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

  • #76
    The article itself says that open carry is legal in Philadelphia with a permit, which Fiorino had.

    Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.

    "Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.

    "Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."
    Fiorino was non-compliant and wanted to control the encounter with the police.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #77
      in the MIDDLE OF FREAKIN WINTER WITH NO JACKET!

      You're a moron.

      It was in the 50s and 60s that week in Philly. I don't remember which date it was but it was nearly 70 degrees out on one of those days that week.

      Comment


      • #78
        OK. Good points and they are taken. I'm sorry if I'm ****ing people off. And, I agree with you. I have a point, though. This jack*** OC guy succeeded in what he set out to do. He would not have been successful if the officer didn't respond the way that he did. In fact, I still submit that the officer did not have enough to stop the guy. Clearly, the guy was a chit stirrer, and not a criminal. In responding to the chit stirring in such a manner, the officer allowed the OC guy to succeed in creating media frenzy and garnering more public outcry against LE. That is not a success for LE. That is a failure.

        The worst thing about this is the statements made by the Chief and the DA. Those statements pretty much make it seem as if they're telling everybody that openly carrying in Philly, while perfectly legal, is somehow grounds for a detention. That is sad. I'm not an open carry advocate (unless that's the only way that you can carry), but I am a fan of the 2nd Amendment and I acknowledge that LE can't be expected to prevent crime and protect everybody all the time. When we consider the fact that the courts have routinely said that the government can't be held accountable for failing to prevent crime (an impossible endeavor), what are the ramifications of making it increasingly difficult and inconvenient for people to carry? Now we are saying that the government isn't responsible for preventing you from being victimized, BUT, the government doesn't want you to take steps to protect yourself. That's not a good thing.

        DAL can go on about not believing that some people are LE and whatnot. That isn't going to get me to say that I agree with something that I don't agree with. I'm an LEO and I proudly support the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment (within reason).

        Again, don't let the OC crowd successfully bait you. This clown went trolling and wound up reeling in a lot more than he should have. Failure for us, success for them.

        Some folks will point to the cold weather and lack of a jacket as articulable facts amounting to reasonable suspicion. I disagree. Those factors merely tell us that the OC guy was chit stirring. It was very obvious. We can all come up with RS after the fact. But, let's face it. Philly doesn't like open carry and they don't mind making stops and detentions based on nothing but open carry. The Chief and the DA confirmed that. That's BS anyway that you look at it.

        Maybe I was harsh in saying that the officer was dumb for responding the way that he did. Maybe that's just the culture and the norm in Philly. But, that doesn't make it OK. Or, he just didn't know that OC is legal. That's a big failure as well. When it's all said and done, this scenario was not justifiable.

        The dewsh is being prosecuted for disorderly. Good. He didn't comply. But, he shouldn't have been stopped anyhow.

        Originally posted by vincelli View Post
        Ok.

        Let's knock off the Blue vs. Blue that is going on here.

        EVERYONE take a step back (and I do mean EVERYONE).

        Let's look at the facts:

        - Certain factions (US Citizens) want to be able to possess firearms

        - A faction within that faction wants the ability to menace others (and thereby gain a feeling of power) through the open-carry of a firearm, knowing fullwell that the majority of Citizens in the areas they specifically target are not comfortable with the open display of firearms (outside of those in a position which is recognized to do so - my God, I can't believe I have to put this little disclaimer in, but otherwise someone will jump in and complain that uniformed Police Officers do so all the time...)

        - This lesser faction claims over and over again that their sole purpose is the defense of the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution; that they believe it is in danger, and that the only way to defend it is to utilize it.

        - This lesser faction also claims that the ONLY way to properly utilize and subsequently defend such right is to open-carry firearms in areas where it is viewed as abnormal by the population.

        - This faction claims that it DOES NOT in ANY WAY seek confrontation with Law Enforcement.

        - Time and time again, this faction engages in open-carry events which they tailor to cause the Citizenry to contact Law Enforcement out of a state of alarm. They have recorders at the ready. They have the media and lawyers on speed-dial. When approached by Law Enforcement due to alarming concern by the Citizenry, they purposely do not comply with LE instructions which involve Officer Safety.

        - When they are successful in "tricking" (or as some have mentioned, "owning") said Law Enforcement Officers, they plaster it all over the news and make claims that the big bad Cops were terribly wrong, and thereby, their agenda of being allowed to open-carry throughout the entire US is somehow validated.

        --------------------------------------------------

        I'm fairly certain that I have everything right so far.

        Now, I ask you Charlie Brown, but I ask all other Cops, and all other Citizens of this Country: Is this what our Country has become?

        That a small faction (and no, I'm not talking about rural folk who go about their business everyday with firearms in places where it's viewed by the Citizenry as normal; remember, we're talking about openly carrying firearms in the streets of a major crime-ridden city) can impose its will upon the rest of the Citizenry, even when that Citizenry does not want it?

        For myself, I will update myself on the PA Statutes before I speak again about the legal aspects (Charlie Brown has given me enough pause to take a solid look at the laws involved before I talk again about the legal ramafications), but come on. We are now (LEO's) fighting each other over this ridiculous nonsense. We don't make or change law, we enforce it, and protect the Citizens of this Country.

        In all of this crap, we have somehow lost sight of a very important point:

        WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

        WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

        WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

        And, we do that, not only when there is criminal activity afoot, we do that PERIOD. Criminal act. Motor-vehicle accident. Natural disaster. It doesn't matter; we protect the Citizens.

        That's what the OC lobby should consider the next time they set out to "own" one of us.

        -V
        Chuck

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
          I still submit that the officer did not have enough to stop the guy.
          Why not?

          Openly carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is presumptively illegal. Therefore, it was reasonable to suspect that Fiorino was committing a crime.
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by DAL View Post
            Why not?

            Openly carrying a firearm in Philadelphia is presumptively illegal. Therefore, it was reasonable to suspect that Fiorino was committing a crime.
            How are you concluding that open carry in Philly is illegal? If it is, why isn't he getting set up for firearms violations? It is not illegal. I thought that had already been established and settled.
            Chuck

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
              How are you concluding that open carry in Philly is illegal? If it is, why isn't he getting set up for firearms violations? It is not illegal. I thought that had already been established and settled.
              No, it was not so "established and settled." I don't know where you got that idea.

              Here is the statute:

              § 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.
              No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time
              upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of
              the first class unless:
              (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
              (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section
              6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried
              without a license).
              (June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Oct. 6, 1994,
              P.L.574, No.85, eff. 60 days; Dec. 16, 1997, P.L.549, No.58,
              eff. 60 days; May 10, 2000, P.L.35, No.10, eff. imd.; Dec. 9,
              2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days; Nov. 10, 2005, P.L.335,
              No.66, eff. 180 days)


              http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...1.008.000..HTM
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #82
                What DAL's saying is, if Action A is illegal UNLESS Condition B is met, then it's completely justified, upon seeing someone do Action A, to verify that they are meeting Condition B.

                If this was one of the areas of the country where no license (therefore, no Condition) is required to be open carrying, then you'd be completely right; there'd be no reason at all to stop him.
                Lt. Col. Grace - "Lt. Murphey, why are you all dressed up to mack on the ladies?"
                Me - "Sir, you just answered your own question."

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Charlie Brown
                  How are you concluding that open carry in Philly is illegal? If it is, why isn't he getting set up for firearms violations? It is not illegal. I thought that had already been established and settled.
                  Carrying a firearm is illegal UNLESS you have a permit to do so. You're obviously missing that point. Due to that fact, the officers have the duty and obligation to make sure that any person who is carrying a weapon is legally doing so by having a permit. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. I think DAL sufficiently proved that point by posting the law about carrying a firearm.

                  I pretty much agree with the other things you said. He was obviously fishing for a confrontation and this officer took the bait. Doesn't make what he did right though. Any advocate of OC or CCW or gun ownership should publicly chastise this moron for his tactics - baiting police to get your name in the paper is not how you get laws changed...

                  Edited to add: if this event occurred in Michigan - then technically, you'd be right, because Michigan is an open carry state, where you don't need a permit to open carry a firearm...

                  Also added: If you are an officer like you say - then you should know how liability works - if that officer lets that subject walk by and he say, commits a robbery and shoots and kills both clerks, and someone says "I saw a Philly cop just ignore him OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM seconds before the robbery and he did NOTHING!!" could you imagine the sh*t storm that cop would be in then?!?!? Not to mention the guilt...I mean, come on...do you seriously patrol with blinders on and assume that everyone is a completely 100% law abiding citizen, especially when it comes to something like firearms?! ESPECIALLY when it's already been established that you need a permit to carry a firearm in the city...

                  All the guy had to do was comply with the officer and he would have been on his way - not argue about it on the sidewalk...
                  Last edited by Aerohead; 05-25-2011, 12:40 PM.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Yes, Murf and Aero, that is exactly what I am saying. There is no way for the officers to know he had a valid permit unless they stop him.

                    Although this additional circumstances is not necessary, the fact that the suspect could have carried concealed if he legally could have carried concealed, coupled with the fact that it was winter, would raise added suspicion.

                    Fiorino was not prosecuted for a weapons violation because he in fact had a permit. He is being prosecuted because he did not comply with lawful directions from the officers, who lawfully stopped him.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Lawdawg45
                      "These Are Private Forums for Law Enforcement. We Reserve the Right to Remove Non-LEO Members, Anti-LE or Inappropriate Posts and Users Without Warning."

                      DAL, I completely agree, and I wish the forum administrator would enforce this banner at the top of each page. When they switched to the new system last month I had to list my agency ID number just to re-register. How are the civilians getting by this?

                      LD45
                      Well, I am a member of another forum where people can't post as LEO until their status is verified. I don't see why that can't happen here. But, there are many more posters in this forum, so maybe it would be too difficult. I don't know.
                      Chuck

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by biodole
                        Speaking from the side of FL law enforcement (we do NOT allow open carry here). I am very drawn on the issue for 2 reasons.

                        Giving police the right to stop anyone open carrying, forcing them to law down prone, disarming them, and even handcuffing them until they can verify their open carry status is extremely close to violating human rights issues. The reason I say this is because, if the law permits gun owners to carry guns openly with a license - how does that differ from operating a motor car with a license? It doesn't.
                        Are you serious? "Extremely close to violating human rights issues"? You sound more like a liberal do-gooder than a police officer. It also sounds like Mr. Fiorino was argumentative and uncooperative, which explains why he was proned out.

                        Carrying a gun is not like driving because driving is an everyday activity and the vast majority of people who drive have licenses. Most people don't have licenses to carry firearms.

                        There are many other activities that are legal only if you have a license. For example, it is legal to have a machine gun if you pass an ATF background check and pay the tax. Should we assume, therefore, that anyone who possesses a machine gun does so lawfully and be prohibited from checking? It also is legal to buy and sell prescription drugs, with the proper license and a prescription. Should we assume that anyone who buys and sells oxycontin does so lawfully and be prohibited from checking?
                        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I think comparing driving a vehicle to carrying a handgun is a very weak analogy. In TN it is illegal to carry a firearm (open or concealed) unless you have a handgun carry permit, which is an affirmative defense (i.e. burden of the holder/defendant). In my neck of the woods (urban setting) it is not common for anyone to carry a firearm out in the open. With that said, those who decide to carry openly should expect to get checked for a permit. The stop can be brief and painless unless you decide to act like this a&&clown, then it's going to lead to similar circumstances. Fortunately we have statutes that specifically allow LEOs to disarm permit holders if a safety concern exists.
                          Last edited by SgtScott31; 05-25-2011, 11:55 PM.
                          I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            CharlieBrown...Please keep in mind that this occurred in a city where Police Officers are shot at, assaulted with great regularity. Any Officer that fails to safeguard himself and his partner because an OCer might be legal is pretty much a fool. Want to carry a gun in the big city, expect problems and be prepared. Part of the firearms training at every requal in my department was to drill into us that at any confrontation when in soft clothes with a readily identified Police Officer....the on duty's commands are to be immediately obeyed. Even if a BG gets away.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Fishing requires a license and it is legal to contact/detain to verify they are in compliance with the law. A business requires a license and it is required to be displayed on the premises, if it is not the business can be brought to a halt until the license status is verified.

                              See something along a common line here?
                              Today's Quote:

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

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
                                Fishing requires a license and it is legal to contact/detain to verify they are in compliance with the law. A business requires a license and it is required to be displayed on the premises, if it is not the business can be brought to a halt until the license status is verified.

                                See something along a common line here?
                                Fishing licenses require signing paperwork with implied consent.

                                Business licenses may require signing paperwork requiring administrative searches, provided there is a government statute notifying that such search can take place. And it can depend by business type, where its located, etc. Some types of business the administrative search statute goes further, such as food inspections.

                                Same thing exists with a business such as ball park requiring searches of bags and TSA searches: implied consent.

                                So can you point to something which says open carry is implied consent or an administrative search? If not, I don't see the common line....
                                Last edited by eyesopen; 05-26-2011, 11:08 PM.
                                The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3145 users online. 157 members and 2988 guests.

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

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X