Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philadelphia PD won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Because they are the SUPREME Court?

    Comment


    • I think the dead horse has been beaten into a liquid and the liquid is flowing into the storm drain....gross...
      Originally posted by RSGSRT
      We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
      Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
        I think the dead horse has been beaten into a liquid and the liquid is flowing into the storm drain....gross...
        Naw, the rain washed the remains of this horse away around a week ago...

        -V

        Comment


        • A few things about reasonable suspicion to detain;

          "The possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the
          officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct." In re
          Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 894. This acknowledgment from Tony C. is in accord
          with the rule frequently reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court, which rule has been
          binding on California courts since 1982:
          • Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 US 1, 22 ("[A] series of acts, each of them perhaps
          innocent ... taken together warranted further investigation.").
          • Reid v. Georgia (1980) 448 US 438, 441 ("[W]holly lawful conduct might justify the
          suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.").
          • Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 US 213, 243-44, fn. 13 ("[I]nnocent behavior will frequently provide the basis for a showing of probable cause [and] the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is 'innocent' or' guilty,' but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.")
          • US v. Sokolow (1989) 490 US 1, 9-10 ("Any one of these factors is not by itself proof of any illegal conduct and is quite consistent with innocent travel. But we think taken together they amount to reasonable suspicion.")
          • US v. Arvizu (2002) 534 US 266, 274 ("Innocent behavior" as seen and understood by trained law enforcement officers may appear to be sufficiently suspicious as to justify investigative detention or arrest.)

          Just because an activity is legal, does not mean it is beyond suspicion.
          Today's Quote:

          "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
          Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • EXACTLY!

            Otherwise, next time someone calls about a person walking down the sidewalk with a lawnmower after dark, I'll just assume he has permission to borrow it, and since he's technically not breaking any laws, I won't send someone out to make sure it's his and he didn't just steal it...

            Or next time I get a call about someone climbing into their neighbor's window, I'll assume it's their neighbor who just forgot their key or locked themselves out, and since it's not against the law to break your window to climb in, I won't send someone out to make sure it's not a B&E...

            See how stupid that logic is to assume EVERYONE is a law abiding citizen?! Some people need to get a clue...
            Originally posted by RSGSRT
            We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
            Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
              EXACTLY!

              Otherwise, next time someone calls about a person walking down the sidewalk with a lawnmower after dark, I'll just assume he has permission to borrow it, and since he's technically not breaking any laws, I won't send someone out to make sure it's his and he didn't just steal it...

              Or next time I get a call about someone climbing into their neighbor's window, I'll assume it's their neighbor who just forgot their key or locked themselves out, and since it's not against the law to break your window to climb in, I won't send someone out to make sure it's not a B&E...

              See how stupid that logic is to assume EVERYONE is a law abiding citizen?! Some people need to get a clue...
              If your training documents and court precedent in your state dictated this, then YES. PASC is crystal clear on this and so was the training ALL MPO's received here in 2009.

              Comment


              • Did you attend the training?
                Today's Quote:

                "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
                  Did you attend the training?
                  No I didn't attend the training but I submitted a RTK request and received the entire 2009 curriculum complete with slides and the video portion.

                  Comment


                  • As many find out in this job, life is quite different once ya been on a hot minute or two. Speaking from book knowledge is not relevant compared to a wealth of street knowledge.
                    Being a good street cop is like coming to work in a wet suit and peeing in your pants. It's a nice warm feeling, but you're the only one who knows anything has happened.

                    Comment


                    • Why does anyone pay attention to non-cop, non-lawyer right-to-carry advocates? News ones keep popping up, but they say the same thing over and over again. They don't (more accurately, refuse to) understand that:
                      1. the Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is not unlimited
                      2. the Supreme Court has never held there is a right to carry a firearm in a public place, but has stated that restrictions on carrying a firearm in certain places are doubtless constitutional;
                      3. the Supreme Court has held that the right to possess a firearm, even in one's home, is not universal
                      4. reasonable suspicion is a broad concept
                      5. police officers are entitled to investigate conduct that may be innocent if it is suspicious
                      6. police officers have to presume that state and local laws are valid unless a court has ruled otherwise
                      7. language in court decisions is limited to the facts and circumstances presented
                      8. different court decisions, even within the same state, often disagree, so you cannot take one opinion, especially of a lower court, as defining the law.


                      There is simply no point in saying the same thing over and over again.

                      If these advocates are so convinced of the correctness of their positions, they can fight it out in court.
                      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DAL View Post
                        Why does anyone pay attention to non-cop, non-lawyer right-to-carry advocates? News ones keep popping up, but they say the same thing over and over again. They don't (more accurately, refuse to) understand that:
                        1. the Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is not unlimited
                        2. the Supreme Court has never held there is a right to carry a firearm in a public place, but has stated that restrictions on carrying a firearm in certain places are doubtless constitutional;
                        3. the Supreme Court has held that the right to possess a firearm, even in one's home, is not universal
                        4. reasonable suspicion is a broad concept
                        5. police officers are entitled to investigate conduct that may be innocent if it is suspicious
                        6. police officers have to presume that state and local laws are valid unless a court has ruled otherwise
                        7. language in court decisions is limited to the facts and circumstances presented
                        8. different court decisions, even within the same state, often disagree, so you cannot take one opinion, especially of a lower court, as defining the law.


                        There is simply no point in saying the same thing over and over again.

                        If these advocates are so convinced of the correctness of their positions, they can fight it out in court.


                        Incorrect. And carry, whether open or concealed will happen nationwide. Carry is already legal in 48 states.


                        According to Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” The majority, quoting a previous opinion, explained that to “bear arms” is to “wear, bear or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

                        The Heller Court pointed to several 19th century state court cases that explained the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: State v. Reid (Alabama, 1840), Nunn v. State (Georgia, 1846), State v. Chandler (Louisiana, 1850) and Andrews v. State (Tennessee, 1871). All of these state cases struck down comprehensive bans on carrying handguns in public while also affirming that the state could regulate the mode of carrying; for example, concealed carry could be banned as long as open carry was allowed.

                        Further, the Heller opinion said that not all gun controls are unconstitutional and listed some “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” According to the U.S. Supreme Court: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

                        These are the exceptions that prove the rule. Under Heller, ordinary citizens (but not felons and the mentally ill) have Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment right includes the right to carry, but not to carry in “sensitive places.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HEDP View Post
                          Incorrect. And carry, whether open or concealed will happen nationwide. Carry is already legal in 48 states.
                          Uhm, no offense, but if you try to excercise what you believe that ruling to mean by carrying a firearm into jail after you've been arrested, I think you're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

                          -V

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vincelli View Post
                            Uhm, no offense, but if you try to excercise what you believe that ruling to mean by carrying a firearm into jail after you've been arrested, I think you're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

                            -V


                            I think a jail would safely be considered a "sensitive area".



                            ;-)

                            .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HEDP View Post
                              Incorrect. And carry, whether open or concealed will happen nationwide. Carry is already legal in 48 states.
                              Apparently, you do not understand the difference between what a case holds and what an opinion says in the course of its analysis. The distinction is crucial in analyzing legal issues.

                              You are not quoting from the Court's opinion, but rather from what an unidentified article described Justice Scalia as saying. Furthermore, what Scalia said is not a holding of the case, because the Court was not presented with and did not decide whether the Second Amendment guaranteed a right to carry a firearm outside the home. Indeed, the Court summed up its holding as follows:

                              In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
                              The conclusion that the recognized exceptions "prove the rule" is demonstrably false. The Court stated in footnote 26: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."
                              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DAL View Post
                                Apparently, you do not understand the difference between what a case holds and what an opinion says in the course of its analysis. The distinction is crucial in analyzing legal issues.

                                You are not quoting from the Court's opinion, but rather from what an unidentified article described Justice Scalia as saying. Furthermore, what Scalia said is not a holding of the case, because the Court was not presented with and did not decide whether the Second Amendment guaranteed a right to carry a firearm outside the home. Indeed, the Court summed up its holding as follows:



                                The conclusion that the recognized exceptions "prove the rule" is demonstrably false. The Court stated in footnote 26: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."



                                It is from Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller v. DC.


                                .

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5453 users online. 353 members and 5100 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X