...odious...
Sorry, but I have to laugh whenever I see this word.
It reminds me of this guy:
...odious...
That was my point - it isn't in IC, but it is a word. A word people sometimes use to describe MWAGs in the real world.
Post-Pinner, a new angle may open: let's legislative support the ISC opinion. That would be an avenue that wouldn't necessarily need horse-trading. Antis could be thrown under the "no respect for the courts" bus.
As for the public intoxication law, the General Assembly amended the law in 2012 to require more than merely being intoxicated in a public place or place of public resort.
[FONT=&]SECTION 1. IC 7.1-5-1-3, AS AMENDED BY SEA 274-2012, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 3. [/FONT](a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9), if the person:
(1) endangers the person's life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
(b) A person may not initiate or maintain an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer's failure to enforce this section.
(FROM SEA 97, 2012)
Therefore, applying Pinner, I would think there's an argument that merely being intoxicated and in possession of a handgun is not sufficient to allow a Terry stop.
As a matter of enforcement policy, most officers that I worked with wouldn't make an arrest for PI unless the individual was presenting some kind of problem. However,the General Assembly decided to fix that for us.
Wouldn't PI or criminal recklessness with a firearm cover these cases, Hough?
Pointing a Firearm is a different crime, and as I recall, there's a difference as to whether the gun was loaded or unloaded.As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.
Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.
As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.
Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.
As to Criminal Recklessness (MarkC having handled PI), I'm no expert, but I would think that it would require the gun to actually be fired.
Sometimes, it's good to be out in from of things, if you can. Again, responsible gun owners isn't what this is about.
IC 35-42-2-2 Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (b), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (a) is:
(1) a Level 6 felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(2) a Level 5 felony if:(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
Oof, I'm not even comfortable with your last one.So a combination of crim reck and pointing a firearm cover the misuses that actually need addressed, along with the possible addition of attempted battery, for the guy with a hand on his holstered gun during an argument.
But, invariably, it will be responsible gun owners who are impacted by the laws in question.
Oof, I'm not even comfortable with your last one.
That can't be attempted battery unless you think putting a hand on a holstered weapon is a substantial step toward committing battery.
I also don't think crim reck would cover intoxicated weapon possession (although conceptually it would, IMHO).
Among the responsible, carrying community, no. But this provision of the Constitutional Carry bill is not about the responsible carrying community. It's about the fact that people who carry a gun and who get drunk while doing that, often, do not have a license and the "carrying with a license" law can be used to intervene. No need for a license, no basis to intervene with a guy is drunk and carrying, without this provision.
I'm all for Constitutional Carry, but let's not act like it won't result in people who were carrying illegally and doing irresponsible things continuing to carry and people who didn't get a license because of the cost, certainly won't pay for training, but will carry anyway.
And? The right to keep and bear arms extends to every law-abiding citizen, sounds like, much to your disdain.
Podcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.Rep Lucas was on Guy's show this evening. Keep an eye out for the summer study committee info, I'm looking forward to getting lost in the Indiana Government Building again.
The Gun Guy Show | 93.1 WIBCPodcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.
Podcast links? I've been watching - I'll try to keep on this w/ the other page(s) where stuff is shared too.