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

  • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    Before 9/11 - no one thought a group of terrorists would hijack airplanes and use them as missiles and fly them into pre-determined targets without taking hostages or asking for ransom and whatnot.
    Well, no one except bestselling authors [Tom Clancy - Debt of Honor (1994)] and the FBI agents on the ground who warned of just that very thing but were ignored.

    Comment


    • If you want to OC then go ahead (as long as it's legal in your state) but be prepared to be stopped by police who want to make sure you are actually in compliance with the state laws and also be prepared to be kicked out of some businesses. Personally the only time I OC is when I'm on my way to or from training in our training clothes or around my house when I'm not wearing a cover shirt.

      I choose not to OC becuase like many have said it creats a huge target on you. I have a concealed permit despite the fact that the state says they are no longer needed because I like having that card to show LE when they stop me and I tell them I have a weapon on me. It also offers some recipricity in other states which is beneficial to me since I travel a lot for work.
      "I'm sorry, did you see my care face? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't show it to you becuase I DON'T care. Have a nice day. "

      Comment


      • Originally posted by eyesopen
        I've never been one to belittle someone for their opinion... verbal bullying?
        You know what? I apologize. I didn't read your SN before responding like an a**hole. I got you mixed up with 'opencarry' who was verbally bashing the officer involved earlier. I was out of line. You are one of the people on here that I usually agree with when it comes to some issues.


        Originally posted by eyesopen
        Should we clamp down on citizen's freedoms as a result? Have warrantless wiretaps circumvented the Constitution or not? Are there not calls now from government wanting to have more control over the Internet, back doors into people's online files, etc.?
        Nope - but this case doesn't really have anything to do with it. This case, which is what I'm talking about specifically, was about someone walking down the street with a gun on his hip in a city where it is illegal to carry a weapon without a permit. The officer stopped him to make sure he was legal, and it went downhill from there. Comparing apples to toaster strudel.

        Originally posted by eyesopen
        Before Columbine there were plenty of mass school shootings, but not 24-hour CNN and Fox News needing to fill every minute of the day with stories. No shouts from politicians about how they needed to "protect" people, rather for what it was: an isolated but tragic incident. Clamping down on free speech and increasing security hasn't made a statistical difference in the number of shootings at schools. I had children in schools then. It didn't make me want to run to my school and demand they start kicking kids out for wearing GI Joe t-shirts or drawing cartoons of guns. The schools have become so sue scared that they've lost all sense and politicians have to look like they are doing their job, and that job in their minds is to continuously create more and more laws to "protect" us from ourselves. It looks like freedom of speech has lost this battle.
        Yes, freedom of speech has lost this battle. Yes, the schools have gotten a lot more paranoid. I didn't say it was for the better. It changed many things for the worse. They want to suspend and expel students for the dumbest little things now. But it also brought to light police tactics when responding to active shooters (this and incidents immediately following this one) and the way response is sent (EMS and police).

        Originally posted by eyesopen
        True. You can't walk damn near anywhere these days without being on video. Can anyone look honestly say we're freer as a nation than we were 20 years ago?
        Nope! You can also thank all of the civil lawsuits for that one! Now it's not about doing what's right, it's about decreasing your liability and trying not to get sued.

        Originally posted by eyesopen
        I got that from the beginning. But your position appeared to be one of guilty until they prove innocence.
        Unfortunately, yes. Because unless you know exactly who you are dealing with and what their intentions are, you have to treat everyone like a threat until proven otherwise. The goal is to go home at night; not make sure everyone feels nice and special.

        Originally posted by eyesopen
        Broad brush you paint with. I stated earlier I don't open carry and that idiots like that OC in the Autozone are going to make 2nd amendment rights tougher on individuals. He should have complied, then taken them to court after the fact if he felt he had a case.
        Originally posted by eyesopen
        More belittling? I don't dictate why and how officers respond to threats. But I am free to express an opinion, am I not? It doesn't make me anti LEO, disgruntled or some nut looking for OC encounters if I disagree on this issue.
        Yeah, again, I apologize. I thought you were someone else who wants to argue the point and push his agenda.

        Originally posted by eyesopen
        I am a gun owner but not an OC, and but so long as open carry is legal, that's where my position comes from. I come from the position that an automatic assumption of guilt is exactly what we don't need from government - be that the police, warrant less phone taps, you name it, without RS. Yeah, the Constitution makes rounding up criminals harder, and sometimes they get away with things they shouldn't get away with, but that's the price we as a society pay for freedoms.

        This guy at the Autozone, under the circumstances and given the officer didn't even know the law, yes it was RS. And yes, he was an *** hat how he reacted with the officer. But, what if the officer had known the law? I am against the assumption of all OC being an automatic assumption of criminal behavior, not against checking if there is RS.
        We beat it to death that they both screwed up. But unfortunately, like I stated above, there are so many people out there willing to lie and deceive, the only way to deal with people on the street is to treat them as guilty until proven innocent; if you walk around thinking that no one will do you harm then you will end up getting killed. In this case - the RS was that it is illegal to carry without a permit in Philly, so the officer has every right to check to make sure that he had a permit.
        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


        • Court case:

          We do not address the scenario in which the officer has an independent reason to believe that a crime (carrying an unlicensed gun) may be in progress, inquires as to whether the gun is licensed and the person does not answer.

          ------

          Now it seems to me, based on that ruling, that there is no RS exception when it comes to guns, there must be a reasonable basis for believing a crime has or is about to be committed for a Terry stop even if the call is about someone carrying a gun. Its very clear on that, but muddles the issue with the closing statement about Open Carry. Based on the wording, I'm going to assume (and I may be proven to be wrong when it happens) that any OC who takes this issue up with the court... the court will use the wording of that case to clear the waters and say OC isn't an exception, since this ruling says that a report of someone having a gun is not an exception to Terry.
          Quote from eyesopen:

          Now it seems to me, based on that ruling, that there is no RS exception when it comes to guns, there must be a reasonable basis for believing a crime has or is about to be committed for a Terry stop even if the call is about someone carrying a gun. Its very clear on that, but muddles the issue with the closing statement about Open Carry. Based on the wording, I'm going to assume (and I may be proven to be wrong when it happens) that any OC who takes this issue up with the court... the court will use the wording of that case to clear the waters and say OC isn't an exception, since this ruling says that a report of someone having a gun is not an exception to Terry.
          You don't understand the court's ruling. The last paragraph does not muddle anything, because the opinion is about whether reasonable suspicion may be based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, not about whether police may stop someone who they see is carrying a gun. There is a U.S. Supreme Court holding the same thing. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). ("The question presented in this case is whether an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. We hold that it is not.")
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • DAL beat me to it. Hawkins v. PA is a court opinion where the court had to decide whether the officer had RS to stop and search a guy for a weapon based on an anonymous tip alone. This exact fact pattern happened in Florida v. J.L., which was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

            As DAL pointed out, PA v. Hawkins and Florida v. J.L. only ask the question if an officer has enough RS to stop and frisk a person (for a weapon) based only on an anonymous tip. The highest court said the officer needs more. If Hawkins' gun was visible to the officer as he approached, this case would have been ruled differently. The question in those cases doesn't have anything to do with RS being required to approach and disarm if a firearm's presence is known (i.e. can be seen).

            Now in some states an officer may not approach and disarm without articulable RS, but that's not the requirement for all the states. I would say PA is one of the exceptions hence why the officers took the approach they did.
            I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
              We beat it to death that they both screwed up. But unfortunately, like I stated above, there are so many people out there willing to lie and deceive, the only way to deal with people on the street is to treat them as guilty until proven innocent; if you walk around thinking that no one will do you harm then you will end up getting killed. In this case - the RS was that it is illegal to carry without a permit in Philly, so the officer has every right to check to make sure that he had a permit.
              Thanks. You know what... you've convinced me on that based on a well articulated debate. Having not been in your shoes, but now explained, I can understand the presumption of guilt when dealing with an unknown for safety reasons. They can state they don't consent but comply even if they object to it (that's how I would handle it), and do so politely. If the LEO is being an a-hat at the start, still be polite. If the unknown is being an a-hat from the start its begging to escalate the situation. Both seem to happen here. Frankly if an LEO pointed a gun at me the last thing I'd do is argue, well damn, if anyone pointed a gun at me the last thing I'd do is argue with them.

              I can understand the mix-up with opencarry, I admittedly do share some but not all, of his reasoning, but don't I certainly don't advocate OC as a statement. I visited an OC forum after seeing this thread and they tend to view it as black and white, while I think there's a lot of gray area. I live in a rural area and I come from that perspective. I left a big city because of the crime. Out here gunshots next door or in the distance doesn't raise an eyebrow, just some guy taking out vermin or a game animal. OC is very rare out here, but the worst reaction I've seen is a double-take by someone who then went about their business. So, yeah, things are different in different areas. Where I lived before if you heard a gun you called the cops. The only time I'd OC is if I was bringing my gun some place and the clothes wouldn't conceal it - or maybe walking at the park, but frankly the park out here is so safe that it really isn't a consideration. Someone holds you up you'll probably know who it is so its not done - crimes out here tend to be property crimes with a rare shooting between a couple of meth addicts!

              My view is OC because you want to and its legal, that's fine. As a statement, not sold on that idea. Its like a gay couple purposely kissing in every time he passes a straight couple with kids... "in your face" attitudes turn people off to ideas, not convince them of their rights. I have no problem with someone exercising their rights, including their sexual preference, but I don't make a statement of my heterosexuality by kissing my wife every time I spot an obviously gay person. So I understand where you're coming from.

              Now, that being said, I'm still not clear on how the law states it must be dealt with because unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much precedent in some state courts concerning whether an OC must identify on demand without RS (and I'm going to take everyone's word that in this Autozone situation there was RS since I do not have all the facts).
              The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                DAL beat me to it. Hawkins v. PA is a court opinion where the court had to decide whether the officer had RS to stop and search a guy for a weapon based on an anonymous tip alone. This exact fact pattern happened in Florida v. J.L., which was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

                As DAL pointed out, PA v. Hawkins and Florida v. J.L. only ask the question if an officer has enough RS to stop and frisk a person (for a weapon) based only on an anonymous tip. The highest court said the officer needs more. If Hawkins' gun was visible to the officer as he approached, this case would have been ruled differently. The question in those cases doesn't have anything to do with RS being required to approach and disarm if a firearm's presence is known (i.e. can be seen).

                Now in some states an officer may not approach and disarm without articulable RS, but that's not the requirement for all the states. I would say PA is one of the exceptions hence why the officers took the approach they did.
                And, in addition, there IS caselaw basically outlining the exact same encounter, only the tip wasn't anonymous and the Police were able to produce the witness who made the initial call. In that ruling, the actions of the Police were upheld, the stop and Terry Pat were valid. Sorry, can't provide the exact caselaw (I always sucked at remembering This Vs. Them crap).

                -V

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                  DAL beat me to it. Hawkins v. PA is a court opinion where the court had to decide whether the officer had RS to stop and search a guy for a weapon based on an anonymous tip alone. This exact fact pattern happened in Florida v. J.L., which was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

                  As DAL pointed out, PA v. Hawkins and Florida v. J.L. only ask the question if an officer has enough RS to stop and frisk a person (for a weapon) based only on an anonymous tip. The highest court said the officer needs more. If Hawkins' gun was visible to the officer as he approached, this case would have been ruled differently. The question in those cases doesn't have anything to do with RS being required to approach and disarm if a firearm's presence is known (i.e. can be seen).

                  Now in some states an officer may not approach and disarm without articulable RS, but that's not the requirement for all the states. I would say PA is one of the exceptions hence why the officers took the approach they did.
                  Understood. I don't disagree with that wording in the ruling at all, or the basis of the case. But what stood out to me is:

                  "And since there is no gun exception to the Terry requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in the typical anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion."

                  That seems to imply that gun or not, Terry still applies, and that the gun in and of itself is not RS. Given that, I assumed that asking for proof of permit can only be asked if there is RS in the circumstance. Is that assumption wrong? Or is the answer "it depends?" For instance if there is some guy sitting in a coffee shop in a "nice" of town part sipping coffee while chatting with friends with a gun at his hip... do you ask for proof of permit? Or do you need circumstances in addition to the gun at the hip such as a high crime area, nearby schools, to ask? Not stirring up debate with those questions... just trying to inform myself.

                  As a side note, the thing that gets me about carry is the silliness of the situation. If I can't have it loaded while OC what point is there in OC? Deterrent or does the criminal mind consider that the OC is not loaded? Its like carrying a knife around with a detachable blade in your other pocket... by the time you attach it you're dead.
                  The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                    But what stood out to me is:

                    "And since there is no gun exception to the Terry requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in the typical anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion."

                    That seems to imply that gun or not, Terry still applies, and that the gun in and of itself is not RS. Given that, I assumed that asking for proof of permit can only be asked if there is RS in the circumstance. Is that assumption wrong?
                    Your assumption is wrong. What the opinion says is that the fact that the object allegedly possessed is a gun does not in and of itself confer a basis for a Terry stop. In other words, reasonable suspicion that the suspect is carrying a gun is still required. And the last paragraph makes that clear.
                    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
                      Your assumption is wrong. What the opinion says is that the fact that the object allegedly possessed is a gun does not in and of itself confer a basis for a Terry stop. In other words, reasonable suspicion that the suspect is carrying a gun is still required. And the last paragraph makes that clear.
                      Ah, I see. RS is required to check if they have a gun when you don't know for a fact that they do, and once you have RS you subsequently check for the existence of a gun and if found, a permit. But open display of the gun... well then de facto they do have a gun and therefore you can ask for a permit since RS only applies to whether or not they have a gun, not to whether or not they have a permit. That clears it up.
                      Last edited by eyesopen; 05-28-2011, 01:20 PM.
                      The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chad7613 View Post
                        I have a concealed permit despite the fact that the state says they are no longer needed because I like having that card to show LE when they stop me and I tell them I have a weapon on me.
                        Why not just show them your badge/creds?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                          Ah, I see. RS is required to check if they have a gun when you don't know for a fact that they do, and once you have RS you subsequently check for the existence of a gun and if found, a permit. But open display of the gun... well then de facto they do have a gun and therefore you can ask for a permit since RS only applies to whether or not they have a gun, not to whether or not they have a permit. That clears it up.
                          That's it exactly.

                          What got lost in the mix in this thread is that possession of a firearm is a criminal act in PA. There is an Exemption/Affirmative Defense if you have a permit to do so. Thus the presumption is that a person who has a firearm is doing so illegaly until the Exemption is verified.

                          It's a little tough to explain, but the same is not true for a Motor Vehicle and Driver's License. The vehicle and traffic law doesn't state that operation of a motor-vehicle is in-and-of-itself illegal and that there is an exemption if you have a valid DL. It simply states that operation WITHOUT a valid DL is illegal. On the surface it sounds the same, but they really aren't.

                          It boils down to the presumption: i.e. firearm in certain places is presumed illegal until the exemption is verified; operation of a motor-vehicle is presumed lawful unless a valid stop is made, and THEN the driver must show he is valid. The presumptions are opposite in this argument.

                          Now, on the surface it may sound like this firearms presumption violates the 2nd Ammendment, but to date that has not been decided by any Court, including SCOTUS. Remember, even in the most recent rulings SCOTUS only said that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right; they did not expand by stating whether that means in your house only, or out in public.

                          I for one hope that the rulings keep going the way they are, and that decent citizens are granted the right to carry outside their home, but there is nothing in the 2nd or any Court ruling that says that right must include Open Carry; and given that OC in certain places causes major alarm to the public, it just makes more sense to limit it to concealed in those areas.

                          The OCers want Open Carry affirmed. Period. And they go WAY overboard as they truly believe (this has happened and is documented) that anyone should be allowed to carry ANY firearm (even an AK or AR), ANY place, in ANY manner.

                          If things suddenly changed and the vast majority of our decent citizens suddenly started carrying concealed, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I honestly believe certain crimes against persons would plummet.

                          That said, I do NOT want to live in a Country where everyone is carrying AK's and AR's through the streets like in some third-world Countries (think Somalia). That is just ludicrous.

                          -V

                          Comment


                          • And here I thought that this nation was one of innocent until proven guilty.

                            I fail to see why open carry of a gun when there is a existing permit statue is any different than drivers licenses.

                            The reason I have a issue with this article is the detention. I understand the need to be safe. As I saw mentioned before, the only way to legally carry in that city is open carry. So its basically an attempt to make it as illegal as possible to carry. Then in order to open carry to be in compliance with the law you get detained every time a officer sees you. Its just isn't acceptable.

                            Safety at the cost of our freedoms is just not acceptable.

                            p.s., Just to make clear I am not defending either side in the story. However, I'm pointing out a obvious problem from which caused this entire mess in the first place.
                            Last edited by Kigen; 05-29-2011, 03:44 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kigen View Post
                              And here I thought that this nation was one of innocent until proven guilty.

                              I fail to see why open carry of a gun when there is a existing permit statue is any different than drivers licenses.

                              The reason I have a issue with this article is the detention. I understand the need to be safe. As I saw mentioned before, the only way to legally carry in that city is open carry. So its basically an attempt to make it as illegal as possible to carry. Then in order to open carry to be in compliance with the law you get detained every time a officer sees you. Its just isn't acceptable.

                              Safety at the cost of our freedoms is just not acceptable.

                              p.s., Just to make clear I am not defending either side in the story. However, I'm pointing out a obvious problem from which caused this entire mess in the first place.
                              You can't carry concealed in Pennsylvania?!

                              Carrying Firearms in Pennsylvania

                              Who can apply for a Pennsylvania License to Carry?

                              An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply for a license to carry firearms by submitting a completed Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to the sheriff of the county in which they reside or if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city along with the required fee.

                              Individuals who are 21 years of age or older and are NOT Pennsylvania residents may apply for a license by submitting a completed Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to any Pennsylvania County Sheriff’s office along with the required fee. A Pennsylvania license cannot be issued to a resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by their home state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury.

                              The sheriff has 45 days to conduct an investigation to determine an individual's eligibility to be issued a license. Included in the investigation is a background check conducted on the individual through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) to determine if the records indicate the individual is prohibited by law. In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

                              If the PICS check is approved and the subject is of good character, the sheriff may issue a License to Carry Firearms. The issuance of a License to Carry Firearms allows individuals to carry a firearm concealed on or about their person, or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth. The license is valid for a period of five (5) years unless sooner revoked.
                              http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...&css=L2&mode=2

                              Straight from the Pennsylvania State Police website...
                              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


                              • The "you can only carry OPENLY in Philly, not concealed" has already been debunked by the actual laws of PA. You CAN infact carry concealed in Philly with a permit.

                                The "presumption" that a person who is carrying is doing so illegally is not a "conviction". Innocent until proven guilty still applies, but the "presumption" allows for a determination to be made, and allows for the issue to be moved to Court should the person not have an exemption.

                                Please don't confuse the issue anymore than it already has been.

                                -V

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4157 users online. 292 members and 3865 guests.

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

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X