User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:43:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Holy shit, is that common sense I see?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:44:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Good ruling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:44:14 PM EDT
[#3]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:45:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Seems reasonable logic to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:50:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Score one for the Good Guys!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:50:47 PM EDT
[#6]
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:52:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Seems reasonable logic to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:53:48 PM EDT
[#8]
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason.
I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:57:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Thought the INSC already handled this in a previous case?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:57:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason. I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car. I'm pretty certain that the "small bag of marijuana" was not a plant by the officer in order to issue a ticket for possession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:08:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason. I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car. I'm pretty certain that the "small bag of marijuana" was not a plant by the officer in order to issue a ticket for possession. After all an officer with such obvious repect for the 4th ammendment would obviously be far too upstanding to plant drugs during an illegal search. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:11:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Holy shit, is that common sense I see? You would be shocked how many cops feel like they can search you or your car solely because you have a CHP or are open-carrying. I currently have two clients whose weapons were confiscated by police officers during a routine traffic stop where the officers had zero evidence that the person was presently dangerous. One guy was cuffed for 40 minutes while the cops desperately tried to find something to arrest him for, merely because he had a CHP and refused to discuss whether he had a gun in the car –– and this was after he had gotten his summons for expired tags. The other guy was lawfully open-carrying and was stopped for "shit dangling from rearview mirror." Neither one had any outstanding warrants or BOLOs. The cops just got a case of My Badge Makes My Balls Bigger Than Yours and pushed the issue. And, with that, in before _____________________ says "BUT I NEED TO GO HOME SAFE AT THE END OF MY SHIFT!!!!11!!" When you've seen dashcam videos that clearly indicate the cop is engaging in "YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE LEGALLY CARRYING A GUN IS MAKING ME NERVOUS! STOP MAKING ME NERVOUS, SIR!! OK, THAT'S IT, I AM CUFFING YOU FOR YOUR SAFETY" in a jurisdiction that does not require you to inform officers whether you are armed, then you tend to get tired of the crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:12:47 PM EDT
[#13]
HE SMOKES THE DEVILS WEEDS!!!1!
BURN HIM |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:13:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Indiana is an awesome state for laws.
They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement. Indiana rocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:17:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Indiana is an awesome state for laws. They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement. Indiana rocks. Virginia's pretty good too, although you cannot be under the influence while carrying and cannot concealed-carry in a bar (which is just a restaurant serving alcohol for consumption on the premises). But for some reason, there are a lot of police officers who believe "peasants with guns is bad"  Not all of them, but enough to make you wonder where they get this stuff from.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:25:25 PM EDT
[#16]
I agree with the court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:26:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:27:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Good ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:59:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I agree with the court. we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement. But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form: 
Bama-Shooter: Good shoot. Bama-Shooter 000001: +1 Bama-Shooter 000002: +1 Bama-Shooter 000003: +1 Bama-Shooter 000004: +1 Bama-Shooter 000005: +1 Bama-Shooter 000006: +1 Bama-Shooter 000007: +1 Bama-Shooter 000008: +1 Bama-Shooter 000009: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000010: +87 Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000012: IBTL! Bama-Shooter 0000013: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000014: +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2010 2:24:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with the court. we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement. But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form:
Bama-Shooter: Good shoot. Bama-Shooter 000001: +1 Bama-Shooter 000002: +1 Bama-Shooter 000003: +1 Bama-Shooter 000004: +1 Bama-Shooter 000005: +1 Bama-Shooter 000006: +1 Bama-Shooter 000007: +1 Bama-Shooter 000008: +1 Bama-Shooter 000009: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000010: +87 Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000012: IBTL! Bama-Shooter 0000013: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000014: +1 From basic academy to refresher academy, iirc 14 years of doing this job and I can't count how much advance training, I have zero hours of training in dealing with CCW holders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:11:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:16:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with the court. we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement. But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form:
Bama-Shooter: Good shoot. Bama-Shooter 000001: +1 Bama-Shooter 000002: +1 Bama-Shooter 000003: +1 Bama-Shooter 000004: +1 Bama-Shooter 000005: +1 Bama-Shooter 000006: +1 Bama-Shooter 000007: +1 Bama-Shooter 000008: +1 Bama-Shooter 000009: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000010: +87 Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000012: IBTL! Bama-Shooter 0000013: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000014: +1 From basic academy to refresher academy, iirc 14 years of doing this job and I can't count how much advance training, I have zero hours of training in dealing with CCW holders. Is part of training a mandate to throw common sense out the window? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:21:33 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. I think what he means is that the appeal to INSC is inevitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:24:35 AM EDT
[#24]
I had a cop search my car because I had a CHL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:28:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. I would have to read all the court documents but it's pretty well established you can't just cuff and search a person based only on a CCW permit. An officer has to be able to articulate why he did it, not that he just wanted to do it. This does not mean for the duration of a stop an officer cannot seperate a CCW holder from his weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:29:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Sounds good.....but What do I know?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:30:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with the court. we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement. But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form:
Bama-Shooter: Good shoot. Bama-Shooter 000001: +1 Bama-Shooter 000002: +1 Bama-Shooter 000003: +1 Bama-Shooter 000004: +1 Bama-Shooter 000005: +1 Bama-Shooter 000006: +1 Bama-Shooter 000007: +1 Bama-Shooter 000008: +1 Bama-Shooter 000009: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000010: +87 Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000012: IBTL! Bama-Shooter 0000013: +1 Bama-Shooter 0000014: +1 From basic academy to refresher academy, iirc 14 years of doing this job and I can't count how much advance training, I have zero hours of training in dealing with CCW holders. Is part of training a mandate to throw common sense out the window? I would say during training so much is taught about disarming people during stops it's not covered. And I can see how an officer not trained in such areas can make an error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:43:17 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Holy shit, is that common sense I see? You would be shocked how many cops feel like they can search you or your car solely because you have a CHP or are open-carrying. I currently have two clients whose weapons were confiscated by police officers during a routine traffic stop where the officers had zero evidence that the person was presently dangerous. One guy was cuffed for 40 minutes while the cops desperately tried to find something to arrest him for, merely because he had a CHP and refused to discuss whether he had a gun in the car –– and this was after he had gotten his summons for expired tags. The other guy was lawfully open-carrying and was stopped for "shit dangling from rearview mirror." Neither one had any outstanding warrants or BOLOs. The cops just got a case of My Badge Makes My Balls Bigger Than Yours and pushed the issue. And, with that, in before _____________________ says "BUT I NEED TO GO HOME SAFE AT THE END OF MY SHIFT!!!!11!!" When you've seen dashcam videos that clearly indicate the cop is engaging in "YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE LEGALLY CARRYING A GUN IS MAKING ME NERVOUS! STOP MAKING ME NERVOUS, SIR!! OK, THAT'S IT, I AM CUFFING YOU FOR YOUR SAFETY" in a jurisdiction that does not require you to inform officers whether you are armed, then you tend to get tired of the crap. +1 Spartacus. I'm prior civilian, and retired military LEO and you're absolutely right. There are alot of cops (not all, but unfortunately too many) out there that have that "I need to make you safe!" attitude. It's also amazing at how many cops are anti-gun. And by that I mean they don't like them at all. The only one they will have is their dept issue weapon and that's it. And if there was a way that they didn't have to carry that gun, they wouldn't. This is a good ruling from Indiana. I hope the ISPD doesn't buck it up further, and that maybe other states will look at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:46:05 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Indiana is an awesome state for laws. They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement. Indiana rocks. I love my state
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 5:49:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. Yeah. I can't see why the lower court can't make it ruling like this. It seems like they are either: 1. hoping that the additional costs involved with an appeal will force a plea bargin or 2. have been told to pass such issues to a higher court 3. liberal/communist or don't know the law |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:12:04 AM EDT
[#31]
I am shocked to learn that a bag of MJ found within proximity to a gun is not an automatic felony...the article does not even mention a charge for the MJ...just the headlight.
Did I read something wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:22:14 AM EDT
[#32]
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed. The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable.
Flame away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:26:45 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I agree with the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:29:44 AM EDT
[#34]
No duty to inform in Indiana.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:32:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. I would have to read all the court documents but it's pretty well established you can't just cuff and search a person based only on a CCW permit. An officer has to be able to articulate why he did it, not that he just wanted to do it. This does not mean for the duration of a stop an officer cannot seperate a CCW holder from his weapon. I've been stopped 3 times in Alabama. Each time I notified the officer that I had a weapon and a permit. Not once did the officer want to take my weapon and only once did the officer actually ask to see my permit. I got to keep my gun on my person. No problems. One officer was a dick but he was a dick when he approached my car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:36:16 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed. The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable. Flame away. Then what you are telling me is that I need to keep my mouth shut when you ask or tell you to MYOB? If I tell you that are you going to assume that I have a weapon and search anyway? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:41:40 AM EDT
[#37]
A great example of the "US vs Them" mentality in law enforcement.
Cuff and stuff is easy. Gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Im surprise this case got so far seems pretty common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:42:37 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: I agree with the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 7:17:17 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed. The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable. Flame away. An officer can disarm during a stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 7:17:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. I would have to read all the court documents but it's pretty well established you can't just cuff and search a person based only on a CCW permit. An officer has to be able to articulate why he did it, not that he just wanted to do it. This does not mean for the duration of a stop an officer cannot seperate a CCW holder from his weapon. I've been stopped 3 times in Alabama. Each time I notified the officer that I had a weapon and a permit. Not once did the officer want to take my weapon and only once did the officer actually ask to see my permit. I got to keep my gun on my person. No problems. One officer was a dick but he was a dick when he approached my car. I've disarmed one CCW holder in the past year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 8:11:36 AM EDT
[#41]
So now all the Indy police will put in all their reports "officer safety" is why I did this and that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 8:42:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
So now all the Indy police will put in all their reports "officer safety" is why I did this and that. It's more than that. Take for example my disarm, guy ran a red light, rental vehicle, firearm laying on the center console in plain view and did not disclose(not required), two people in the vehicle, both acting very nervous and when I pulled them over they seemed to be seat diving. So for the duration of the stop I secured the firearm. I also asked if there were anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:05:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th amendment? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine. Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court? Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air? It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here. Yeah. I can't see why the lower court can't make it ruling like this. It seems like they are either: 1. hoping that the additional costs involved with an appeal will force a plea bargain or 2. have been told to pass such issues to a higher court 3. liberal/communist or don't know the law There is probably no hidden agenda at the lower court. There is simply better talent on the bench the higher you go. Every court down the totem pole is gaining experience that the higher courts have already developed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:07:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed. The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable. Flame away. And what crime would that be in this case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 10:29:47 AM EDT
[#45]
Ask permit holder if he's carrying.
If firearm is in car, ask him to step back between the two cars to discuss the traffic infraction. If firearm is on his person, ask him to secure it in his vehicle, and then step back from the car to discuss the infraction. How hard is it to do the right thing? How do you make the logic jump that "this guy is licensed to carry. he says the gun is in the car. I need to search the car to verify that the weapon he said he has, which he has permission to carry, is actually in the car"  JUST ASK HIM TO STEP AWAY FROM THE MOTHERFUCKING CAR AND BAM, WEAPON IS NOT DANGEROUS! It should also go without saying that the kind of person you should be worried about in a traffic stop is the one that doesn't have a CCW permit, and doesn't tell you they have a weapon on them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:00:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed. The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable. Flame away. We're talking about a taillight out. How many people get arrested and go to jail for a taillight? (taillight only, no other issues or warrants)? The state gives a person the "ok" to carry a concealed firearm, but lets an LEO treat him/her like a suspect. If that's the case, then anyone driving a car that is pulled over should be cuffed too, just because they have a license to operate a vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:17:51 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: After all an officer with such obvious repect for the 4th ammendment would obviously be far too upstanding to plant drugs during an illegal search. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile If that was the case then why wasn't he cited for the possession with the expectation that they could ask for a revocation - even temporaily - of his LCH? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:47:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So now all the Indy police will put in all their reports "officer safety" is why I did this and that. It's more than that. Take for example my disarm, guy ran a red light, rental vehicle, firearm laying on the center console in plain view and did not disclose(not required), two people in the vehicle, both acting very nervous and when I pulled them over they seemed to be seat diving. So for the duration of the stop I secured the firearm. I also asked if there were anymore. So if the stop is the same scenario, except the 2 people are acting normal, respectful, etc and one or both have a CCW do you personally feel you have to secure the weapon. I guess what I'm asking is it a discretion (vibe) thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:52:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Good shoot...I mean ruling
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 1:41:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Indiana is an awesome state for laws. They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement. Indiana rocks. I love my state +1 million |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
