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

  • #91
    Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
    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....
    DAL already explained it...here you go:

    § 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).
    Let me put it plainly for you since I can't type with a crayon:

    YOU
    NEED
    A
    PERMIT
    IN
    PHILADELPHIA
    TO
    CARRY
    A
    FIREARM
    OPENLY
    OR
    CONCEALED

    That better?
    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


    • #92
      I decided to try to make it a little more plain for you.

      NO PERMIT = BAD = ARREST.

      PERMIT = GOOD = NO ARREST.
      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
        Let me put it plainly for you since I can't type with a crayon:
        The state code says you must have license to drive a car, and have it when driving. It does not give implied consent to be pulled over and asked to produce it without RS. The Philadelphia code says you must have a concealed licensed. It does not give implied consent to be asked to produce it without RS.

        I poured though the codes. Everywhere in their code where there are inspections and searches from building permits, construction, food services, public housing to health services, implied consent is stated in one form or another. No where can I find such implied consent outlined for firearms permit - only for dealers, sales and transfers, etc.

        In crayon if you must, produce a PA or Philadelphia code, law, ordinance or whatever that outlines implied consent which gives police the authority to demand proof of permit without RS. If you can, I'll admit I'm wrong - I'm just a crayon reading dummy and I may well be wrong.
        Last edited by eyesopen; 05-27-2011, 12:52 AM.
        The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by biodole
          I am not really sure how it feels from the side of LEOs up there.
          I'm sure it's not the best feeling in the world, but on the other hand, the rights of citizens aren't dependent on whether the police feel good about a situation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by vincelli View Post
            There is no "right" to open carry. Even in the jurisdictions which allow it, it is a privilege (which CAN be taken away).
            It's a right if the state law says it is. In some states it's even in the state constitution.

            And just because it can be taken away doesn't mean it's not a right. Any law can be amended and any right can be taken away. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but it's possible (though unlikely) that the Constitution could be amended and the 1st Amendment repealed. However, the fact that it could be taken away, doesn't make free speech a privilege or any less of a right.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by deputymel View Post
              you are kidding right?? i really hope so!!! well let me know how it goes when you are on the streets as a cop ( i see you just passed your test 5/18/11 - congrates ) and let see if you have a different feeling about it when you deal with a looser who purposely tries to mess with you and then try to jam you up with your department.. maybe someday you will come back to this forum and say sorry to all the men and woman on the job!
              I've been on the job for over a decade and my agency uniquely deals with professional protesters and legal activists every single day, everywhere we go, from one end of this nation to the other. They overtly and constantly try to jam us up, both legally and in the court of public opinion, on the news, and on the internet. And as difficult as they are to deal with, I wouldn't for one second advocate that they should somehow be muzzled or that the government should be allowed to shut them up or arrest them or "inconvenience them" just because they were exercising their rights in a manner inconvenient for the police.

              So yeah, I have to deal with them all the time and I sure don't feel the way you apparently believe that I should.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Lawdawg45
                The Officers failed to act with professionalism, but the suspect was a confrontational idiot looking for a fight
                I've listened to the tape in question and it's hard for me to describe his reaction as "confrontational", especially considering he was staring down the barrel of a drawn pistol at the time. His demeanor was calm, rational and unemotional. Unless there's some new definition of "confrontational" of which I'm unaware, something along the lines of "any behavior that doesn't consist solely of immediate submission to police commands", I think that description of his behavior isn't quite accurate.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by vincelli View Post
                  His sole intent was to manufacture a confrontation with the Police.
                  Even if true, my response would be, so what?

                  We're supposed to be the professionals here and we're supposed to know the laws which we're sworn to enforce. Not to scream profanity at people and falsely arrest them because we're ignorant of the law. How many times have citizens been told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Well, the same standard applies to us as well. Lots of people try and goad the police into doing something wrong. That's not in itself a crime and it's our job not to fall for it and give them a payday at taxpayer expense.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by DAL View Post
                    I am not at all sure that those who claim to be law-enforcement officers on this forum really are.
                    Yes, because there can be no independent thought and all law enforcement must march in lockstep agreement on every single thing all the time. Anyone who doesn't obviously isn't a real cop.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
                      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...
                      The Officer was a moron, checking a permit is one thing but starting the encounter off by aiming a gun at someone to check a permit is reckless and dangerous. How many of you regularly run into criminals who are open carrying a holstered gun before commiting a crime? It has been said on here before even by the officers here that criminals are generally not going to open carry and draw attention to themselves.... Therefore a reasonable person should be able to figure that while he may want to check a permit on someone OCing that someone is most likely not a criminal and therefore aiming a gun at them is just senseless.

                      The guy should have complied and then taken issue with it later via the appropriate channels but this officer started the encounter off in a manner that should cost him his badge, accidents happen and aiming a gun at someone is not something that should be taken lightly

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BTR1701 View Post
                        I've listened to the tape in question and it's hard for me to describe his reaction as "confrontational", especially considering he was staring down the barrel of a drawn pistol at the time. His demeanor was calm, rational and unemotional. Unless there's some new definition of "confrontational" of which I'm unaware, something along the lines of "any behavior that doesn't consist solely of immediate submission to police commands", I think that description of his behavior isn't quite accurate.
                        Right or wrong on the officers part the guy should have complied and taken issue with it later, he had audio he did not need to be a street lawyer. He was not verbally confrontational but he made himself be almost as much of a moron as the officer that started the encounter in the manner he did.

                        Having your hand on your gun when you start the encounter is one thing...aiming it is something entirely different that goes against every common sense rule of gun handling

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by opencarry View Post
                          The Officer was a moron, checking a permit is one thing but starting the encounter off by aiming a gun at someone to check a permit is reckless and dangerous. How many of you regularly run into criminals who are open carrying a holstered gun before commiting a crime? It has been said on here before even by the officers here that criminals are generally not going to open carry and draw attention to themselves.... Therefore a reasonable person should be able to figure that while he may want to check a permit on someone OCing that someone is most likely not a criminal and therefore aiming a gun at them is just senseless.

                          The guy should have complied and then taken issue with it later via the appropriate channels but this officer started the encounter off in a manner that should cost him his badge, accidents happen and aiming a gun at someone is not something that should be taken lightly
                          AGAIN - AND AGAIN:

                          #1. THERE IS A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING. As I stated before, until 9/11 no one thought a plane could be used as a weapon; until Columbine no one thought kids would take guns to school and shoot up their classmates; until Oklahoma City no one thought someone would park a bomb in front of a federal building. Just because a criminal hasn't OC'd in the past, doesn't mean they won't ever do it. How do you know that a criminal won't OC? Are you psychic? Are you willing to put peoples lives and your livelihood at risk by assuming they have a permit? No. I think not. It's easy to sit back and in your perfect little world and "know" that everyone who open carries is a law abiding citizen. Then there is the real world where sh*t happens. Get over yourself. The officer has a DUTY to make sure that anyone carrying a weapon is carrying it legally.

                          #2. You are not a "reasonable person." You are an open carry advocate so of course you would assume that someone who is openly carrying a weapon is a law abiding citizen exercising his "rights" because it fits your agenda. Don't equate yourself to that standard.

                          #3. It has already been established that a person needs a PERMIT to legally carry a weapon in Philadelphia. Therefore, a person who is carrying a weapon can and will be checked for said permit, just like if I have a weapon on me and an officer sees it he has every right to check to see if I have my CCW permit on me. He doesn't need "implied consent." His reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed - carrying a weapon WITHOUT a permit - is enough to stop the person to investigate whether or not they have a permit. So your "implied consent" argument goes out the window. Just like there is no disclaimer when you drink alcohol that you give "implied consent" to have an officer check your identification if he sees you drinking to make sure that you are of a legal drinking age. If the officer thinks you are under age the officer can check your identification to prove that you are of a legal drinking age.

                          #4. This is not the wild west. When an officer is faced with a person with a gun (an IMMEDIATE threat to life i.e. deadly force assault) the officer has every right to draw his gun (his deadly force response). So you expect the officer to wait until the person who he already knows is armed with a gun to pull out the gun and possibly get a shot or two off BEFORE the officer is able to pull out his gun thereby threatening not only the life of the officer but anyone in the immediate vicinity? Are you delusional?!?! This isn't a quick draw situation - he doesn't know the subject - the point is to take control of the situation from the beginning; not wait for the subject to get his gun out and THEN the officer take his gun out. YOU are not a police officer out on the streets of Philadelphia. YOU do not know what that city is like. YOU do not know what that officer and the other officers are faced with every day. Get over yourself and DO NOT presume to tell officers who work in a large city how to do their jobs. This is not MondayMorningQuarterback.com or CitizensTellOfficersHowToDoTheirJobs.com - get over yourself. You want to stay on here to ask questions about law enforcement - great. But if you keep up your anti-law enforcement and LEO-bashing I will report every single post you put on here. I am already sick of your open carry crap. This is NOT a pro open carry website. Take it somewhere else.
                          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 BTR1701 View Post
                            I've listened to the tape in question and it's hard for me to describe his reaction as "confrontational", especially considering he was staring down the barrel of a drawn pistol at the time. His demeanor was calm, rational and unemotional. Unless there's some new definition of "confrontational" of which I'm unaware, something along the lines of "any behavior that doesn't consist solely of immediate submission to police commands", I think that description of his behavior isn't quite accurate.
                            This is ludicrous. Doesn't matter if he's saying "I'm so sorry I'm not complying with your commands; so sorry with sugar on top".

                            If he's not complying, he's not complying, and his demeanor means nothing at that point. I understand some points you make, even when I disagree with them, but this is just ridiculous for any Cop to say...

                            -V

                            Comment


                            • People need to stop comparing driving a motor-vehicle with openly carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia.

                              Motor vehicles are an extremely common occurrence in any major city. The open carry of a firearm is not; if it were, then this comparison would be correct, but IT IS NOT. If ever there were an apples to oranges comparison, this is it.

                              Opencarry, you need your head examined. WHENEVER Police Officers deal with a potential deadly-force-threat, whether it be performing a felony traffic stop, searching a building for a possible burglary suspect, or dealing with a person carrying a firearm in a manner/place where it is EXTREMELY uncommon (and therefore, by definition, SUSPICIOUS), our gun WILL be out and pointed. Period. End of story.

                              We're not talking about a rural community where the carry of firearms is commonplace, we're talking about friggin Philadelphia! (And YOU are talking out of your ***!)

                              Action beats reaction EVERY SINGLE TIME. We are trained to, and will do certain things to mitigate the law of action vs. reaction, and what you think about it means less than nothing. Your BS understanding of how Law Enforcement should be performed would dictate that there's absolutely no reason to conduct a traffic stop utilizing any Officer Safety procedures since the vast majority of traffic stops don't end up in the Officer being harmed.

                              -V

                              Comment


                              • Oh and we're not on a range day, we point our guns at people all the time. We do so for a reason. Who is more prepared to use deadly force and therefore has the tactical advantage. The one who has his gun on target or the one who has his gun in the holster? We operate from a position of advantage to keep things from going south
                                Today's Quote:

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

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3428 users online. 192 members and 3236 guests.

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

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X