what are my rights when I'm carrying a firearm?

[MikeDVB]

I'm speaking to individuals WITH a license. We are not guilty of anything just for carrying WITH a license.

Driving a car without a license is illegal and the only reason they don't stop you just to check and make sure you're licensed is because the supreme court has ruled that they cannot.

It's the same deal with the handgun - since it's inherently (according to Indiana law) illegal to have a firearm on you in a public place (i.e. somewhere you do not own or control) unless you're licensed - the officer does have reasonable suspicion to believe you're violating a law and, as such, can stop you to make sure you are not.

I would not hold your breath on the Supreme Court ruling similarly to handgun licenses as they have for automobile licenses.

At the end of the day, if you are stopped, you are guilty until you prove otherwise by presenting the License to Carry Handgun as that is how the law is codified. If you don't like it, well - neither do I. I don't think anybody with a LTCH likes the idea of being stopped just to make sure they're valid, we'd all much rather constitutional carry.

I consider anyone carrying without LTCH to be guilty of a crime, so I think we are on the same page there. I assume that the sentence I highlighted in red was referring to individuals without a license, not those WITH a license.

That is the problem - until the officer knows you are licensed (i.e. you present your license and/or otherwise verify it) then you are unlicensed as far as they know.

I suppose you could always get some double-sided sticky tape and mount a laminated copy of your LTCH to the slide of your firearm to save some trouble?

 

[public servant]

You're going to get him started again.

 

[j706]

You're going to get him started again.

My head hurts

 

[MikeDVB]

My head hurts

Take a nap?

 

[cosermann]

Please don't equate checking a license with keeping people safe. ...

Right, and SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you. [1]

While I appreciate the work our LEOs do, they do not have omnipotence and omnipresence to guarantee one's safety.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[1] - Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jack Burton]

At the end of the day, if you are stopped, you are guilty until you prove otherwise by presenting the License to Carry Handgun as that is how the law is codified. If you don't like it, well - neither do I.

I think the problem in communications is minor here, and easily cleared up. There is a difference between "guilty," "unlicensed" and "charged."

The person is not "guilty" since the law enforcement community does not determine guilt or innocence. They only determine if there is enough factors to make an arrest, or to issue a citation. In this case, a lack of license.

Carrying a handgun certainly falls under "enough factors." That is a given that we agree upon. Having a LTC is a mitigating factor that trumps the "enough factors" and allows you to walk away with (hopefully) no other concerns.

Guilt does not enter into it as that is for the court and legal system to determine at a later day.

 

[jgreiner]

I'm in the process of getting my ltch and I want to be as informed as possible when I do start to carry. I see a lot of videos online showing people being stopped by police just for open carrying a handgun. From what I've read it would seem that the police do not have the right to detain you and keep your gun if they do not suspect you of a crime. is that correct? if they say they are stopping you for just carrying can you request your gun back and leave? I've even seen people refuse you give the police their id and that seemed ok as long the police had to no suspension of a crime. If there is another thread about this please let me know I may have missed it. thanks.

First off, read the Indiana codes that apply to firearms. Then get yourself a copy of this book.

Also, read the threads on it here. INGO is a gold mine of gun related information.

 

[jbombelli]

Driving a car without a license is illegal and the only reason they don't stop you just to check and make sure you're licensed is because the supreme court has ruled that they cannot.

It's the same deal with the handgun - since it's inherently (according to Indiana law) illegal to have a [STRIKE]firearm[/STRIKE] HANDGUN on you in a public place (i.e. somewhere you do not own or control) unless you're licensed - the officer does have reasonable suspicion to believe you're violating a law and, as such, can stop you to make sure you are not.

<redacted>

Fixed it for you. You don't need a license to carry a rifle or shotgun in public. Only a handgun.

 

[KW730]

Also, read the threads on it here. INGO is a gold mine of gun related information.

This is the best advice in the thread. I came here a few months ago knowing nothing about firearms and have learned a significant amount in that short amount of time. It would also be extremely beneficial for you to take a training class on the legal aspects of personal safety. I know a few members here host them quite often.

 

[MikeDVB]

I think the problem in communications is minor here, and easily cleared up. There is a difference between "guilty," "unlicensed" and "charged."

Yes, I think a big part of the issue is how we all view these words and their meanings/context. I may say one of them and mean something differently than you interpret it and vice versa.

I think, ultimately, we're all on the same page but trying to describe it differently.

Fixed it for you. You don't need a license to carry a rifle or shotgun in public. Only a handgun.

True, but the subject does say 'firearm' and we have been discussing handguns so, in the context of this thread and discussion, when 'firearm' is used handgun is implied or intended.

 

[jbombelli]

True, but the subject does say 'firearm' and we have been discussing handguns so, in the context of this thread and discussion, when 'firearm' is used handgun is implied or intended.

Maybe to some.

But I like to be correct in my verbiage. They are not interchangeable terms.

 

[MikeDVB]

Maybe to some.

No, it's an English Language concept called 'context'.

To make a short and simple example, if I were to say "My car got stolen!" and you were to respond "It sucks that your vehicle got stolen," it's understood via context that "vehicle" means "car."

That isn't to say you can't skip context entirely and simply use the appropriate direct noun for the object, in example case 'car', but it's not required.

But I like to be correct in my verbiage. They are not interchangeable terms.

I never said they were interchangeable but the fact is all handguns are firearms while not all firearms are handguns. One can, within the context of the discussion, refer to a handgun as a firearm. [Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions to 'all handguns are firearms,' as that's a general statement and I'm not omniscient there could be a handgun that isn't considered a firearm.]

At the end of the day you're just being picky, and that's fine.

 

[Benny]

I think what they mean is, if a leo asked to see your ltch your breaking the law until you show it to them. If you can't show your ltch your breaking the law, if you can your obeying the law

This ^^^^

This implies that if I forget my wallet at home, but don't forget my EDC, I am breaking the law, doesn't it?

I was under the impression that I am licensed to carry a handgun regardless if I have my LTCH on me or not. I "get" that I have to produce it one way or the other if they ask, but just because I don't have it on me doesn't mean I'm breaking the law, does it?

Personally I am glad to see officers asking to see your LTCH. My taxs pay them to keep my family safe.

Yes, because the overwhelming majority of criminals walk around with their weapons visible.

 

[MikeDVB]

This implies that if I forget my wallet at home, but don't forget my EDC, I am breaking the law, doesn't it?

It used to be that way, but it is not that way any longer. You no longer have to carry/produce the pink slip as they can verify you over the radio/phone.

I was under the impression that I am licensed to carry a handgun regardless if I have my LTCH on me or not. I "get" that I have to produce it one way or the other if they ask, but just because I don't have it on me doesn't mean I'm breaking the law, does it?

It no longer does, no. You don't *have* to have it on you but it sure does make the process simpler/easier/faster for you.

 

[Colts]

I think what they mean is, if a leo asked to see your ltch your breaking the law until you show it to them. If you can't show your ltch your breaking the law, if you can your obeying the law

Bingo - 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.

Seems that if you can show (prove) you are exempt or have a license you are not breaking the law. If you can not show (prove), then you will be suspected of breaking the law.

Simple enough for me.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Yes, there is a sound.

It's just your ego that makes you think that since YOU weren't there to hear it, then there was only silence amongst all that reverberation. You weren't even there to hear the chain-saw, OMG!! Next we'll try to define "one hand clapping!"

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[MikeDVB]

It's just your ego that makes you think that since YOU weren't there to hear it, then there was only silence amongst all that reverberation. You weren't even there to hear the chain-saw, OMG!! Next we'll try to define "one hand clapping!"

Eh?

 

[jbombelli]

No, it's an English Language concept called 'context'.

To make a short and simple example, if I were to say "My car got stolen!" and you were to respond "It sucks that your vehicle got stolen," it's understood via context that "vehicle" means "car."

That isn't to say you can't skip context entirely and simply use the appropriate direct noun for the object, in example case 'car', but it's not required.

I never said they were interchangeable but the fact is all handguns are firearms while not all firearms are handguns. One can, within the context of the discussion, refer to a handgun as a firearm. [Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions to 'all handguns are firearms,' as that's a general statement and I'm not omniscient there could be a handgun that isn't considered a firearm.]

At the end of the day you're just being picky, and that's fine.

You don't have to SAY they're interchangeable when you're using them interchangeably.

If you meant handguns, you should have said handguns, not some other thing.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

 

[MikeDVB]

You don't have to SAY they're interchangeable when you're using them interchangeably.

If you meant handguns, you should have said handguns, not some other thing.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Arguing with a brick wall is also the best kind of arguing.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Ask your creator, don't ask a forum of lesser men.