eye95
Well-known member
Thanks. This is the kind of reply I was asking for.
The definition of lawful demand is questionable and just seeing someone with a gun, absent RAS or criminal behavior, doesn't give the cops any power to stop or detain anyone and check for ID. So that argument has been up to the SCOTUS and failed.Florida v JL said:A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position.
I was 100% serious. They have created a "directive" authorizing THEMSELVES to do certain things contrary to the laws of Pennsylvania.Can someone address my question from a legal (not a spiteful) POV?
Seriously, what does the law say about stopping folks in Philly and asking for a permit? I could swear that I read, on this forum, numerous posts that say that some quirk of PA law allows such demands for the permit.
I don't mean for this question to be used as a foil by those with a silly axe to grind. It is a legitimate question for which I seek a rational, thoughtful answer, not knee-jerk, snarky retorts.
Thanks in advance.
The point that you're missing and would miss if you're not familiar with the recent history of the Philly PD is that this is just one element in a long PATTERN of behavior.I didn't say that you weren't serious.
I was looking for what the law said on the subject. It was not my intent to provide an opportunity to, yet again, take a pot-shot at the police.
Someone provided the black-letter law on the subject. Thanks to him for that. The question now regards how the courts look at such demands in cities of the first order. We know that the courts generally don't like such demands, but we also know that depending on the wording, a court could rule the demand lawful.
Feel free to point out that which was UNTRUE in my "rant".I am not missing anything. I am simply not looking for the information you are trying to push. My questions have been very specific. If you don't have the answers, that's OK.
But please don't make your rants appear to be answers to my questions. Feel free to have them, though. I'm just not interested in them at this point in time.
Moving on.
The State law...
ETA: guess should also include this section...
18 Pa.C.S. § 6122: Proof of license and exception
(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.
(b) Exception.--An individual carrying a firearm on or about his person or in a vehicle and claiming an exception under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce satisfactory evidence of qualification for exception.
So you do have to produce if asked...but doesn't say they can ask just because they see a firearm.
Actually, there is at least one court ruling out there that says that the mere sight of a gun, under some legal circumstances, constitutes RAS for a stop and justifies the lawful demand for a license.
In GA, a person was observed putting his gun on. He then entered a train. The officer that observed the holstering stopped the carrier and demanded his CPL. The court ruled that the stop and the demand were lawful because having the CPL was a defense to the charge of carrying on a train, and not an element of the crime. Therefore the LEO, knowing the carrier was carrying, had knowledge of all the elements of the crime and had RAS. The carrier could defend himself against the suspicion by producing the license. Had he chosen not to produce the license, the officer would have arrested him. Producing the license at the trial would result in acquittal.
If the law had been written in a way such that not having the license was an element of the crime, then, until the officer had reason to believe the carrier had no license, he (ironically) could not demand it.
Anyway, the point that I am making is that we might want to know how the courts look at carrying without a license in PA. Are there any cases on point that tell us whether, in a city of the first order, knowing that a person is armed is sufficient RAS?
Yes, I remember that decision coming out. However, this topic is about someone open carrying and easily distinguished from an affirmative defense law.
Very interesting. So what about this Washington law:
The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?
The Ubiles case covers PA.The point is that the officer knew the person was armed. He was OCing, after all. If it is a crime to carry in Philly, with the license merely being a defense, then the officer would have RAS. If it is a crime to carry in Philly without a permit, then the officer did not. The key is how the law in PA is worded and how the courts interpret that wording.
So far, no one has posted case law from PA, nor an argument about whether the wording makes not having the license an element of the crime or makes having the license a defense to the charge.
I can't imagine that the carriers in PA wouldn't have explored this issue.
Can someone address my question from a legal (not a spiteful) POV?
Seriously, what does the law say about stopping folks in Philly and asking for a permit? I could swear that I read, on this forum, numerous posts that say that some quirk of PA law allows such demands for the permit.
The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?
The Ubiles case covers PA.
And that means....what?
Go back and read this: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...k-you-papers&p=1538711&viewfull=1#post1538711
PA is in the 3d circuit. The Virgin Islands is in the 3d circuit. PA is subject to the 3d circuit's opinions. PA law has been shaped by Ubiles. We're getting circular here in our postings.
The point that you're missing and would miss if you're not familiar with the recent history of the Philly PD is that this is just one element in a long PATTERN of behavior.