Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Show ID?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    I posted this question on ingunowners and would like some fresh input.

    If a person is observed openly carrying a firearm by LE does LE have the right to stop the person and demand ID and LTCH?

    In my opinion the mere sight of a person OC'ing does not provide sufficient evidence that a crime is being or about to be committed, allowing LE to stop and question.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    No.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0266_ZS.html

    It's "Lawsuit Time" if a cop acts like it is.

    There is no firearms exception to Terry. They need reasonable suspicion of something.

  3. #3
    Regular Member GLOCKMAN40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Beau wrote:
    I posted this question on ingunowners and would like some fresh input.

    If a person is observed openly carrying a firearm by LE does LE have the right to stop the person and demand ID and LTCH?

    In my opinion the mere sight of a person OC'ing does not provide sufficient evidence that a crime is being or about to be committed, allowing LE to stop and question.
    well if you oc here in Indiana you may be stoped by a leo , just to check you out , i've had it happen to me but it was a good stop , they just want to make sure you have a valid LTCH , and then off you will go, NO SWEAT.
    " A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State,
    The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed ".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    GLOCKMAN40 wrote:
    Beau wrote:
    I posted this question on ingunowners and would like some fresh input.

    If a person is observed openly carrying a firearm by LE does LE have the right to stop the person and demand ID and LTCH?

    In my opinion the mere sight of a person OC'ing does not provide sufficient evidence that a crime is being or about to be committed, allowing LE to stop and question.
    well if you oc here in Indiana you may be stoped by a leo , just to check you out , i've had it happen to me but it was a good stop , they just want to make sure you have a valid LTCH , and then off you will go, NO SWEAT.
    Yes "sweat". It's like being pulled over to "check and see if you have a license". It's illegal for a cop do so in that case. It should also be illegal to simply stop someone because they are acting within the law. It's B.S.

    That said their is a law requiring you to show your LTCH if you are carrying and it's asked.

    So rather than debate the law with a cop who likely has no clue (and most don't, it's not an insult, it's the truth), I'll show my LTCH and ID. Depending on the conditions of the stop, I may or may not file a complaint.

    We should not be harassed for doing something that is legal. "better safe than sorry" is, IMO a pathetic justification for "papers please!" type of police state.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    GLOCKMAN40 wrote:
    Beau wrote:
    I posted this question on ingunowners and would like some fresh input.

    If a person is observed openly carrying a firearm by LE does LE have the right to stop the person and demand ID and LTCH?

    In my opinion the mere sight of a person OC'ing does not provide sufficient evidence that a crime is being or about to be committed, allowing LE to stop and question.
    well if you oc here in Indiana you may be stoped by a leo , just to check you out , i've had it happen to me but it was a good stop , they just want to make sure you have a valid LTCH , and then off you will go, NO SWEAT.
    Yes "sweat". It's like being pulled over to "check and see if you have a license". It's illegal for a cop do so in that case. It should also be illegal to simply stop someone because they are acting within the law. It's B.S.

    That said their is a law requiring you to show your LTCH if you are carrying and it's asked.

    So rather than debate the law with a cop who likely has no clue (and most don't, it's not an insult, it's the truth), I'll show my LTCH and ID. Depending on the conditions of the stop, I may or may not file a complaint.

    We should not be harassed for doing something that is legal. "better safe than sorry" is, IMO a pathetic justification for "papers please!" type of police state.
    Cites, please.

    From the forum rules:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    SNIP ..."better safe than sorry" is, IMO a pathetic justification for "papers please!" type of police state.
    +1
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Prometheus wrote:
    GLOCKMAN40 wrote:
    Beau wrote:
    I posted this question on ingunowners and would like some fresh input.

    If a person is observed openly carrying a firearm by LE does LE have the right to stop the person and demand ID and LTCH?

    In my opinion the mere sight of a person OC'ing does not provide sufficient evidence that a crime is being or about to be committed, allowing LE to stop and question.
    well if you oc here in Indiana you may be stoped by a leo , just to check you out , i've had it happen to me but it was a good stop , they just want to make sure you have a valid LTCH , and then off you will go, NO SWEAT.
    Yes "sweat". It's like being pulled over to "check and see if you have a license". It's illegal for a cop do so in that case. It should also be illegal to simply stop someone because they are acting within the law. It's B.S.

    That said their is a law requiring you to show your LTCH if you are carrying and it's asked.

    So rather than debate the law with a cop who likely has no clue (and most don't, it's not an insult, it's the truth), I'll show my LTCH and ID. Depending on the conditions of the stop, I may or may not file a complaint.

    We should not be harassed for doing something that is legal. "better safe than sorry" is, IMO a pathetic justification for "papers please!" type of police state.
    Cites, please.

    From the forum rules:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    In an attempt to cite to authority (because that particular "law" highlighted in red could affect me), I could find no such statute in the Indiana Code as it is presented online at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/

    In the absence of legislation enabling such a request I have to assume that stopping you to check for a LTCH barring any other suspicion of illegal activity is NOT legal. Although I'm sure they can come up with some excuse that would be difficult to fight (your word vs. theirs).

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    squisher wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Prometheus wrote:
    Yes "sweat". It's like being pulled over to "check and see if you have a license". It's illegal for a cop do so in that case. It should also be illegal to simply stop someone because they are acting within the law. It's B.S.

    That said their is a law requiring you to show your LTCH if you are carrying and it's asked.

    So rather than debate the law with a cop who likely has no clue (and most don't, it's not an insult, it's the truth), I'll show my LTCH and ID. Depending on the conditions of the stop, I may or may not file a complaint.

    We should not be harassed for doing something that is legal. "better safe than sorry" is, IMO a pathetic justification for "papers please!" type of police state.
    Cites, please.

    From the forum rules:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    In an attempt to cite to authority (because that particular "law" highlighted in red could affect me), I could find no such statute in the Indiana Code as it is presented online at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/

    In the absence of legislation enabling such a request I have to assume that stopping you to check for a LTCH barring any other suspicion of illegal activity is NOT legal. Although I'm sure they can come up with some excuse that would be difficult to fight (your word vs. theirs).
    Thanks for the research.

    I take the first item to be an LEO traffic-stopping someonejust to see if they have a driver's license. Iimagineit would be a court decisiondeclaring it unconstitutional, if it were illegal as asserted by the poster.

    Regarding theLTCH, Iwouldfirstcheck the statutehaving to do withthe license--the application, qualifications, etc. If you find it, itwould be helpful to post it or a link to it so others canview itdirectly.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    I was reading the part pertaining to licensure, and couldn't find anything.

    This segment deals with the seizure of your weapon not the display of your license
    http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod...ar47/ch14.html

    This bit contains the procedure for applying for and receiving your LTCH, it also does not mention anything about an officer being able to ask for it w/o RAS (It doesn't even mention when they do have RAS, so there may be something somewhere else that covers it, but I don't have time at work to read the entire book at the moment -- I just focused on the parts that seemed like it would be relevant)
    http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar47/ch2.html

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
    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.
    emphasis added.

    The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.

    I will not say the officer did anything wrong, but I would have handled it differently. I would have still taken the gun from the person, but I probably would not have placed the person in handcuffs. I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid. This comes from the following line of thinking. If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun. If you are carrying in the open then I know you have a gun and you are threat to me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    PIG223 wrote:
    Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
    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.
    emphasis added.

    The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.

    I will not say the officer did anything wrong, but I would have handled it differently. I would have still taken the gun from the person, but I probably would not have placed the person in handcuffs. I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid. This comes from the following line of thinking. If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun. If you are carrying in the open then I know you have a gun and you are threat to me.
    Check the facts on your "first target" opinion, but thanks for reading the code to find out. (Plus, seeing as how this is OPENCARRY.org...I believe that you will find yourself quite alone in the "O/C is stupid" -- not harshin' on ya, just sayin').

    Although, I think there may be a point of contention on whether or not carrying a firearm openly (or concealed, IN doesn't differentiate in the law) -- a legal activity in and of itself -- constitutes a reasonable "suspicion" of illegal activity.

    If there is any other suspicious goings-on, that's another thing altogether.

    Granted, I haven't passed the bar, but think of it as food for thought.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Anderson, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Thanks for pointing out that most of uson this web site are "STUPID"! :what:

    You've convinced me! I will no long OC. Lets shut down this web site, PIG223 has openedour eyes to the truth!

    Could it be that a crime just might not be committed due to someone seeing an open carried weapon????

    Now ifPIG223 can just go out withtheir gift of speech and convince the criminals to turn in their weapons.....................



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Anderson, IN wrote:
    Could it be that a crime just might not be committed due to someone seeing an open carried weapon????

    Now ifPIG223 can just go out withtheir gift of speech and convince the criminals to turn in their weapons.....................

    You know darn well that the bad guy is going to see our gun and shoot us first and then, since they have no more rounds, they are going to take our gun to commit their future crimes with. Haven't you been comprehending what you have been reading?
    I'm sensing a certain length of tongue in that cheek of yours NavyLT...

    :celebrate

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Thanks for the research.

    I take the first item to be an LEO traffic-stopping someonejust to see if they have a driver's license. Iimagineit would be a court decisiondeclaring it unconstitutional, if it were illegal as asserted by the poster.

    Regarding theLTCH, Iwouldfirstcheck the statutehaving to do withthe license--the application, qualifications, etc. If you find it, itwould be helpful to post it or a link to it so others canview itdirectly.
    Correct about the Supreme court ruling a driver cannot be stopped to simply check for a valid D/L. There must be some other justification to the stop. It was in response to roadblocks (actual roadblocks) in MA IIRC many years ago. They struck them down as un Constitutional.

    I defer the second one to references cited since I've been away.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    PIG223 wrote:
    The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.
    You are aware you cannot stop someone simply to see if the have a DL correct?

    The leap from a 2,000 pound weapon (car) to a 2 pound weapon (firearm) is not that great.

    While we haven't seen the USSC and Indiana Supreme Court specifically rule on stopping someone to check on a LTCH, we have seen it on everything from Driver Licenses to curfews.

    Criminals conceal their firearms. When was the last time anyone ever heard of a badguy open carrying a firearm in a holster? I'm sure some idiot has done it on accident, but on purpose?

    BTW if you are a uniformed LEO you are also an idiot for open carrying your firearm. Welcome to the idiot club!

    Without probably cause of a crime, a LEO stopping someone to see their LTCH, let alone disarming them is begging for a complaint at best and possibly alawsuit in this state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •