By Wesley Hartman

In the autumn of 2010 I was 19 years old. I worked for Taco Bell. I had no car and I typically rode my bicycle the six or so miles to and from work. I hated it. I hate fast food, and I hate bicycles. They are a pain in the ass, and it was only a matter of speed that kept me riding one. I had to ride through some less-than-savory parts of my town on my route to work. During the day, this was no problem, but since I usually ended my shift late at night, I was uncomfortable making the trip unarmed. I didn’t have an Indiana carry permit, which is required for any form of carry in Indiana. I did, however, have . . .

a black powder revolver, a reproduction of a Colt Model 1851 in .44 caliber. After checking the laws and discovering that even current-production black powder weapons were not considered firearms under Indiana or federal law, I thought that might be a viable option. Not optimal, but acceptable until I got the scratch together to pay for my permit in the Hoosier State.

I would like to preface the following story with the fact that I had never been in trouble with the law prior to the events I will describe, and I have never been in trouble with the law since.

I took the pistol with me on a couple of rides, being very careful to hide it well in my backpack while at work. It was unloaded at this time because I was very slim on funds and wanted to get a feel for it. Yes, I understand that I was very, very stupid. Incredibly stupid. Impossibly stupid. To even think an unloaded firearm of any sort was a good idea was a colossal mistake. I understand that now. It’s not something I’m proud of.

One night in the early days of November, I was riding home with this revolver on my hip underneath my jacket. I was riding in the street because bicycles aren’t permitted on public sidewalks. A siren went off briefly behind me, and red-and-blue lights were flashing all about. My heart rate skyrocketed.

I stepped off the bike as the officer approached. He asked me what I was doing riding in the street. I told him that, as I understood it, bicycles were not permitted on the sidewalk. He told me that it was technically true, but that this late at night it could and would be overlooked. Then I got even stupider.

I believed he was going to search me, so I told him about the revolver on my hip. Yes, I know…STFU. But I didn’t know that then and I figured that if he was going to search me anyway, then I better tell him right up front to avoid any nasty surprises.

His hand went to the butt of his weapon and he instructed me to keep my hands up. He asked me where it was, and I told him, punctuating it by nodding my head towards the revolver. To the officer’s credit, he never drew his weapon as he pulled mine from its holster. His buddy, who pulled up shortly after he’d confiscated the weapon, proceeded to pat me down, and discovered two of my pocket knives, which weren’t really an issue. I was then cuffed and detained as they searched my backpack. One of the officers and I discussed the stupidity of federal gun laws.

A third officer pulled up (must have been a really slow night) and he proceeded to berate me for being a complete idiot for not only carrying a weapon without a permit but for carrying an unloaded weapon without a permit. I made a brief attempt to explain my thought process, that black-powder reproductions weren’t considered firearms as I understood it, but I didn’t push it too hard.

They finished searching my stuff, and they called the owner of the bike that I was riding. I had borrowed it from a friend. To make matters more awkward, the friend in question was the son of our deputy police chief, and the officer who made the initial stop and made the arrest was the brother of one of my English teachers in high school. At that moment, I hated living in a smallish town.

My rights were read, and I was arrested and placed in the back of the cruiser. After the bike was picked up, the arresting officer climbed into the driver’s seat and we started towards the county jail. I asked so many questions of him that he must have been ready to pull his hair out by the time we arrived. The foremost of which was: can I ever own firearms after this? He told me that yes, I probably could because I was only being charged with a Class A Misdemeanor, Carrying a Firearm without a Permit.

This didn’t really put me at ease, honestly. I know now that cops aren’t always legal experts, and I knew it then too. Still, it gave me some hope.

The processing was uneventful.I underwent a second search, and the guard processing me was pleasant enough. I made my one phone call. The officer made it very well known how cooperative I was, and I was placed in a cell with two of their “best” inmates: marijuana arrests. My roommates were actually some very pleasant people, and they were kind to a very frightened 19-year-old who’s worst offense up until this night had been a couple of automotive moving violations.

I was able to post bond the next day and I spent the next few months going to group hearings and meeting with my public defender. He was just about as useful to me as a bicycle would be to a fish. By the time February rolled around, the prosecutor offered me a plea agreement which entailed 20 hours of community service, one year of unsupervised probation (the “Just Don’t Get In Trouble Again” clause), and to “attempt to acquire an Indiana carry permit”.

I agreed to the bargain because it seemed a hell of a lot better than sitting in jail for a year and being fined $5,000. The judge was a very fair man with a stern demeanor and a hook for a hand. During the guilty plea hearing, he actually asked the prosecutor to remove the community service requirement because I had never been in trouble and had just made a mistake. When given the opportunity to speak, I asked if I would ever be able to get a permit to carry, and he told me that he honestly didn’t know, but it was the attempt that counted. They set a “compliance hearing” for two weeks after my guilty plea hearing, and sent me on my way.

I started the process to acquire my permit that same day, and by the week’s end I had completed everything I could. Now it was a matter of waiting to see if I’d actually get one. The date of the compliance hearing rolled around and I’d received no word. I attended with all of my documentation and presented it to the judge. He looked me in the eye, as he did in every other hearing, thanked me, and said “I don’t expect to see you in here again. Don’t prove me wrong.” I assured him I wouldn’t.

When I arrived home from the hearing, my father informed me that I had mail waiting for me, and that he wasn’t sure what it was. Intrigued, I picked up the envelope and carefully tore it open to reveal a brand new Indiana License to Carry a Handgun, valid for my lifetime with no requirement for renewal.

All in all, my experience with the American justice system could have been much, much worse. It also could have been avoided entirely if I hadn’t been such a complete moron when I was 19 years old. It turned out better than expected. Still, I was able to take some very good lessons from this:

1)    Deciding to STFU is a great idea, but if you are arrested, be as cooperative as possible. It will help you in the long run.

2)    If you feel the need to carry, do so legally. With a permit, if your state requires it.

3)    Public Defenders are pretty worthless, so it helps to have a bullet-proof case for your innocence.

4)    People who have done nothing worse than smoke weed are preferred cellmates.

In case anyone is curious, I can still buy firearms. There isn’t even a delay when they run my background check. It has, however, been difficult in some cases to get a job because of the misdemeanor. Many employers wouldn’t give me a second look when they got to that part of my application. Finally, don’t trust the legal fact that “black-powder antiques or firing reproductions” are exempt from firearms legislation. In my experience, they’re not when it counts.

222 Responses to Why a Judge Ordered Me to Get an Indiana Carry Permit

  1. “Public Defenders are pretty worthless, so it helps to have a bullet-proof case for your innocence.”

    I’ve known many fine public defenders.

    But also known many that were not so good.

    Being a public defender is not the deep-end of the profit making pool in lawyer-land.

    Know the law yourself, always best way to stay out of trouble in the first place.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    • Neither is being a prosecutor,(at the deep end of the money pool I mean) but I guess that isn’t much comfort

    • Would it be possible for a good lawyer to get Dan’s charge dismissed? If black-power weapons are exempt, would the carrying charge be improper?

      • It was my charge, not Dan’s. He was just kind enough to post the article I sent. A new law in Indiana would allow me to get it expunged.

      • Yes, a competent lawyer WELL-VERSED in firearms law could have gotten the charge dropped from the get go (and an honest prosecutor would never have charged it out). A pre-1898 blackpowder replica is not a “firearm. no matter what it looks like. The statute only forbids carrying a firearm, not cap guns or pre-1898 replicas.

        • If riding a bike in the street isn’t illegal, and he wasn’t otherwise acting suspiciously, then I’m unclear on the probable cause and why the entire stop itself wasn’t illegal and any evidence it yielded ruled inadmissible.

        • It isn’t that clearcut. Such weapons are not firearms under the standard definition in California either. You can cash and carry a Ruger Old Army, mail order them, etc.

          But it is illegal to carry them where it would be illegal to carry a modern firearm.

          You have to look at the individual laws in context, especially parts that go “for purposes of this section, X means abc” It can vary. So I can cash and carry black powder, heck I can have a black powdered gun loaded in the car to and from a hunting trip, for example. But I cannot walk town Main street with it.

          I don’t know the law in Indiana well enough to say. But it might be similar.

          As far as the search goes, perfectly legal, as he volunteered the info without being asked. The cop was probably thinking of just telling him to move to the sidewalk for safety purposes.

        • Black powder weapons and other outdated arms are considered firearms under some statutes, and not under others. I know someone who was found guilty of “Reckless Discharge of a Firearm” after she fired a “warning shot” with a bow and arrow! (Not the brightest idea on her part…)

        • IAAL and everyone else. Under Indiana law black powder firearms are firearms. Black powder firearms (firearms that do not use a fixed cartridge or are made before 1899) are exempt from the requirement to have a LTCH though.

  2. Black powder guns ARE exempt from firearms legislation, the fact that your lawyer stank doesn’t make it not true. The OCT guys are always purposely getting arrested for carrying them, but I assume they have good lawyers.

    • Or being a naïve kid with a low risk option, he took it, rather than hoping a jury was capable of interpreting the law properly.

    • While black powder firearms may be exempt from federal regulation, they most certainly are NOT exempt for state regulation. Check your local laws. Although black powder arms are not regulated for the purpose of the state registration laws, they are defined as firearms for the purpose of the California Penal Code that prohibits felons and specified misdemeanants from possessing firearms. I understand that New Jersey’s laws with respect to black w firearms is much stricter than California’s.

      • Oh Mark… you know that almost anything that could possibly be considered a defensive weapon (and so much more) is outlawed in places like California, New Jersey and Washington DC… So, the question isn’t what is or isn’t “legal” there… it’s why anyone still wants to live in those places. At least anyone who still wants to defend themselves.

        • And also live in a state large enough — and far away enough from the state line — that you don’t have to worry about the laws in other jurisdictions. That poor woman from PA who didn’t know NJ was fascist is all the cautionary example one should need on that score.

          It’s nuts–just nucking futs–that you can cross a line on a map and suddenly you are subject to arrest for something that harms no one and was perfectly fine on the first side of that line.

        • FWIW, some of us are stuck. I’m in the People’s Democraic Republic of Mexifornia, living on $930/mon. Soc. Sec, so can’t afford to move and have noplace to go anyway.

    • Just because Black powder are not federally viewed under firearms background checks etc, many states still consider anything that basically goes boom under conceal carry laws and restrictions, that INCLUDES BALL AND CAP PISTOLS.

      • They are exempt in Florida under Florida Statute. However, I wouldn’t want to be the one having to educate flat foots.

  3. “Indian” carry permit? I’d recommend open carry bro. I meet very few that are sober around here. Would you be in trouble for carrying an intoxicated warrior?

    • You can blow a .28 in Pennsylvania and legally carry your gun of choice. Either OC or concealed with your Pennsylvania LTCF.

      One of the things PA got right. Although how, I have no idea.

  4. Man, that sucks that the legal system did not follow its own law in regard to their own definition of black powder firearms not being legally defined firearms.

    Didn’t the judge care about the law at all? Or did you have a mistaken idea of what the law actually meant?

    • Unless someone challenges the interpretation of a particular law, the judge is not going to research it. And although we are all presumed to know the law, the fact of the matter is that it is literally impossible to even read all of them, much less “know” them and properly interpret and apply them. In this case, the judge probably did not even know that it was a black powder revolver since the PD never asserted the exemption–it is doubtful that he had researched the law either. He never saw the evidence, and only saw the charge, which did not specify the pistol that was being carried concealed without a license. The criminal courts are absolutely swamped with hundreds of cases that must be processed every day just to keep the system running, even in smallish towns.

  5. 1) Deciding to STFU is a great idea, but if you are arrested, be as cooperative as possible. It will help you in the long run.

    3) Public Defenders are pretty worthless, so it helps to have a bullet-proof case for your innocence.

    These statements are not good advice.
    If arrested, continue to STFU. Remember that bit about “anything you say can and will be used against you”?
    If arrested, be polite, comply with all commands, but do not cooperate with the people who are trying to send you to prison. I’d rather spend a night in the bad holding cell and then go home, than spend a night in the good holding cell in exchange for inadvertently providing the information that gets me a year in real prison.

    Public defenders might be pretty worthless, but so is innocence in some cases. Don’t assume that you can beat a skilled prosecutor in the eyes of the judge.
    The correct preparation is to have a lawyer on retainer, or have an account with one of the companies that will pay to defend you from gun-related criminal charges.

    • SCOTUS recently found the STFU can be used against you. In order to get the protection of the 5th, you must state you are taking the 5th. I don’t recall if taking the 5th is only applicable once arrested, meaning you can’t take the 5th prior to being arrested.

      Just because I know someone will say BS, you’re just geezing, Gene:

      http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/

      http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/

      • Well, of course.

        Miranda kick in when you’re under arrest. Not before.

        If you’re NOT YET under arrest, no Miranda, and what you say and what you DO NOT say can be used against you.

        Know the law.

        Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • The right is against self incrimination. Anything that would constitute incriminating oneself you have a right not to do. The supreme court gets things wrong all the time.

        • While Miranda rights only apply in custodial interrogations, the 5th Amendment always applies. So be nice and STFU is fair advice.

        • “The supreme court gets things wrong all the time.”

          Sure they do.

          It’s STILL THE LAW. It will still get a muzzle against your head, a jail door slamming shut on your life.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • “While Miranda rights only apply in custodial interrogations, the 5th Amendment always applies. So be nice and STFU is fair advice.”

          Hahahaha! I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer, right? Just guessing.

          Good luck with THAT strategy.

          No credible defensive force trainer today advocates the “be nice and STFU” policy. You’d have to be an idiot to do so.

          Oh, wait. Sorry.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, yes, I am a lawyer (35 years) and my clients are walking around free while yours are doing hard time.

        • “Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, yes, I am a lawyer (35 years) and my clients are walking around free while yours are doing hard time.”

          Right. That’s what a lawyer would say.

          Anybody who has done criminal defense and doesn’t have a client doing hard time has never practiced criminal defense.

          You lying, despicable fraud.

          In what state do you practice, you fake?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • I believe Ralph just p0wned LoSD.

          And to the original poster: from what I gathered reading the details of that atrocious decision, it was fairly specific to the situation. The guy had started talking, but then clammed up without explicitly invoking the right.
          (Ralph, or another pro, can correct me if I’m wrong).

          As for the STFU advice, it’s not literally to STFU, that’s just a clever simplification. The gun defense lawyers I’ve consulted on the subjects say the correct response is something along the lines of: “I choose not to answer that question until I have discussed it with my attorney.”

        • “I believe Ralph just p0wned LoSD.”

          When “Ralph,” the “lawyer” who won’t tell us in what state he practices or what his Bar number is, can explain to the rest of us how he practiced criminal defense for 35 years and NEVER had a client do hard time, I’ll concede to being “p0wned.”

          So, what do you say, “Ralph”? Ready to man up?

          FYI, anybody interested in checking on MY credentials, just type “Andrew” and “Branca” into the indicated fields here: http://massbbo.org/bbolookup.php

          How about YOU, “Ralph”?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • No credible defensive force trainer today advocates the “be nice and STFU” policy. You’d have to be an idiot to do so.

          Why would anyone go to a defensive force trainer for legal advice? You’d have to be an idiot to do so.

        • “Why would anyone go to a defensive force trainer for legal advice? You’d have to be an idiot to do so.”

          I don’t know either. But they do. I guess you’ll have to ask THEM why.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Andrew, I checked out your site:
          Andrew F. Branca, Esq., is the foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states
          That sounds like the kind of self-felating BS I’d expect from someone who’s more interested in the appearance of ability than actual ability.

          If you’re done being childish, why don’t you try constructive contributions, rather than petty antagonism?

        • If you’ve seen my blog you’ve seen HUNDREDS of self-defense law posts, instructional videos, podcasts, statutes, jury instructions, court decisions, all dealing with the lawful use of force in self-defense.

          ALL. FREE.

          If you know some other attorney making a similar contribution to the self-defense community, I’d be pleased to know who they are.

          Sure, I’ll wait.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • “Why would anyone go to a defensive force trainer for legal advice? You’d have to be an idiot to do so.”

          I don’t know either. But they do. I guess you’ll have to ask THEM why.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Well, I suppose if you’re the local gun law “expert”, going outside the legal community for advice would be better. But in areas with less bombastic attorneys, the attorney is probably a better choice.

        • “Well, I suppose if you’re the local gun law “expert” ”

          Who claims to be THAT?

          I claim no particular expertise in “gun law.”

          I guess you’re referring to . . . I don’t know, who ARE you referring to?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • I claim no particular expertise in “gun law.”

          You should probably remove this bit from your website then:
          Andrew F. Branca, Esq., is the foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states
          And if you wish to pedantically argue that your site says “self defense law”, not “gun law”, I’m curious how you can argue a case about self defense, without knowing gun laws, given that the gun is the primary self defense tool in the country. Also there’s the bit about how you teach for Sig, a major firearm manufacturer.

        • “You should probably remove this bit from your website then:
          Andrew F. Branca, Esq., is the foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states”

          If you don’t understand the difference between “gun law” and “self defense law,” I don’t imagine there’s anything at all I could do to help you.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • So then you are going to try to pretend that gun laws aren’t extremely applicable to self defense law…
          I don’t think anyone here is stupid enough to fall for that one.

          But anyone capable of elementary school level reading comprehension would realize that my original use of the term “gun law” was specifically about guns in self defense.
          So either your reading skills barely exceed Dick and Jane (not a good trait for a lawyer) or you’re trying to weasel away from the validity of my original claim (ironically this can be a good trait for a lawyer).

        • “So then you are going to try to pretend that gun laws aren’t extremely applicable to self defense law…”

          Gun law has nothing–ABSOLUTELY NOTHING–to do with self-defense law.

          Find me the self-defense statute that includes an actual gun law, and I’ll concede.

          Or maybe the mysterious “Ralph” can do it for you.

          Sure, I’ll wait. Oofah.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • “So then you are going to try to pretend that gun laws aren’t extremely applicable to self defense law…
          I don’t think anyone here is stupid enough to fall for that one.”

          Show me one state–ONE–that has its self-defense laws and it’s gun laws in even the same statutory chapter.

          Just one.

          I suppose you’re going to claim to be a lawyer, too, huh?

          Sure, I’ll wait.

          Oofah. Nobody is more frantically aggressive than the ignorant called on their ignorance. Sad.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Gun law has nothing–ABSOLUTELY NOTHING–to do with self-defense law.
          Really? So if I pull a gun and wave it at somebody (a gun crime), and then claim I was in fear for my life (a self defense claim), there’s no relationship?
          A good lawyer should be able to see the links.
          Also, I notice that you’re continuing to ignore the fact that when I said “gun law” I meant in relation to self defense. I cleared that up a while ago, I don’t know why you pretend that I was talking about the NFA or some other law.

          Or maybe the mysterious “Ralph” can do it for you.
          Ralph is not a mystery, he’s a respected member of our community.

          Sure, I’ll wait. Oofah.
          Is oofah the sound a douchebag makes when you empty it?

          Show me one state–ONE–that has its self-defense laws and it’s gun laws in even the same statutory chapter.
          Are the gun laws next to the murder ones? Cuz I bet those go together sometimes.

          I suppose you’re going to claim to be a lawyer, too, huh?
          HELL NO! I’m not that masochistic.
          I am, however, beginning to wonder about your claims of being a lawyer, given that you seem unable to understand how two different laws can interact.

          Oofah.
          Again that sound…

          Nobody is more frantically aggressive than the ignorant called on their ignorance. Sad.
          Do I need to point out the hypocrisy pouring off of this statement? If it helps (you do seem a bit slow) only one person here is being aggressive about his knowledge on the subject matter: the guy from “Law of Self Defense”.

        • “Ralph is not a mystery, he’s a respected member of our community.”

          Great. So what’s his real name, where did he practice law, and what is/was his bar number?

          Absent that, he’s just some anonymous dude you follow on this list.

          “Are the gun laws next to the murder ones? Cuz I bet those go together sometimes.”

          No. They’re not. Such ignorance.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Great. So what’s his real name, where did he practice law, and what is/was his bar number?
          Absent that, he’s just some anonymous dude you follow on this list.

          I don’t give a rat’s ass what Ralph’s legal credentials are. A law degree doesn’t imply insight, intelligence, or maturity (case in point: you). I judge Ralph based on the value of his comments here, and on the stories he occasionally posts. And based on that criteria, he’s infinitely more credible than you.

          “Are the gun laws next to the murder ones? Cuz I bet those go together sometimes.”
          No. They’re not. Such ignorance.

          I never claimed to be knowledgeable about the layout of the legal code, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked (really a lawyer should have better deductive skills than you display…). But the point still stands, and is quite valid: gun laws and murder laws sometimes interact.

        • I personally find your attitude repulsive, Andrew. If your intent was to gather interest in your site (spam, as most of us would call it), you’re falling on your face.

        • I don’t know Andrew.

          I don’t know Ralph.

          I know which one I never wish to meet–because he behaves like an ass–and wish would go the hell away, and it’s not the one with the shorter name.

        • Your silence CANNOT be used against you if you assert your fifth amendment privilege not to testify. And Ralph is (or is a retired) a lawyer, a criminal lawyer in fact. I am a lawyer too–and Ralph is exactly correct. You can be interrogated the e long prior to being arrested, and anything you say prior to arrest can and will be used against you. You are not entitled to Miranda warnings until your are arrested. No one is required to cooperate with the police, and it is often if not always counterproductive to do so without the presence of your attorney.

        • “No one is required to cooperate with the police.”

          Maybe.

          But your refusal to do so CAN be used against you in court.

          No real lawyer would claim otherwise.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Yep, a whole new body of case law sez that simply remaining silent revokes your right to remain silent. You have to affirmatively claim your rights in order to not have them overridden by default. I’d say it’s Kafkaesque, but Kafka never could have thought up anything this bizarre.

          On the stop itself, it doesn’t sound like they have PC for ever stopping him, unless of course they stopped him for a headlight violation.
          Wesley, did your borrowed bike even have lights on it?

      • What’s wierd is prior to the event of being arrested, whatever you say (or silence) can be used and you cannot invoke the 5th because arrest has not happened. After arrest, you can invoke it, then silence (with some rules) cannot be used against you. At least I think it’s that way, but IANAL.

        • Not true. You can refuse to answer a question at any time. Getting arrested doesn’t increase your rights.
          Something such as, “Respectfully, I choose not to answer that question/any questions without consulting my attorney,” is a good generic statement to memorize.

        • “Not true. You can refuse to answer a question at any time. Getting arrested doesn’t increase your rights.
          Something such as, “Respectfully, I choose not to answer that question/any questions without consulting my attorney,” is a good generic statement to memorize.”

          What you DON’T say PRIOR to Miranda most certainly CAN be used against you.

          That’s not even contestable criminal defense law.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • So, you’re suggesting that one can invoke the 5th and have it’s protections prior to arrest? And merely stating during an “interview” that you’d prefer not to answer could not be used against you (with or without mentioning Lawyer)?

        • What you DON’T say PRIOR to Miranda most certainly CAN be used against you.

          I’d love to see some specifics on this.
          I would expect that a cop could see my refusal to answer questions before Miranda as evidence of guilt, which might make him pursue me more eagerly. But it seems ludicrous that a prosecutor could tell the jury I refused to talk to the police before my arrest and therefore I must be guilty.

        • “I’d love to see some specifics on this.”

          I don’t work for free, but I’ll work cheap, for the entertainment value. 🙂

          Is it worth lunch? If so, I’ll send you a case next week where silence was used against a defendant.

          What say you?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • “You should probably remove this bit from your website then:
        Andrew F. Branca, Esq., is the foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states”

        If you don’t understand the difference between “gun law” and “self defense law,” I don’t imagine there’s anything at all I could do to help you.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • wait, wait, wait a dam minute now! I am confused about this “new” ruling…and I am sure I am not the only one.
          Mr. Branca, I follow you at your site and at Legal Insurrection, and up until this last “ruling” I was [even as a Military Police] under the impression that stfu was a good thing to do [especially when being arrested, and told may a solider that being quite would be a good thing to do. So if being questioned but “not under arrest” and you can’t claim the 5th what do you say?
          Is “Are we done here, am I free to leave” good enough to end the questioning? Or would that force the officer to detain you, make the arrest or tell you your free to go [at which point unass the AO PDQ]

    • “I’d rather spend a night in the bad holding cell and then go home, than spend a night in the good holding cell in exchange for inadvertently providing the information that gets me a year in real prison.”

      The best advice to “citizens” who are stuck dealing with inquisitive cops (smart criminals already know this, stupid ones never seem to learn it) is to just assume you’re going to jail. Don’t try and explain or minimize or talk your way out of it. Don’t say a damn thing. Assume you’re going to jail and realize that if you’re smart you’ll be out in 48 hours, but if you’re stupid it could be months or years.

      • This is a really good point that I’ve never actually seen stated quite so clearly on this site. Assume you’re going to jail, and know that it’s not the end of the world. People who see an unavoidable trip to jail as the end of their entire world are inclined to do crazy things to avoid it, things that will probably not stop it from happening, and will likely cause them to end up in worse trouble than if they’d rolled with it.

        I have heard, more than once, a cop or lawyer say, “I’ve never seen someone talk their way out of an arrest once the cop decided to do so. I have seen people that were going to ultimately walk away talk their way into an arrest.”

  6. BP pistols is kind of a sticky subject and varies from state to state.

    But as others have said, sometimes whether something is legal or not depends entirely on how good of a lawyer you can afford.

  7. I still don’t get it. Why did the black powder firearm get you in trouble? I have heard of prohibited persons who kept black powder arms because it is not a “gun” under all the regs. Are you certain this was not simply a screwup on the part of the prosecutors?

  8. A blackpowder revolver is not (technically from a legal perspective) a firearm. It is however a weapon. I can’t speak for Indiana, but in my state (Iowa) you are allowed to carry ‘non-firearm dangerous weapons’ openly without a permit but not concealed. ‘Non-firearm dangerous weapons’ include things like long knives, tasers, and I would expect blackpowder revolvers. I don’t imagine the penalties would be any different, but he should have been charged with ‘carrying a concealed dangerous weapon’, not ‘firearm’.

    • Yep,

      Iowa code 702.7 DANGEROUS WEAPON.
      A “dangerous weapon” is any instrument or device designed
      primarily for use in inflicting death or injury upon a human being or
      animal, and which is capable of inflicting death upon a human being
      when used in the manner for which it was designed, except a bow and
      arrow when possessed and used for hunting or any other lawful
      purpose. Additionally, any instrument or device of any sort
      whatsoever which is actually used in such a manner as to indicate
      that the defendant intends to inflict death or serious injury upon
      the other, and which, when so used, is capable of inflicting death
      upon a human being, is a dangerous weapon. Dangerous weapons include
      but are not limited to any offensive weapon, pistol, revolver, or
      other firearm, dagger, razor, stiletto, switchblade knife, knife
      having a blade exceeding five inches in length, or any portable
      device or weapon directing an electric current, impulse, wave, or
      beam that produces a high-voltage pulse designed to immobilize a
      person.

      • With a decent bike it’s no problem. Due to a foot injury making simply standing quite painful, I get most of my exercise on bikes. If you ride a bike with under-inflated tires, they are much, much, harder to pedal making it very unpleasant work. That wisdom didn’t come to me untill in my late 20’s. Letting friends ride my bikes they comment on the relative ease of pedaling.

        You only get that ease by FULLY inflating them before EVERY ride. Standard road bike tires at 120 psi take little effort to keep rolling.

        • Right tires and bike helps too.

          Properly adjusted road/hybrid bike with correctly inflated road slicks = joy!

          Cheapo huffy from walmart with absurdly unnecessary DH-style suspension and underinflated knobbies = torture!

          The latter is what many unfortunately ignorant people ride.

          Oh and shift gears. I get so tired of driving behind people furiously spinning away in high gear going nowhere.

  9. I had a less pleasant experience with a cop in Roseville Minnesota, who, while illegally searching my vehicle found my legally transported Sig 226 and asked my if I wanted a “fucking gun pointed at my face.”

  10. I’m just lucky I didn’t get caught for the stupid stuff I did when I was 19 . . . and 20 . . .and 21 and . . . on and on. Hell I’m still fairly stupid.

  11. I’m perplexed, here…

    …how many “Indian Carry Permit” Jabs will it take to convince Dan Zimmerman to correct this title?

  12. It would’ve been better if they had just checked to see if you had any warrants, chewed you out, and sent you on your way with a warning not to be an idiot in the future.

    Seriously, putting you through all that hassle was a colossal waste of everyone’s time.

  13. It really is silly arresting you for something like this, IMHO.

    When I was a boy, I had a very real looking replica of a percussion pistol. I’m not sure where it came from, but that was back in the days when Grandma and Grandpa went to those rural farm auctions, they’d bring home some very REAL looking toy guns. Perhaps that was the source of it.

    It’s funny because the handle WAS wood. The metal work was some kind of cheap pot metal, but the trigger actually actuated the hammer. Lol

    Anyway, my folks thought it was a toy. I remember bringing the damned huge, heavy thing outside and playing with it out in the streets of South St. Louis.

    Would I have thrown that in a back pack and pedaled on in to Taco Bell with it, I too would have likely been arrested.

    These cops probably had nothing better to do than bust your balls about that. But looking back at it, you received your Indiana Carry Permit. Good for your lifetime.

    And that, Sir, is priceless. Thanks for sharing.

  14. To answer some questions:

    Yes, a black powder firearm is not considered a firearm by law. My public defender refused to use that argument. To give some more perspective, I literally used the only money I had to pay the permit fees, and I worked fast food. Couldn’t really afford a lawyer of my own, and had to be provided with one. I took the plea to avoid the risk of a trial.

    By “cooperative”, I don’t mean tell them everything. As it has been stated in the comments, I mean to be polite and passive. It really helped me with the officers and the guards.

    And remember, I already admitted mistakes. Also, if you pick your Indian right, it’s not too heavy. Finding the proper holster is the tricky part.

    Yes Dan, I hate bicycles. No problem with those that ride, but the bicycles themselves. Can’t stand ’em.

    • That’s what I was thinking about the Indian too. If you choose carefully and find one that’s easy to carry along with selecting a comfortable holster, you’ll carry it all the time. Concealment on the other hand is another story.

      Great article by the way.

    • If the conviction is still on your record, and if you are in a position now to afford it, you may want to consult with an attorney about getting it expunged. There’s a lot wrong with your arrest and conviction, and you may have a good chance. Even a misdemeanor can haunt you for life. That’s very strange that the public defender refused to even bring up that black powder guns are not legally considered firearms (although maybe they are in Indiana, I don’t know.)

      • They aren’t firearms in Indiana, but my public defender refused because it was easier on him for me to take the plea, I’m sure. I don’t agree with it, but I do plan on getting it expunged.

        And thank you, jack in the Crack, and everyone else who’s enjoyed the article.

        • Says Ralph, the self-claimed 35-year career criminal defense attorney who has never had a client do hard time.

          You interested in buying a bridge?

          Also, have any interest in knowing how “expunged” expunged records are? Not as much as you might think.

          But I’ll let “Ralph” explain it.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Hey Andrew, you seem a bit new here, so I’ll point out that Ralph is established and respected on this site.
          You might want to tone down the dickishness from an 8 to about a 3.

        • I’m gonna second JasonM’s comment. I can’t recall a single post from Ralph that has presented bad/false information. I am also disinclined to listen to someone who claims to be the Baron of Self Defense Law. If that were true, your reputation would have preceded you and we’d be more inclined to listen to/like you. BUT, it seems your only interest is in trumpeting your correctness while disparaging everybody else’s knowledge and opinions. That being said, please either tone it down or take your oh-so-superior ‘knowledge’ elsewhere.

        • Jason, well said. All of it.

          Andrew, a little healthy banter is cool, but please put away the fire hose.

      • “Hey Andrew, you seem a bit new here, so I’ll point out that Ralph is established and respected on this site.
        You might want to tone down the dickishness from an 8 to about a 3.”

        Look, if you want to believe that “Ralph” the lawyer practiced criminal defense for 35 years and never had a client do hard time, that’s fine with me. Good luck.

        I defy you to find another criminal defense attorney in the country who can honestly make that claim.

        That’s all I’m saying.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • He might be exaggerating that (or he’s an impressive combination of lucky and good), but your response to his original post (and most of the ones since) is completely uncalled for.

          Frequent readers of this site know that Ralph is a regular and trustworthy contributor. But even if he was just some troll, your unprofessional responses will turn off any potential client who reads them.

        • it sure as hell won’t sell more books here Andrew, and yes, I have read your book, and yes, I am an attorney, and for sh!ts and giggles, I am a 4th Generation African-American attorney (all of the men have gone to a top 10 law school since 1902) with a ton of family members who are in criminal defense along with others like myself who practice in the (more lucrative) corporate realm, and even some who serve on the boards of fortune 100 companies. but hey – what do we know? Ralph is well known here and is in MA. I believe he is retired, but either way, having read your book cover to cover on a flight from the West Coast, but now having observed your interactions with Ralph, well, i have concerns about your approach. If you want, fire away. or you can be an adult, give Ralph the benefit of the doubt (TTAG has had him write articles, but I don’t recall any of yours) and well. . . . an apology is in order.

        • You claim to be an attorney in MA. Great. Ralph claims to be an attorney . . . somewhere. Awesome.

          I asked a VERY simple question.

          Ralph claims to have been a criminal defense attorney for 35 years and NEVER had an client do hard time.

          That sounds credible to YOU? Really?

          In my experience, MOST clients of criminal defense attorneys do serious time.

          But I’m open to the counterfactual, counselor. Educate me on these multi-decade criminal defense attorneys who never have a client do hard time. I expect they’d be world famous, but so far they’re only known as “Ralph.”

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • actually Andy, I believe the quote was “my clients are walking free while yours are doing hard time”. As for me, I didn’t say I was in MA. I said Ralph was. I am bar’d in 3 states but not the “great” Northeast. But hey, Counselor, way to get people here (among the most passionate about gun rights) fired up. It ain’t like they will go to Amazon and disparage your book or anything with sh!tty reviews and lower your overall rating, right?

          http://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Andrew-Branca-ebook/dp/B00DXM5DWW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409962959&sr=1-1&keywords=law+of+self+defense

        • “It ain’t like they will go to Amazon and disparage your book or anything with sh!tty reviews and lower your overall rating, right?”

          Oofah. Another anonymous threat. How. Very. Brave. This is the kind of guy the rest of you want to associate yourselves with? None of you own a business that could be vulnerable to an anonymous economic terrorist like “Dirk Diggler”? That’s the kind of person this site allows to run free? Really?

          How sad that you’re reduced to threatening my Amazon ratings on my book, “Dirk”. You mean the >90% 4- and 5-star ratings? The #1 best-seller in the Amazon shooting-sports category rating? Anybody cares to check can look at Amazon for themselves.

          Go ahead, “Dirk Diggler.” Do your worst. I’ve been doing this for 17 years, I expect I’ll be doing it long after you’re done with your pathetic, impotent threats.

          By the way . . . what’s your REAL name, tough guy?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • guess I am not the same guy that is labelled a loon based upon my twitter feeds. I must apologize. I see they taught marketing and client development at Binghamton and Hofstra (snicker). Amazing that the folks who run the show here know me. Well. and my CV. like most other people, I keep my personal and professional life distinct for myriad reasons. but you seem to want to make your mark here. that’s cool. you won’t garner much street cred for doing so. stick around. I got my $$ on Ralph in this pissing contest.

  15. NJ of course considers black powder pistols and rifles firearms (slingshots too go figure). You need an FID to buy a black powder rifle and said FID and a pistol purchase permit to buy a BP revolver or single shot. That said you can cross the Pa state line and buy these sans ID provided you look older than 18.

  16. 20 yrs ago I rode a bicycle from Kennewick Washington to Boise Idaho to quit smoking, by the time i got into Oregon, I was done Smoking.. i got to Boise Idaho 3 weeks later and thru my bike in a dumpster and caught a bus home…I was done with both Bicycles and Cigarettes.

  17. You weren’t really an idiot. You were just trying to navigate the minefield of gun laws based on your situation at the time. Your arrest and prosecution didn’t make Indiana a safer place.

      • Andrew,

        Perhaps Ralph can be a little annoying at times (and it appears that’s he’s really got you upset by they way you are hounding him). That said, you are being down-right rude. If you are hoping to recover some lost clients (or something) think again.
        Sun Tsu teaches that a solid strategy is to provoke your adversary so that his emotions get the best of him and he makes tactical and strategic blunders. Churchill did this to Hitler during the Battle of Britain when he bombed Berlin.
        How do you expect to win cases as a lawyer if you are so easily provoked into childish responses, especially on the internet? You appear to be the kind of Lawyer everyone hates: a proud zealot for his own cause – personal aggrandizement.

        • I’m merely asking “Ralph” to explain how a criminal defense attorney practicing for 35 years can never have a client do hard time.

          That’s HIS claim. Not mine.

          Perhaps he could also identify the state in which he’s licensed to practice law. You know, like any actual lawyer would be more than happy to do. I’m licensed in Massachusetts, for example.

          If any of the above seems “rude,” well, I don’t know what to tell you. “Raplh” in this thread claimed legal expertise and outcomes I find simply not credible. Simple human maturity and transparency would suggest he could be queried on those claims.

          Or is that verboten here? As you say, I’m new.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Andrew,

          The rudeness I was referring to was your hounding and alleging that he’s not a lawyer because he won’t publicly identify himself. Hey, I don’t do that on the web, and I would recommend Ralph not either.

          You still haven’t explained why you are taking this so personally. I guess it was because he contradicted you back there. http://xkcd.com/386/

        • “The rudeness I was referring to was your hounding and alleging that he’s not a lawyer because he won’t publicly identify himself. Hey, I don’t do that on the web, and I would recommend Ralph not either.”

          Lots of people maintain anonymity on the Internet. I get it.

          But if you profess expertise in a licensed trade on the internet, only a fool would take your advice if you maintain anonymity. How in the world could they possibly validate your expertise? What differentiates that “anonymous lawyer” from the guy who picked up your trash last week?

          If you’re comfortable with anonymous internet legal advice, well that’s up to you.

          I’d point out that _I_ do not maintain anonymity. I freely share my name, business address, bar number, EVERYTHING, so that people can fairly judge whether I’m what I claim or just a fraud, and judge my posts accordingly. There are few attorneys, indeed, who are as publicly exposed–by my CHOICE–as I am.

          Lawyers who hide behind pseudonyms and claim to provide legal expertise are contemptible.

          But that’s just me. Free country.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • I’m merely asking “Ralph” to explain how a criminal defense attorney practicing for 35 years can never have a client do hard time.
          No you’re not. If you had merely asked about that claim, that would have been legitimate. But your first statement to Ralph was: Hahahaha! I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer, right? Just guessing. Good luck with THAT strategy.
          You started out being antagonistic, before Ralph said anything about his case history.
          Also, there’s the way you constantly quote his name, implying that he’s some sort of fraud.
          Oh…and the bits where you actually call him a fraud and a liar.

          Perhaps he could also identify the state in which he’s licensed to practice law. You know, like any actual lawyer would be more than happy to do. I’m licensed in Massachusetts, for example.
          I believe Ralph has mentioned the state he practiced in before. He might not be reading this thread any longer. Have you thought of that? Those of you not next to the Pacific Ocean have probably left work for the day.

          If any of the above seems “rude,” well, I don’t know what to tell you. “Raplh” in this thread claimed legal expertise and outcomes I find simply not credible. Simple human maturity and transparency would suggest he could be queried on those claims.
          Again, a query of his likely exaggerated claim would be fine, but that’s not what you did. You seem to forget that the site stores all of your posts, and that with the timestamps, we can determine which of your posts precede which of Ralph’s posts.
          It’s amazing how you non-computer people seem to forget this stuff sometimes.

        • “I’m merely asking “Ralph” to explain how a criminal defense attorney practicing for 35 years can never have a client do hard time.
          No you’re not. If you had merely asked about that claim, that would have been legitimate. But your first statement to Ralph was: Hahahaha! I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer, right? Just guessing. Good luck with THAT strategy.”

          Still, the question remains unanswered.

          There is NO real lawyer on this list–or LEO for that matter–that believes for an INSTANT that a criminal defense attorney practicing for 35 years–or even ONE year–never had a client do hard time.

          It’s like an oncologist claiming none of his patients have ever died. Ridiculous on its face.

          Anybody making such a claim is a fraud. Or drunk. Or otherwise contemptible.

          Hey, but it’s easy to prove me to be the joke of the day–simply find me an actual criminal defense attorney who has never had a client do hard time. Do that, I’ll send “Ralph” a case of beer/wine of his choice, and publicly mea culpa.

          Sure, I’ll wait.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Still, the question remains unanswered.
          Maybe Ralph has enough sense to ignore you. I’m kinda wishing I did at this point…

          There is NO real lawyer on this list–or LEO for that matter–that believes for an INSTANT that a criminal defense attorney practicing for 35 years–or even ONE year–never had a client do hard time.
          There is NO real person that believes Ralph was legitimately claiming that. You made a childish remark, he responded with one.

          It’s like an oncologist claiming none of his patients have ever died. Ridiculous on its face.

          Anybody making such a claim is a fraud. Or drunk. Or otherwise contemptible.

          Hey, but it’s easy to prove me to be the joke of the day–simply find me an actual criminal defense attorney who has never had a client do hard time. Do that, I’ll send “Ralph” a case of beer/wine of his choice, and publicly mea culpa.

          Sure, I’ll wait.
          None of the posts since that one are supporting Ralph’s obvious exaggeration or claiming that you are a joke. They’re claiming that you’re a childish, rude ass.
          But you’re trying to twist the argument back to Ralph’s one insulting statement, ignoring the fact that your first childish attack preceded it.
          That sort of distraction technique might work on the impressionable folks who can make it through a jury selection pool, but we at TTAG maintain a higher standard of critical thinking skills.

        • “Ralph’s obvious exaggeration”

          Ah. So there we are.

          The concession.

          “Ralph” was NOT, as it happens, being truthful.

          But it’s OK, because it was an “obvious exaggeration.”

          I’m guessing you’re an Obama voter, right?

          Because to ME honesty still counts.

          Tell you what. I’ll forget forever that “Ralph” libeled me if he’ll simply step up himself and say that his words were merely an “obvious exaggeration.”

          Simple, right? All “Ralph” needs to say is what you just said on his behalf. Clearly YOU believe it’s true. If “Ralph” believes it’s true, he can merely say the same.

          Oh, and that “Ralph” documents where and when he was a licensed attorney. If he was, easy-peasy.

          I bet a decent lunch “Ralph” does nothing of the kind.

          Prove me wrong.

          Please.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Ah. So there we are.
          The concession.
          “Ralph” was NOT, as it happens, being truthful.

          I’m not conceding anything. I’m agreeing with you that Ralph’s statement was outrageous, a position I’ve held from the beginning. I’ve even stated that it was a childish insult (in response to your childish insult). But unlike you, I have a strong enough understanding of language to know that it was obviously not true.
          A concession implies that I have changed my position towards yours. Really a lawyer should know these things.

          But it’s OK, because it was an “obvious exaggeration.”
          Because to ME honesty still counts.
          Tell you what. I’ll forget forever that “Ralph” libeled me if he’ll simply step up himself and say that his words were merely an “obvious exaggeration.”

          I’m not an expert lawyer (and clearly you’re not either), but I believe parodies aren’t considered libel. So the outrageousness of his claim, which couldn’t possibly be true means it’s not libel. Thank you Larry Flint.

          I’m guessing you’re an Obama voter, right?
          Given your inability to correctly deduce the meaning of most statements you respond to, I suppose the abject failure of this guess shouldn’t surprise me too much.
          For the record, I’m one of the most outspoken libertarians on TTAG.

          Simple, right? All “Ralph” needs to say is what you just said on his behalf. Clearly YOU believe it’s true. If “Ralph” believes it’s true, he can merely say the same.
          Oh, and that “Ralph” documents where and when he was a licensed attorney. If he was, easy-peasy.

          I have no control over Ralph’s actions. But he doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy who wants to put his private information out in public…like most of us who aren’t trying to sell a book.
          But regardless of what Ralph does, you do owe him, and the TTAG community as a whole, an apology.

          Prove me wrong.
          Again, I have no control over Ralph’s actions, so I can’t make him do any of that, any more than I can make you act like a mature adult.

        • “I’m not conceding anything. I’m agreeing with you that Ralph’s statement was outrageous.”

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure that “Ralph” would consider that a concession.

          If not, he can stand up and say so.

          But he won’t. Of course he won’t. 🙂

          The proud list member who is a supposed lawyer in a supposed state with a supposed bar number who supposedly never had a client do hard time.

          Awesome.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • “I’m not conceding anything. I’m agreeing with you that Ralph’s statement was outrageous.”
          Yeah, I’m pretty sure that “Ralph” would consider that a concession.

          Apparently you have this petty need to win, but you can’t win something that wasn’t a contest. It’s not a concession, because I agreed with you from the start and have never changed that position.

          You offered to send one guy a free book. If it’s a dictionary, I suggest you keep it and maybe flip through it once or twice.

        • “Or is that verboten here? As you say, I’m new.”

          You’re new, but it sure didn’t take very long for your little shtick to get old.

          We get it, you want attention. Now sit down and let the adults talk.

    • I’m assuming it was either destroyed or it’s in some officer’s safe. I was a bit late in requesting it’s return. And thanks for the information above. I think I’ll spend that year or so saving for and finding a lawyer

      • I have no problem with Ralph. I’m sorry he’s gotten under your skin, but do we really need to get sh*tty about it? I was legitimately thanking him for his suggestion. I’ve got a great job now, so a complete erasure of the charge, plea, and conviction can wait. I’ve done all right job-wise, and factories ain’t all that picky.

        Lay off him a bit. He never said every client walked, even though it seemed implied and you certainly inferred it.

        Besides, I take all legal advice from the Internet with a grain of salt.

        • “”Lay off him a bit. He never said every client walked, even though it seemed implied and you certainly inferred it.”

          Ralph literally–LITERALLY–said all my clients do hard time, and all his clients walk free.

          Just asking a 35-year career criminal defense attorney to back up that astonishing claim.\

          If he CAN back that up, awesome.

          If he CAN’T do it, he should just say so. And subject all his other comments to the appropriate skepticism.

          Hey, I’m just holding what I presume to be a grown man and self-claimed attorney accountable to his own words.

          If “Ralph” feels that’s unfair, well, he’s free to say so. What say you, “Ralph”?

          BTW, if “Ralph” is/was a career MA criminal defense attorney, what’s is/was his Bar number?

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • “Ralph says:
          September 5, 2014 at 17:59
          Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, yes, I am a lawyer (35 years) and my clients are walking around free while yours are doing hard time.”

          As a lawyer, this should be easy…

          Where is the word “all” in that post? And anagrams don’t count. Like I said, he implied, you inferred. It’s a strong implication, sure, but just an implication.

        • “Where is the word “all” in that post? And anagrams don’t count. Like I said, he implied, you inferred. It’s a strong implication, sure, but just an implication.”

          He explicitly wrote “my clients.” He didn’t limit it in any way. If I say, “my dishes are clean,” it certainly doesn’t mean that only SOME of them are clean. 🙂 Is this too hard for you?

          If he’s a lawyer and can’t communicate clearly, that’s on him.

          But it’s pretty clear by now he’s not actually a lawyer.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Yes, actually, I would say “my dishes are clean”, Even with some dirty, because there’s no need to qualify it… we’re just asking you to lay off the man. No one accepts legal advice from the Internet anyway, and if they do without verifying, then shame on them. The point remains that he just implied. You inferred, and now you’ve got to defend your internet superiority because he hurt your ego a bit. Right now, I have only one lawyer I’d never seek advice from, and it ain’t Ralph. I won’t trash your book, but I appreciate Dirk’s sentiment. I hope you find more meaning to your life, so you can worry less about how smart you are on the internet. I wish you the best, Andrew.

        • “we’re just asking you to lay off the man.”

          Happy to. Just asking him to back up his claim that all of my clients are doing hard time and his clients are walking free.

          Sure, I’ll wait.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • If he’s a lawyer and can’t communicate clearly, that’s on him.

          …says the guy who’s intentionally misinterpreting statements in multiple threads above this one.

        • Ralph literally–LITERALLY–said all my clients do hard time, and all his clients walk free.

          Just asking a 35-year career criminal defense attorney to back up that astonishing claim.

          So much fail. I’d expect an attorney to parse the English language with a little more skill.

          1. In this thread, Ralph never claimed to be a criminal defense lawyer
          2. Ralph never said “all his clients walk free”

          Ralph said:
          Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, yes, I am a lawyer (35 years) and my clients are walking around free while yours are doing hard time.

          No mention of being a criminal defense lawyer. Even if he was a criminal defense lawyer and all of his clients in the first 10 years of his practice got “hard time”, it’s quite possible that those clients are walking around free after serving 20 years.

        • DonS: “1. In this thread, Ralph never claimed to be a criminal defense lawyer
          2. Ralph never said “all his clients walk free””

          Haha, I was hoping somebody would fall into that trap.

          So, “Ralph” claims “all his clients walk free,” yet it turns out that he’s NOT a criminal defense attorney. Wow. The guy who washes my car? All “his clients” also walk free. Also for the guy who mows my lawn. My dentist? Same. His clients all walk free, too. Sheesh. How pathetic.

          What IS “Ralph”? If he’s not a criminal defense attorney, what kind of attorney IS he? Wills and estates? Are we supposed to be impressed that he kept THOSE people out of “hard time”? Does he do house closings? Are we supposed to be impressed that he kept THOSE people out of “hard time”? Divorces? Bankruptcies? In-house counsel? And yet somehow he kept all THOSE people out of “hard time”?

          Awesome.

          But of course we have NO IDEA what law he practices, because: HE WON’T TELL US. How brave.

          How credible.

          Seriously, how many of you would send a gun for work to an anonymous gunsmith

          How many of you would send your child to an anonymous doctor for medical care?

          How many of you would vote for an anonymous leader?

          But anonymous “Ralph” has you in his pocket. Last time I saw THIS kind of silliness was in 2008.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Haha, I was hoping somebody would fall into that trap.

          Yes – you fell into it. And you were finally called on it.

          So, “Ralph” claims “all his clients walk free,”

          Not in this thread, he doesn’t. He claims that his clients are walking around free. There’s a substantial difference – one which should be recognized by anyone licensed to practice law.

        • DonS: “Not in this thread, he doesn’t. He claims that his clients are walking around free. There’s a substantial difference – one which should be recognized by anyone licensed to practice law.”

          You’re kidding me.

          That’s your position now?

          That “Ralph’s” clients are walking free merely because they’ve served their sentences, so they’ve been let go?

          Really?

          Uh, well, sorry to break it to you, but ANY criminal defense attorney–oh, wait, we don’t even KNOW if “Ralph” was a criminal defense attorney, do we?–ANY criminal defense attorney could make THAT claim, they merely need to live long enough and not have a client sentenced to life or death.

          I guess THAT’S what “Ralph” meant when he wrote that all his clients are walking around free, and all of mine are doing hard time.

          Yeah. Makes perfect sense now that you put it that way.

          Oh, quick question. Do you imagine for an INSTANT that “Ralph” knows even ONE of my clients?

          Even ONE?

          More likely he knows NONE of my clients? And therefore NONE of their sentences? Or lack of sentences?

          Of course, if “Ralph” would care to back up his claimed knowledge of my client’s adjudications, I’m all ears.

          How about it, “Ralph”? Ready to step up? Be a man? I’m told you’re retired, right? Surely you can share your retired BBO number with us?

          Oofah. I haven’t seen so many people emotionally invested in a “vote present” since 2008. Thought you would have learned by now.

          That mirror must really suck.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • Good Lord, go away. Whatever modicum of goodwill you may have earned by constructively disagreeing with Ralph vanished when you began childishly attacking him. So he doesn’t advertise himself on the internet like you do. So what? At best he provides insight (and comedy), at worst he delivers mildly-annoying snark. You, on the other hand, have completely derailed a post in pursuit of inflating your ego and asserting your superiority. Get over yourself. But get over yourself somewhere other than TTAG.

        • So, I take it there’s STILL no answer from “Ralph” on how he practiced fro 35 years and never had a client do hard time?

          Sure, I’ll wait.

          Again.

          Any time now would be fine, “Ralph.”

          I know it’s non-PC in today’s society to hold men–like “Ralph”–accountable to what they themselves say. I’d hoped that TTAG would still adhere to the traditional expectations. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

          Guess we’ll see.

          –Andrew

        • The guy is simply trolling everyone here to generate a bunch of comments that look credible (if flamebaity). Notice how every comment that he has has a signature, which includes his name as well as the name of the site. TTAG being a fairly popular firearms related blog, the more comments he manages to post here with that signature, the higher his website rating will be for firearm-related Google searches. Hence why he is being deliberately obtuse with everyone – he wants you to respond, so that he can respond again etc.

          If I were admins, I’d ban the guy and delete every single comment he made here. Let him lose everything that he gained from his scam, and weep over the hours lost.

      • Put your penis away and quit flipping out over silly stuff no one gives a damn about. You’re in the comments section of a blog, not arguing before the Supreme Court. If you spend this much time and effort fretting over a random dude on the intarwebs taking a shot at you, how do you get through the day without having a heart attack?

        • “Put your penis away”

          How odd that you would start off by talking about my penis.

          Whatever, dude. Different strokes for different folks.

          I’m happily married with three kids, though. Just saying. So, nothing for you here.

          Good luck.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • getting a little worked up there Andy? A little sensitive about the value of your sheepskin? You must be the social butterfly of Maynard. But for someone who has no problem whoring, I mean hawking, himself here as a “criminal expert”, you have no appellate (state or federal) decisions Andrew? http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_attorney.php?aln=branca&afn=andrew&dfy=&dsc=&ddt=&dtp=&sort=&get=Search
          Hell, for a corporate attorney, I have a 6th circuit decision at least . . . . granted, it was a prisoner civil rights case, but then again, some of us made law review at a top 10 school. and yes, you need to get over yourself. Using a PO Box as a “business” address while working from a spare bedroom in your home is, well, not impressive around these parts.

          Look – It’s 10:22 there in Maynard. Open a bottle of wine, put on a Netflix with your old lady and chill. Before you know it, it will be Sunday and you can go impress everyone at Mt. Calvary with your knowledge. and yeah, that’s why a lot of people don’t use their real names around here. It is too easy to figure out where you live (like I did), how much you (over)paid for your house (like I did), where you worship (like I did), what your family looks like (like I did), where they were educated (like I did), that you have no history of bar discipline, but no appellate cases (which is odd for a criminal defense lawyer) after practicing since 1991 (like I did), and other details about you (like I did) for every whack job psychopath who gets pissy he is not called a god whilst on the Internet (oh, wait – will the English Lit major correct me?). Frankly, the people running the show here don’t like us putting too much personal info out there and you have proven why stalking laws exist. as a leading (self appointed) “authority” on criminal law, you need to learn to relax a little.

        • “Look – It’s 10:22 there in Maynard. Open a bottle of wine”

          You seem to have a real fixation with alcohol.

          Are you OK?

          Also, repeatedly mentioning my home city.

          Hey, what’s YOUR real name again? YOUR home city?

          Yeah, that’s what I thought. Phew. 🙂

          Still waiting for you to point out my legal error. But that’s not what you’re about, is it? You’re all about attempting to intimidate folks by calling out to their wives, their children, their home address.

          It’s OK. I’ve dealt with worse than you. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Brilliant post Dirk!
          Next time I’m visiting my cousins in Indy, I’ll sneak over to Shannon’s house and try to snap a few candid pics for your collage.

          I’m off to a dinner date, so Andrew you’ll have to argue against a wall, or your pet goldfish…so that might increase your odds of winning…but I wouldn’t be too hopeful.

  18. Glad it worked out for you. Be very glad you don’t live in Illinois. You’d still be in jail. I see all the comments about you getting screwed. I’m old but happy I didn’t wreck my life in my teens and 20’s. And when I was in my 20’s I used to ride 20 miles on my lunch hour. No weapons either then. I thought I was a badass 🙂

  19. This was a great post. A lot of people in MD think about just this because BP revolvers are not firearms under the law (but: MD is also anti-gun and does not issue carry permits).

    Whether the charges stick or not would depend on your lawyer. In MD it may also (unfortunately) depend on skin color. It shouldn’t, but for all its “progressiveness” its a pretty backwards state.

  20. Wow, there is certainly a new douche bag trolling the board.

    Law of Self Defense: You should probably see a therapist. You seem like a weirdo

    • “Wow, there is certainly a new douche bag trolling the board.

      Law of Self Defense: You should probably see a therapist. You seem like a weirdo”

      Guess you missed when “Ralph’s” supporters already conceded he was lying.

      Or, as THEY put it, “obviously exaggerating.”

      🙂 Yeah, I’ll sleep just fine tonight, thanks.

      And I didn’t even call you a “douche.” How about THAT for classy? 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • LOSD,
        First: I’m sorry for calling you a “douche”. Your right, name calling is not appropriate.

        Second: Your behavior on the board is anything but “classy”

        Third: I stand by that you should probably get some therapy.

        Out

        • “First: I’m sorry for calling you a “douche”. Your right, name calling is not appropriate.”

          A gracefully offered apology. I accept it as such. I similarly apologize if I offered you offense. 🙂

          Would you care for a free book? No joke. I appreciate honest people. You’d be free to pass it on to someone else if you liked.

          “Second: Your behavior on the board is anything but “classy” ”

          Well, I never claimed to be classy. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • Oh my God, LoSD. Let it go, or go away! I’m a regular reader of this blog but don’t really comment. Your behavior is enough to change that. You are not representing yourself in a manner that will win you any good will on this site. I’m moving to another thread rather than continue reading your annoying comments.

      • Yeah, I’ll sleep just fine tonight, thanks.
        Serial killers and mass murderers sleep fine. It doesn’t mean they are good people. It means they lack the necessary conscience to feel guilt over their misdeeds.
        And before you file your libel suit, I am not implying you are either a mass murderer or serial killer, just using them as an example of how sleeping fine doesn’t require goodness.

        • So now you’re comparing me to a serial killer.

          Just as predicted. But I’m sure you’ll point out that I predicted you’d say I implied you were one, not that I compared you to one.
          But yes, I compared you to a serial killer. I could also compare you to a sloth (you’re both mammals), a vulture (you’re both warm blooded), or a snake (you both have teeth).
          In this case, you are like a serial killer (or Hitler, don’t forget that I said mass murderer as well), in that you lack the basic human decency to see why you are in the wrong. But I am quite certain that you are not a serial killer, because they tend to be quiet wallflowers, highly intelligent, and non-emotional, traits I seriously doubt you have ever exhibited.

          I’m guessing public school teacher, right?

          Your powers of deduction are quite impressive.
          I mentioned being at the office at 7pm.
          My work clearly allows me ample time to read TTAG and post here.
          I mentioned living on the Pacific coast.
          I mentioned being a vocal libertarian, not really a group that’s fond of government schooling.
          And I referred to you as a “non-computer person”, with the implication that I am a computer person.
          And from that you deduce: public school teacher. Brilliant!

      • You win the Paul T. McCain award ! Congratulations! We like Ralph…maybe you can get million of hits on your site? Which I’ve seen. Something about revealing your whole life on the internet to complete strangers who may have malevolent intent 🙂

    • “Branca has posted here before without issue. What has gotten into you tonight?”

      I only post facts or evidence supported analysis.

      But some others don’t. And when I challenge those others, they and their friends tend to attack on their behalf.]

      Also, I’m a dirty “book seller.” We ALL know that’s a level below even pedophiles.

      It turns out that there’s a lot of anonymous “lawyers” who garner “respect” on various blogs. But when challenged on “obvious exaggerations” such as that they’ve never had a client do hard time, they disappear, and have their surrogates rise up in their defense.

      Still waiting for a factual defense of “Ralph”‘s claims. 35 years attorney. Where? When? Never had a client do hard time. So clearly not a criminal defense attorney. In which case, what does that claim matter?

      Sure, I’ll wait.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • Andy, there’s a bunch of people saying things along the line of “what’s gotten into you?”. Seriously, you need to chill. You may be a lawyer up north but you sure ain’t a PR expert.
        You are shredding your reputation.

        A couple rules:
        1. If wronged, never argue on public forums. Even if you are right it still looks bad. You can calmly correct the record, but don’t drag it out.
        2. Don’t EVER let your emotions take over. Good way to lose any battle.
        3. De Minimus. The law doesn’t concern itself with trifles – why should you? I don’t even claim to be a lawyer, but I know that.

        • “You are shredding your reputation.”

          Haha, OK, ball’s in your court. 🙂 Please show me my legal error.

          Sure, I’ll wait. If you want to call “Ralph” for a consult, OK with me.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Ever heard of the court of public opinion? Your legal error, in that realm of jurisprudence, is to act like a jerk. The jury is all these fine internet folks. The verdict? You need to lighten up and not feel like you have to fight with EVERYONE.

    • The self proclaimed “foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states” has his panties in a twist, because Ralph corrected an error of his.

  21. Chill out. IMHO Hey, @LawSelfDefense
    pe-dan-tic [puh-dan-tik] ostentatious in one’s learning. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

  22. Wesley, a few minutes of googling and reading title 35, article 47 of the Indiana code’s definitions of “firearm” and “handgun” indicate that a black powder pistol is not treated any differently than a smokeless powder pistol for carry purposes in Indiana. I’m not sure your lawyer was as bad as you think.

    • Well I’ll be damned. You’re right. Well, I’m no legal expert. I never did find that, but I haven’t looked for it in years either. Thanks, TT.

      • Except that IC 35-47-2-19 explicitly places cap-and-ball firearms (those not designed to use fixed cartridge ammunition) outside the applicability of the entire chapter regulating handguns (35-47-2), which means you don’t need an LTCH (defined in 35-47-2) to carry one fully loaded in public, OC or CC.

        Yes, a cap-and-ball revolver is a firearm for purposes of purchase, sale, possession, etc., etc. No, you don’t need an LTCH to carry one in public.

        BTW, you also don’t need an LTCH to carry a cartridge-based handgun on your own private property either, even in the city, even in full view of the public.

  23. and for those keeping score, tonite’s selection is a double on the rocks of Bulleit Bourbon.

    HERE’S A TOAST TO RALPH! KEEP IT CLASSY BROTHER.

    • “HERE’S A TOAST TO RALPH! KEEP IT CLASSY BROTHER.”

      Awesome. Toast to “Ralph.” The anonymous lawyer.

      I LOVE taking advice from anonymous plumbers, anonymous doctors, anonymous architects, anonymous accountants.

      What could POSSIBLY go wrong with taking advice from “Ralph,” the anonymous lawyer.

      Awesome. 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    • That’s what I thought. Yet, he appears intent on flushing it all down the toilet tonight. Polite disagreement. He needs to work on the concept.

      • “That’s what I thought. Yet, he appears intent on flushing it all down the toilet tonight. Polite disagreement. He needs to work on the concept.”

        I leave the “panties-in-a-twist” detail to others.

        If you need a legal defense in a self-defense case, I’m all ears.

        If the job is to protect “Ralph’s” feelings at all costs, count me out.

        I deal in law, facts, and due process. Egos get cast aside, “Ralph” included.

        If that chokes you up, go ahead and choke. Your choice, you gag on it.

        No offense. 🙂

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    • “Andrew branca has a stellar reputation. I would be proud to have him on my side.”

      Thanks for the kind words.

      And how weird–you actually know what my real name is. The same name I practice law under.

      You hear that, “Ralph”? 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

  24. I find some of the comments on this thread pretty revolting. I am a lawyer. And have been involved in the gun rights movement for more than ten years. And don’t profess to practice criminal law. I am interested in what can and cannot be used against a silent defendant. The thread would have been more helpful if Ralph and Andrew and the rest of you would have cited cases, instead of descending into pique. I know the Supremes pretty much stomped on the Constitution recently in allowing the prosecution to comment on the silence of a defendant. A horrible decision. I also know who Andrew is, anyone who seriously followed the Zimmerman trial ought to know who he is as well. The personal attacks on him are pretty low. But Andrew, you might have controlled your temper a bit. That’s my take reading this at 2 in the morning.

    • I appreciate the advice, George.

      I’m afraid TTAG allowing disparaging posts on my wife’s pubic hair color and my children and home address will not pass lightly.

      My wife is pissed.

      I expect every advertiser on TTAG will be sent a screen cap of the offending post tonight, along with an inquiry as to why they support such a misogynistic blog.

      No stopping an angry woman.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • If there’s something offensive that doesn’t get caught, people need to send an email, for chrissakes. thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com If an offensive comment doesn’t get caught, it seems extraordinarily likely that another comment about that offensive comment is also not going to get seen, right? thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com I can’t see that email box anymore, so if twelve or so hours go by without a response and the comment remains, email me directly at ttag.matt.in.fl@gmail.com and I’ll clean it up.

        I see (but that does not mean read) nearly every comment posted on this blog, but I see it from the admin side, which is just a chronologically scrolling list of comments, regardless of where they’re posted. And when I’m seeing them, I’m visually scanning them for spam, not for content. I blaze right past names I recognize and comments that don’t “look like” spam. So while I’m sure I saw Dirk’s (and other) comments, I didn’t read them for what they were. That “scanning without reading” goes double (or even triple) for this post, because when I realized Andrew was engaging in an internet fight that he was near certain to lose — not because he was wrong, but because he was fighting on the internet at all — I lost all interest in this post and stopped paying any attention to it.

        @Andrew: At this point, I’ve deleted Dirk’s comment regarding carpet/drapes, and your three comments (was it really necessary to leave three replies to the same comment?) responding to it, including the one where you opined that Dirk Diggler might be Robert Farago. (He’s not, by the way.) I did not see a comment with an address, but if someone points it out, I’ll zap it, too. I’ve gone on record multiple times about my opposition to doxxing.

        Having said that, you brought this on yourself. You overreacted to a stupid comment by someone who is known here to range from merely snarky to very acidic in his comments, but who is also not often wrong. He also has a long posting history here, and thus engenders some loyalty, rightfully or not. Regardless of that, you dropped over 60 comments total in this post, more than half of which were in a span of 90 minutes after Ralph’s comment about clients walking free. You may have been right, but here’s the thing: After about the third or fourth comment, no one cared. Some folks told you to chill out a little, and others fought with you for sport, but at that point your chances of “winning” the argument were equal to your chances of talking your way out of an arrest. Virtually nil.

        I like your book; I own your book. I bought it during the Zimmerman case, when you were blogging over at… the site I can’t remember now. Your work during that case gave me a lot of respect for you and your breadth of knowledge, but my respect for you as a person has taken a pretty big hit over the last 24 hours due to this post. I know I’m just one guy, and you don’t know me from Adam, but the fact remains that you need to pick your battles a little better. This one was a loser from the minute it started.

        Someone upthread made a comment about batch-deleting all the off-topic bullshit from this post, and I may do that later, but right now I’m disgusted with the whole thing and so I’m going to walk away after hitting Post on this comment.

      • @Andrew: I just saw your Twitter page. That’s outstanding. There’s an email address and Robert’s personal phone number on every page of this site, and instead of emailing or calling about comments you didn’t like, you left a dozen comments here and then publicized it on Twitter? At 2 a.m.? And expected an immediate response?

        The comments referenced in your Tweets are gone, as I noted in my comment above. I would hope you would memory-hole your Tweets, but given your behavior over the last 18 hours, I expect you’ll leave them up out of spite.

        Zero respect for you at this point. Zero.

  25. Funny isn’t it that Judges can ignore laws like it being legal to carry a black powder weapon and prosecute anyway. Glad the story had a happy ending but it could have ended badly. Now a days there would be a chance one of the cops would have shot him on the spot. And no I’m not referring to Ferguson. Hasn’t been that many years ago a cop shot a guy who was swimming in a park pond and refused to get out.

  26. I do not know the laws in Indiana. In Florida it’s all about the definitions. As I read the FL statutes an antique firearm (manufactured before 1918) is not considered a “Firearm” unless used to commit a crime. However, it can be considered a weapon. There is no mention of modern replicas.

    The statute – 790.01 – states that carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a misdemeanor in the first degree. Carrying a concealed “Firearm” without a license is felony of the third degree.

    The sticky part is black powder “modern” replicas. As I read the statute they could be considered “Firearms” in the definitions under 790.001 for lack of specific mention.

  27. Some of the comments posted on this thread last night by some of the high profile regulars have really lowered the bar of this site substantially. I find some of them not only offending, but extremely reprehensible. A sad day for TTAG.

    • Hey Jas Ralph is part of TTAG staff. Branca is trying to sell books. And he’s PO’d thousands of us. What is sad if allowing him to continue. Putting your life on PUBLIC DISPLAY shows a great lack of discretion. I will NEVER use his services.

      • I suspect JAS might be talking about one comment in particular, from Dirk. It was pretty nasty, showing that Andrew wasn’t the only one who let his emotions get the better of him. Matt deleted it, which was a good call.

        • Exactly. That post was beyond the pale. I’ve been around here posting on and off for more than a couple of years. I have daughters that are adults and shooters and now I will sadly tell them to avoid this site just for that post alone. And the one about Shannon Watts did not escape my attention either. It’s all fun for guys playing cards in the man cave but not for a site like this one. CLEAN IT UP or don’t complain when you get no respect.

          Guys, two options, run a clean ship or don’t run it at all and let it degenerate into the lowest of the lowest. All up to you.

      • When given the choice between supporting Andrew or this execrable website and and its commenters, I’ll take the former.

  28. …so he pulled you over for doing the legal thing in order to tell you to do the illegal thing…?

    “Finally, don’t trust the legal fact that “black-powder antiques or firing reproductions” are exempt from firearms legislation. In my experience, they’re not when it counts.”

    No offense but your experience was marred by a series of bad decisions including taking a plea to a charge you, by your account, was not guilty for… and there’s lots of weird stuff going on with the whole story.

  29. Great story, but one question: if black powder guns weren’t considered firearms, why were you charged?

    Also a comment: we should not be wasting time and resources locking up doobage-heads.

    • BTW, I apologize for asking a question that you probably answered elsewhere in the thread, but I don’t feel like wading through all of the egotistical posts made by a lawyer attempting to make himself the center of attention.

      • It’s no problem, I understand. Commentor TT pointed out that Indiana law does not make a distinction between black powder and smokeless for carry purposes.

        I was charged as per the law. It was dumb, but I’ve got a carry permit now.

    • PCRs cost money, and as he said, he took the plea because he couldn’t afford to fight.

      What kind of PCR could there be when he took a plea? (Rhyming was unintentional.)

  30. Wes, I am glad this has worked out for you – minus some scratch and all. But…

    Dam this thread just sucks! I go to 3 of many web site daily for “real news” and TTAG is top o list then to L.I. Not sure how this flame war got going…Aww hell who am I kidding I do know and it saddens me beyond belief.

    To all the parties involved [you know who you are] you suk big time Andrew [yes I am singling you out] not really sure why you did what you did, maybe it was a slow night and you were just itching for a fight? well you got it, in spades! But it’s not really hard to BAIT people is it? You did a first rate job! And you should not be surprised [nor those that read over your shoulder] at the responses you received and then to go over to your twitter and broadcast all the dirty laundry “that you started” yes yes we all know someone said something you did not like. Get. over. it. We are not in court-o-law and you do/did not deserve an answer for your condescending request.

    FYI, I do not subscribe to threads [I post and move on] nor do I have a twitter account, so any reply’s will be wasted as I do not return to threads unless I have made a request. That’s is the only reason I am back now, but I see you did not answer mine so no worries.

    TTAG & Mod’s you guys are doing a first rate job please keep up the great work.

    And that’s about all I got to say about this thread.

  31. Indiana Code 35-47-2
    Chapter 2. Regulation of Handguns
    Indiana Code 35-47-2-19
    Application of chapter
    Sec. 19. This chapter does not apply to any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.
    As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

    • Oh, but look. It’s only been in effect since 1983. Can’t expect police, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to know law that’s only 30 years old! That’s brand new! You’ve gotta give them a reasonable period of time to come up to speed on changes in the law. After all, they would cut you the same slack if you violated a law that was only 30 years old.

  32. This portion of the Indiana law does not apply to “… any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.” IC IC-35-47-2-19.

    If the facts are as relayed in the article it sounds like a miscarriage of justice. You got owned. You should seek relief – using a “real” attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *