Officers just disarmed me in Subway, lectured and took my DL.

[actaeon277]

This is exactly why I do not OC. I do not need to make a point to anyone and definitely do not want to invite LEO to a discussion on my rights. They will win any such arguments in the end. Been there....done that....will not do it again.

That's your choice. But you should still be prepared. CC is not Invisible Carry. I've seen CCers get "outed", and be totally unprepared.

 

[Marine1]

Its still your responsablity to have your carry permit on you at all times.this is also why i carry concealed. officers where alittle rude but with in the law.

 

[actaeon277]

It's not your responsability.
It makes it easier.
But it is not required.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This is exactly why I do not OC. I do not need to make a point to anyone and definitely do not want to invite LEO to a discussion on my rights. They will win any such arguments in the end. Been there....done that....will not do it again.

Actually if you are correct about your rights, YOU will win in the end. It is just a matter of how far you are willing to go.

I don't judge you for choosing to CC only but don't think that your decision applies to the rest of us.

As another has said almost no carry is 100% invisible, I was outed once carrying my 3" 1911 in an IWB holster and security was called. It sucked.

 

[ThoughtPolice]

Only if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being commited.

Not true, a law enforcement officer can request to see the identification of any individual.

Also if someone in the store complained about a man carrying a gun, a reasonable officer should verify the legality of that man carrying a firearm.

 

[Ted]

Actually if you are correct about your rights, YOU will win in the end. It is just a matter of how far you are willing to go.......

Ever hear or read the phrase, "You can beat the wrap, but not the ride."?

One can still be exonerated of criminal charges in the end, but the costs associated with a defense aren't generally reimbursed.

 

[long coat]

Not true, a law enforcement officer can request to see the identification of any individual.

They can ask you to dance to, but you dont have to. You only have to give ID (by law) if you have broken an ordnance or infraction.

 

[Signal23]

Seems to me that the guys that look to push the limits with the LEO's are the one's that screw up (repeatedly).
And they are the same guys that make it tough for the guys that don't want to push the limits.
This isn't about doing the minimum that is required. It's about being a good or great example for the rest of the gun community. STOP TRYING TO FIND THE EDGE of what you can do, DO your best.
Carry you permit, keep it up to date, have a license, valid, on you is that REALLY HARD??

 

[infiremedic07]

Correct me if I am wrong here...
It is illegal in the state of Indiana to carry a handgun. Unless you have a licence to carry handgun. erego.. the Police have the right to ask you to provide your licence upon request. If you do..then the discussion is over. If not then they have the right to ask for your ID because you are in their eyes currently not legal. However they can look up your licence and see that you are allowed to carry and move along on. As I understand the IC until you provide the licence you can be charged. Once you submit your LTCH all charges must be cleared and expunged.
So why would you not carry your pink card with you.
Also the police in this matter asked for your LTCH which you did not have and then you show them an invalid DL. Regardless of it being the BMV screw up or not you provided them with in their minds an invalid ID.
I don't agree with their attitude towards the OP but I do think it is foolish to beg for trouble.
You are not allowed to drive without your DL on your person. You can be charged with driving with out a Licence until you provide your licence. Why on earth would it be any different for your LTCH. (I believe in constitutional carry but that is not the law here)

I'm just saying!

 

[jmattox50]

Just what he said!!!

 

[Beau]

Not true, a law enforcement officer can request to see the identification of any individual.

Also if someone in the store complained about a man carrying a gun, a reasonable officer should verify the legality of that man carrying a firearm.

They can request all kinds of things but there is no requirement to show ID unless you have committed and infraction.

Luckily I live in a state where OC is legal without a permit. I may be moving back to Indy in the next year or so and I am not looking forward to going back to having to be licensed to carry.

 

[actaeon277]

Seems to me that the guys that look to push the limits with the LEO's are the one's that screw up (repeatedly).
And they are the same guys that make it tough for the guys that don't want to push the limits.
This isn't about doing the minimum that is required. It's about being a good or great example for the rest of the gun community. STOP TRYING TO FIND THE EDGE of what you can do, DO your best.
Carry you permit, keep it up to date, have a license, valid, on you is that REALLY HARD??

It's legal. Or it's not. Seems pretty simple. What part don't you get.
Police enforce the law of society, not their own law.
Sometimes it is said, there are so many laws, and they change all the time, police can't keep up.
Ignorance of the law is NOT AN EXCUSE for the citizen, therefore, not the police.
If they can't know every law, then they should damn well know the law they are enforcing.

It is legal to OC.
You do not NEED your LTCH on you, though it may benefit you to have it.
You are required to IDENTIFY yourself.

It is not PUSHING the boundries.
It is FOLLOWING THE LAW.
If the laws are too many and too difficult, then maybe we should eliminate some of them, and make them simpler.

Carry as your gun and LTCH as you see fit. Its none of my business.
That works BOTH ways

 

[CathyInBlue]

Correct me if I am wrong here...

I'm your huckleberry.

It is illegal in the state of Indiana to carry a handgun. Unless you have a licence to carry handgun. erego..

Ho! Ho! Hold up there just one moment, Clutch Cargo. Being licensed under IC 35-47-2 is not the only exception to having a firearm on or about your person being a crime. There's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip, and I think you just spilled enough on the floor to trip yourself up pretty hard.

IC 35-47-2-1(b): [...]a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.

So, some of the other exception are:

Being a law enforcement officer.

Being military personnel on active duty.

Being on your own property, land or buildings.

Being on the property of another who has given you permission to carry.

Having the handgun in a vehicle unloaded, in a secure container, and not readily accessible.

While at a firing range.

the Police have the right to ask you to provide your licence upon request.

Once the police recognize that any of those criteria are met, all questioning about a license or need thereof should cease... unless they're just too ignorant of the law to wear a badge.

If you do..then the discussion is over. If not then they have the right to ask for your ID

*sound of screeching brakes*

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

What you are talking about is a stop for a misdemeanor or a felony (carrying a handgun without license (or exception)). Until the officer can make out an infraction or ordinance violation, he has no authority under law to demand proof of identity, and even then, you don't have to give them your DL, just name, rank, and seria-- uh, address and DOB.

because you are in their eyes currently not legal. However they can look up your licence and see that you are allowed to carry and move along on. As I understand the IC until you provide the licence you can be charged.

Lots of things are illegal in the eyes of a lot of cops, but nothing is illegal but the lawmakers make it so. If it's not a law, they can't enforce it.

You can also make out any of those above exceptions and you're also good to go, but there's also a lot of ways to "provide the [handgun] licence." Since the General Assembly in all their wisdom removed the possession requirement, any means whereby a LEO can come into the possession of the knowledge of a valid LTCH is sufficient for the purposes of the statute. And since the LTCH DB has been integrated with IDACS, any LEO with a cruiser and/or a radio can look up your particulars and see it right there on their screen. If you give them your N-A-DOB, that, in and of itself, is sufficient to satisfy the valid LTCH requirement. I've gone one further and have memorized my LTCH license number. He'd have to call it in to confirm it anyway, might as well just give him the one piece of info he actually needs to satisfy his prurient little curiosity.

[...]You are not allowed to drive without your DL on your person. You can be charged with driving with out a Licence until you provide your licence. Why on earth would it be any different for your LTCH.

Because, that's how the General Assembly wrote that those two licenses should operate. A plumbing license doesn't mean you can fix a bridge and an engineering license doesn't mean you can install my gas line. Say it with me now, "Different licenses are different."

(I believe in constitutional carry but that is not the law here)

I'm just saying!

Give us time. It's coming.

 

[long coat]

It is legal to OC.
You do not NEED your LTCH on you, though it may benefit you to have it.
You are not required to IDENTIFY yourself unless stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation

FIFU

 

[actaeon277]

FIFU

I stand corrected.


CathyIB
Nice dissertation. You should paste that somewhere so you don't have to retype it. (Of course you probably already did).

 

[infiremedic07]

Cathy-
So where does carrying a handgun in subway fall in the list of places that it is legal to carry in. As far as I can tell it does not fall under those guidelines unless the person has a licence. Therefore it is not lawful to have the gun.

IC 35-47-2-1(b): [...]a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.

 

[stephen87]

Cathy-
So where does carrying a handgun in subway fall in the list of places that it is legal to carry in. As far as I can tell it does not fall under those guidelines unless the person has a licence. Therefore it is not lawful to have the gun.

IC 35-47-2-1(b): [...]a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.

Incorrect. It is not unlawful to carry a handgun into Subway. It is unlawful to carry a handgun into Subway while not being licensed or any of the other exemptions provided. If I were to be unlicensed and go into Subway carrying, I could be charged for it. Since I am licensed, I can go into Subway anytime the store is opened while carrying and the police could do nothing about that.

 

[infiremedic07]

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter.The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

I can see that you are not required to carry it. I thinks this provision is there to protect you much in the same way that the law concerning drivers licences is. That you can be in trouble for not having it but once you prove that you are legal then the discussion ends.

 

[infiremedic07]

Incorrect. It is not unlawful to carry a handgun into Subway. It is unlawful to carry a handgun into Subway while not being licensed or any of the other exemptions provided. If I were to be unlicensed and go into Subway carrying, I could be charged for it. Since I am licensed, I can go into Subway anytime the store is opened while carrying and the police could do nothing about that.

That is what I am saying. That carrying a handgun anywhere other than the above listed places without a licence was illegal. UNLESS you have a licence. Therefore it is not wrong for a LEO to ask you to present a LTCH. At which point the discussion ends. When you dont have your pink card then they can ask you for your ID because they now suspect that you are carrying illegally. They run your licence and find that you are legal and good to go. Unless of course your licence is suspended. {Your fault or not} then it is no longer a valid licence.

 

[stephen87]

My bad, I read your original post wrong. I thought it said that it was illegal to carry into Subway.

You are correct though, without the license it is illegal to carry. If you have the license, but left it at home, the provision allows all charges to be dropped due to you being legal.