Indiana open carry???


jbmt2005

New member
My license says LICENSE TO CARRY A HANDGUN. Can I carry it open or do I have to conceal it? Its a 4 year personal protection license. Thanks for taking your time to read this.
 

Per the State of Indiana Link Removed:

Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed or exposed?
Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit.

By my reading (I am not a lawyer, for full confirmation, contact a lawyer local to Indiana that deals with firearms issues, etc, etc, etc,) this means you can open or concealed carry.
 

Hammerhead

Outta my mind, back soon.
Indiana is indeed an OC state, with an issued LTCH. The law does not say how you may carry, only that you can when issued your LTCH. You can tape it to your forehead if you'd like.

I OC 95% of the time. I've only been asked once by a LEO to cover up and when I told them I didn't feel the urge, they dropped the issue.

Carry on.

(You really should have opted for the lifetime. I'd recommend doing so in three years.)
 

Sig1911

New member
Interesting that you have to have a license to carry a handgun for personal protection in Indiana. No particular offense intended towards Indiana or its citizens, but why did any American ever agree to such nonsense?
 

RJ_Whitlock

M&P 9mm
Interesting that you have to have a license to carry a handgun for personal protection in Indiana. No particular offense intended towards Indiana or its citizens, but why did any American ever agree to such nonsense?

You have to have one here as well in Minnesota, I don't really see the big deal with it. Take the class, shoot well, get your permit, and your good to go.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Interesting that you have to have a license to carry a handgun for personal protection in Indiana. No particular offense intended towards Indiana or its citizens, but why did any American ever agree to such nonsense?

You have to have one here as well in Minnesota, I don't really see the big deal with it. Take the class, shoot well, get your permit, and your good to go.

Did RJ_Whitlock answer your question, Sig1911? Because Americans believe the lies that politicians tell them... "This is not infringement.... this is just reasonable regulation." Just ask the government, they will tell you that's what it is.
 

Sig1911

New member
No, Navy, RJ did not. I understand where he is coming from on this, and I am a huge proponent of training as a matter of common sense, but ever since AZ adopted constitutional carry, it has made me wonder why all states do not have it. When you step back for a moment and think about it, what right does the state have to determine whether you may defend yourself? It's nuts.
 

RJ_Whitlock

M&P 9mm
No, Navy, RJ did not. I understand where he is coming from on this, and I am a huge proponent of training as a matter of common sense, but ever since AZ adopted constitutional carry, it has made me wonder why all states do not have it. When you step back for a moment and think about it, what right does the state have to determine whether you may defend yourself? It's nuts.

It's so the wrong people don't end up with a gun, I find this reasonable. The state has the right to determine whether you can actually and intelligently defend yourself. I'm 21 and I did nothing that most kids my age are doing which will not allow them to defend themselves because they think a DWI or dealing drugs is cooler.

I stayed away from that life and those people so I could make sure I had the chance to be able to carry, if I have to have a permit to do so, so be it. Doesn't bother me any, I don't care if people or the Sheriff's department know I carry.

If it was a problem they would've denied my app, which they didn't, every chance I get I'm on the range training and shooting. To me a permit to carry is just like a driver's license, if you don't pass you don't get it. Seems fair to me.
 

jbmt2005

New member
thanks

Thank u everyone for replying back to me. I called the police department and they said yes I can open carry. Wonder why they don't say that it can be OC tho in the paper work I received.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
It's so the wrong people don't end up with a gun, I find this reasonable. The state has the right to determine whether you can actually and intelligently defend yourself. I'm 21 and I did nothing that most kids my age are doing which will not allow them to defend themselves because they think a DWI or dealing drugs is cooler.

I stayed away from that life and those people so I could make sure I had the chance to be able to carry, if I have to have a permit to do so, so be it. Doesn't bother me any, I don't care if people or the Sheriff's department know I carry.

If it was a problem they would've denied my app, which they didn't, every chance I get I'm on the range training and shooting. To me a permit to carry is just like a driver's license, if you don't pass you don't get it. Seems fair to me.

You mean like New York did when they started this whole "reasonable regulation" B.S.? Do you even know the roots behind pistol permits? In 1911 Big Tim Sullivan pushed through the nation's first pistol permit system. Why? Because he was a mob boss and all his mobster "constituates" were complaining that the immigrant would-be victims were shooting at them when they attempted to commit criminal acts against them. In order to solve the "problem", mob boss Tim Sullivan introduced New York's pistol permit system which is still in existence today. It gave New York state the authority to "reasonably regulate" who could carry a pistol or not. Problem solved. The criminals were already using guns to commit illegal acts, so the new law had no effect on them. What it did was increase the revenue that Big Tim received from his mobster coharts because they could be more effective in their criminal activities because Big Tim now could keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns to protect themselves with.

Gun control only results in the disarming of the law abiding citizen. It does nothing to disarm the criminal. You say it's to keep people from having guns who should not have them. I say, where exactly is the problem in states like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and the other states where open carry is allowed with no permit required? There isn't one, in reality. All gun control and "reasonable regulation" does is cause people like you to feel warm and fuzzy inside that your government is somehow protecting you by keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

And I didn't even mention all the pistol/carry permit laws designed to disarm minorities in the '20s through the '60s.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Thank u everyone for replying back to me. I called the police department and they said yes I can open carry. Wonder why they don't say that it can be OC tho in the paper work I received.

Bacause allowing law abiding citizens to be armed creates problems for politicians on several levels. 1. The politician must maintain the image that the government is protecting and serving the citizen. By allowing the citizen to defend themselves, it erodes the image that the government is protecting them. 2. Some citizens are against other citizens carrying guns. If the politician makes it so that the citizen must conceal their gun, then more problem are solved. Some citizen's are happy because they get to carry their guns, even though they must obtain a permit to do so and hide it (in states like Oklahoma, Texas and Florida for example). The other is happy because of the out-of-sight out-of-mind mentality and because they know that only those citizens who obey the law and whom the state has checked out for them are carrying guns - RJ_Whitlock, for example.

That's why politicians don't like to tell you that you can openly exercise your privilige the state has afforded you to carry your gun, they would much rather that you hide it.

Police generally want you to hide your gun as well, to reduce the number of calls they get about that scary man carrying a gun while walking with his dog in his neighborhood, or playing with his kids in the park. So it benefits them to not tell you you can carry open. The only person who loses is Joe Citizen who has jumped through the hoops to get their permission from the government to carry their gun and they may not know all the options they have.

You have to realize there is only one person who benefits from Joe Citizen being armed - that person is Joe Citizen. Although I suppose you could make the argument that the more citizens in a certain area that are armed, the safer that area becomes as a whole because the criminals are likely to move on to an easier location.
 

RJ_Whitlock

M&P 9mm
You mean like New York did when they started this whole "reasonable regulation" B.S.? Do you even know the roots behind pistol permits? In 1911 Big Tim Sullivan pushed through the nation's first pistol permit system. Why? Because he was a mob boss and all his mobster "constituates" were complaining that the immigrant would-be victims were shooting at them when they attempted to commit criminal acts against them. In order to solve the "problem", mob boss Tim Sullivan introduced New York's pistol permit system which is still in existence today. It gave New York state the authority to "reasonably regulate" who could carry a pistol or not. Problem solved. The criminals were already using guns to commit illegal acts, so the new law had no effect on them. What it did was increase the revenue that Big Tim received from his mobster coharts because they could be more effective in their criminal activities because Big Tim now could keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns to protect themselves with.

Gun control only results in the disarming of the law abiding citizen. It does nothing to disarm the criminal. You say it's to keep people from having guns who should not have them. I say, where exactly is the problem in states like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and the other states where open carry is allowed with no permit required? There isn't one, in reality. All gun control and "reasonable regulation" does is cause people like you to feel warm and fuzzy inside that your government is somehow protecting you by keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

And I didn't even mention all the pistol/carry permit laws designed to disarm minorities in the '20s through the '60s.

There a specific reason for calling me out? Just because I have different views on firearms don't mean ****. I joined this site to get in contact with other people about what firearms are good for carrying and what have you and give feedback when I think it might be helpful.

I never said no one can own a gun, and I never said take guns away from law abiding citizens. The point is everybody is here to socialize with other gun owners, not start **** cause you have different views. At the end of the day, if you are OC'ing or CC'ing your took up the right to defend yourself.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
There a specific reason for calling me out? Just because I have different views on firearms don't mean ****. I joined this site to get in contact with other people about what firearms are good for carrying and what have you and give feedback when I think it might be helpful.

I never said no one can own a gun, and I never said take guns away from law abiding citizens. The point is everybody is here to socialize with other gun owners, not start **** cause you have different views. At the end of the day, if you are OC'ing or CC'ing your took up the right to defend yourself.

Sounds to me like you want to be the only one to be able to express your opinion...

Would you like a tissue? :cray:
 

G50AE

Active member
There a specific reason for calling me out? Just because I have different views on firearms don't mean ****. I joined this site to get in contact with other people about what firearms are good for carrying and what have you and give feedback when I think it might be helpful.

I never said no one can own a gun, and I never said take guns away from law abiding citizens. The point is everybody is here to socialize with other gun owners, not start **** cause you have different views. At the end of the day, if you are OC'ing or CC'ing your took up the right to defend yourself.

What exactly is a ****? or are you just trying to get an inapropriate word past the language filter in violation of forum rules? Inquiring minds want to know.
 

40 compact

New member
big suit coming ,man was asked to leave a zoo here in the state while doing open carry,zoo official and police office asked him to cover it,he refused and was asked to leave.now he has deceided to sue ,he also is challenging not being able to carry in federal building or court house.to me going concealed would be alot less hassle.i hate to see these things come up.draws too much negative att.
 

golddigger14s

SFC At Fort Lewis, WA
I'm kind of torn on this issue. We are required to get trained, tested, and licensed on an automobile. I've scene/met people that shouldn't be driving or handling a weapon. I'm all about 2A rights, but I don't have a problem with a requirement for at least a basic (free) class. Maybe something like the ATV class, I was paid a $100 to take a one day class. I also think the permit/license should be good in all 50 state like my drivers license.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
I'm kind of torn on this issue. We are required to get trained, tested, and licensed on an automobile. I've scene/met people that shouldn't be driving or handling a weapon. I'm all about 2A rights, but I don't have a problem with a requirement for at least a basic (free) class. Maybe something like the ATV class, I was paid a $100 to take a one day class. I also think the permit/license should be good in all 50 state like my drivers license.

Here's the problem with government mandated training. How many politicians are anti-automobile? What kind of outcry would there be if they priced a driver's license out of the range that average Joe Schmoe could afford, or caused the training/exam to be so extensive that only a minority could pass? Now, compare that with the number of anti-gun politicians. How much outcry would there be if there was high fees associated with training and licensing. And, in some states it can cost $200 or $300 for training + permit. Where is the outcry for that? Drowned by the celebratory exclamations of the anti-gun crowd, that's where. If the government is allowed to "reasonably regulate" carrying a firearm, they will "reasonably regulate" the right out of existence - look at New York, California and New Jersey.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
big suit coming ,man was asked to leave a zoo here in the state while doing open carry,zoo official and police office asked him to cover it,he refused and was asked to leave.now he has deceided to sue ,he also is challenging not being able to carry in federal building or court house.to me going concealed would be alot less hassle.i hate to see these things come up.draws too much negative att.

How is this negative attention? Sounds pretty positive to me!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,386
Messages
622,994
Members
74,205
Latest member
daniel00004
Top