Yes, they have two separate meanings, there is no denying that. But they do somewhat overlap, at least in this context.
no they don't
Scenario;
Public meeting in some random county building.
You have your handgun in an outside the belt holster and you have a License to Carry Handgun.
Because you have the LCH, you can take it into the building and attend the meeting (at this point we are not discussing how it is carried, just that you can take it with you in general).
What you are saying is that the ordinance is lawful because it only prohibits "intentional display" not "possession" of the handgun.
No, I'm saying the ordinance is lawful because the IC specifically allows it. I posted it. I cited it. I comprehended it.
What I am try to say is that exemptions listed under the preemption statute state that they still can not
restrict the possession of a LCH holder.
"IC 35-47-11.1-4
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a
building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or
restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a
building owned or administered by the unit if the person who
possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry
the handgun under IC 35-47-2."
Fine, lets look at the definition of possession...
"Definition of possession in English:
noun
1. The state of having, owning, or controlling something:
1.1 Law Visible power or control over something, as distinct from lawful ownership; holding or occupancy:"
-
Oxford Dictionaries
You see that it mentions "the state of... controlling" in the first, and "Visible power or control over something" in the second.
Now, lets look at the definition of "Restrict"...
"Definition of restrict in English:
verb
1. Put a limit on; keep under control:
1.1 Deprive (someone or something) of freedom of movement or action:
1.2 (restrict someone to) Limit someone to only doing or having (a particular thing) or staying in (a particular place):
1.3 (restrict something to) Limit something, especially an activity, to (a particular place, time, or category of people):"
So, what the state laws say is that the county may not "restrict (Put a limit on) the possession (Visible power or control over something)."
Therefore, restricting the intentional display, is hence, restricting possession.
No it isn't, because possession is not the same as display.
What may be confusing to you and others is that the preemption section says "possession, carrying", while the exemptions with an LCH section only mention "possession."
The preemption section states "ownership, possession, carrying, transportation" which technically only needs the word "possession" without the other 3, because the "possession" encompasses the meanings over the others as well, and seems redundant.
The point of all of this is, that the word "Possession" has a broader meaning to it than you seem to believe.
That's the point? again, it's wrong. Possession does not encompass display in a public meeting, as evidenced by the statute that permits a county to restrict display, but not possession. It also doesn't cover ownership, carrying, or transportation. As you saw if you read the definition you posted, possession is "distinct from ownership." It's also distinct from display.
If a police officer comes up to you and says "Cover up your handgun", he is restricting your possession and how you carry.
No he isn't. He's restricting display.
If a police officer comes up to you and says "You can't have that handgun", he is only restricting specifically your possession.
Let's compare the definitions of display and possession (as promised), since it seems the definition of display has fallen by the wayside.
Display-
verb (used with object)
1.
to show or exhibit; make visible:
to display a sign.
2.
to reveal; betray:
to display fear.
3.
to unfold; open out; spread out:
to display a sail.
4.
to show ostentatiously; flaunt.
5.
Printing. to give special prominence to (words, captions, etc.) by choice, size, and arrangement of type.
6.
Computers. to output (data) on a CRT or other screen.
possess-
verb (used with object)
1.
to have as belonging to one; have as property; own:
to possess a house and a car.
2.
to have as a faculty, quality, or the like:
to possess courage.
3.
(of a spirit, especially an evil one) to occupy, dominate, or control (a person) from within:
He thought he was possessed by devils.
4.
(of a feeling, idea, etc.) to dominate or actuate in the manner of such a spirit:
He was possessed by envy.
5.
(of a man) to succeed in having sexual intercourse with.
6.
to have knowledge of:
to possess a language.
7.
to keep or maintain (oneself, one's mind, etc.) in a certain state, as of peace, patience, etc.
(Both definitions from dictionary.com)
Yes, one is often possessing something when he displays it, but possess doesn't cover the entire definition of display.
Not sure which angle you're getting at but I'll address the two I see.
1.) They CAN still restrict the display of a firearm that is NOT a handgun.
IC 35-47-1-6
"Handgun"
Sec. 6. "Handgun" means any firearm:
(1) designed or adapted so as to be aimed and fired from one (1) hand, regardless of barrel length; or
(2) any firearm with:
(A) a barrel less than sixteen (16) inches in length; or
(B) an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.
2.) Here is a precedent from a recent Indiana Appellate Court ruling in City of Evansville v. Magenheimer,
"In Dykstra, this Court held that Indiana Code chapter 35-47-11.1 did not authorize suits merely because a political subdivision had left an ordinance or measure on its books after the statute went into effect. Id. at 1108. This Court concluded that “the statute was meant to prevent the adoption of future ordinances that may conflict with state law and to prevent the enforcement of statutes that were in place at the time Indiana Code section 35-47-11.1-2 was adopted.” Id. (emphases added). However, the instant case is distinguishable from Dykstra in that, here, Evansville actually enforced its ordinance against Magenheimer."
Yeah, I know what Guy and Ben are doing, but that precedent has nothing to do with your scenario, since
state law specifically permits the language of the statute you're fighting against.
At the risk of
reductio ad absurdum (though I believe that particular shark has already been jumped) let's apply your argument to another law on the books there in Hancock County.
Just a couple paragraphs ahead of the one you cite is this:
§ 130.01 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS PROHIBITED.
(A) Outside the corporate limits of cities or towns, no person, other than a law enforcement officer, shall discharge a firearm or pellet gun within 300 feet of a residence, except when the discharge is permitted by law in the prevention of a crime or the apprehension of a criminal.
(B) Any person found to be in violation of this section shall be fined.
I have learned from your posts that:
1. "possession" encompasses anything that one can do while possessing a firearm, including display, ownership, carrying, and transportation. Just for the sake of your argument, I'll grant you these things to make my point. Don't get used to it, because it doesn't. They aren't interchangeable.
2. local governments are prohibited from restricting a person from possessing/controlling a handgun in any way except in a courthouse.
So, based on your argument, that the county may not put any limit on how an individual may control a firearm, the above statute does not apply to handguns, because it would be a limit to what one could do while controlling a handgun.