distracted. The next paragraph was the more important one.

So, it sounds like that it's really a very narrow tool, to allow LEO to be lazy.

(Consider the source, though: I also believe that sobriety checkpoints are wholly and unarguably unconstitutional.)

 

[2A_Tom]

No.

There was no RAS for anything with Pinner (other than, maybe kinda sorta CHWOL). Pinner decided the issue of whether possession of a handgun, without more, was RAS for CHWOL.

Another example would be pulling someone over for a generic moving violation, there's a handgun visible from the window, officer asks if the driver has a permit and the driver admits he does not. Now there's RAS to arrest, limited search of the vehicle to find the drugs and maybe even the dead body in the trunk.

But, that WAS decided by Pinner the mere presence of a firearm DOES NOT give RS to ask if he has a License.

 

[2A_Tom]

Like, the driver admitting he doesn't have a permit?

Well, I've never understood it either, but people admit to that stuff. All the time. (Ok, maybe not "all" the time, but WAY more than you think prudent criminals would.)

From the driver's perspective, either he does or he doesn't. If he does, then he affirms that he does, and the next question is, "Can you show it to me" and he does. End of RAS for anything other than the traffic stop.

If he doesn't, he can either say that he does, then the next question about having it becomes problematic. If he says nothing or changes the subject, that'll probably be suspicious itself, and might be enough for a reasonable officer safety issue (particularly in these troubled times).

Mostly, though, people in stressful situations do irrational things. Like admit to crimes.

Man! I tyhought you were a lawyer. THERE IS "NO" RAS.

 

[T.Lex]

FIXED.
Ah - right. That's a fine.

An anecdote. Dude stripping lug nuts off a vehicle in a car lot with a pistol gripped shotgun nearby. Officer rolls up, asks what he's doing. Dude says he's getting lug nuts for his cousin.

A misdemeanor, it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where an officer rolls up, has RAS

So, the ability to arrest someone (and thus take them into custody) the officer has RAS to stop. With constitutional carry.

I'm not aligning myself with the opponents of constitutional carry.

You really lost me, but I appreciate the imitation. I think.

So, it sounds like that it's really a very narrow tool, to allow LEO to be lazy.

My wife and I tend to disagree on when something is "lazy" as opposed to "efficient."

Looking more at the traffic stop scenario, it is more about efficiency than laziness.

(Consider the source, though: I also believe that sobriety checkpoints are wholly and unarguably unconstitutional.)

So, that's a REALLY interesting analog that I almost brought up earlier.

I remember back in the late 80s through about the mid to late 90s, those checkpoints/roadblocks were kinda popular. Until some cases came along that imposed controls on them and agencies decided they weren't worth it. Or were only rarely worth it. That shifted to Operation Pull Over type details.

Had a new tool everyone thought was cool. Courts took it away (with some legislation mixed in, I think).

Taking away this tool ought not be a big deal, philosophically.

 

[T.Lex]

But, that WAS decided by Pinner the mere presence of a firearm DOES NOT give RS to ask if he has a License.

Man! I tyhought you were a lawyer. THERE IS "NO" RAS.

Ah - sorry, now I see what you did.

In the traffic stop scenario there is already RAS for the traffic stop. So the question about the Larry is in-bounds. (Until a some future court case says it is out of bounds.)

The problem in Pinner is that there was no other RAS for anything. That's what was somewhat unique about the case and made it appealing (pardon the pun) to decide the narrow issue of handgun possession as RAS for CHWOL.

 

[2A_Tom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again. Gotta give some participation rep.

So, it sounds like that it's really a very narrow tool, to allow LEO to be lazy.

(Consider the source, though: I also believe that sobriety checkpoints are wholly and unarguably unconstitutional.)

Why yes. Yes you are right on both counts.

 

[2A_Tom]

Ah - sorry, now I see what you did.

In the traffic stop scenario there is already RAS for the traffic stop. So the question about the Larry is in-bounds. (Until a some future court case says it is out of bounds.)

The problem in Pinner is that there was no other RAS for anything. That's what was somewhat unique about the case and made it appealing (pardon the pun) to decide the narrow issue of handgun possession as RAS for CHWOL.

Site the IC.

 

[T.Lex]

Site the IC.

For what? A generic traffic stop? LOL

 

[2A_Tom]

How does a generic traffic stop turn into an investigation when the presence of a weapon in and of itself does not give the officer RAS.

If he actually smells weed or sees a suspiceoyd item yes, but the Indiana has declared that the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute ras.

If the 10-29 comes back positive that changes things.

ETA quote from pinner.

“Were the individualsubject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he [exercised his right to bear arms], thesecurity guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed.”

 

[T.Lex]

How does a generic traffic stop turn into an investigation when the presence of a weapon in and of itself does not give the officer RAS.

The officer already has RAS to detain based on the traffic stop. A handgun in plain view allows the question of whether the potential possessor has a Larry.

The officer does not need RAS independent of the RAS he already has. Instead of a handgun, if it were a pack of cigarettes, the officer could ask if the person is over 18.

I feel like we're arguing about something, but I'm really not sure what.

Maybe KF or Fargo or Mark can correct me, but I'm not familiar with any requirement that additional RAS is necessary for limited question/investigation. Imagine if Pinner had been stark naked except for a handgun taped to his forehead. The officer would've been able to detain him on indecent exposure and ask about whether he had a Larry.