another phily story on OC they are going to check you papers

mrjam2jab said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks. This is the kind of reply I was asking for.

Please remember there is no firearm exception to the 4th Amendment (yet):

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was 100% serious. They have created a "directive" authorizing THEMSELVES to do certain things contrary to the laws of Pennsylvania.

You could create a similar "directive" making yourself Governor General of Jamaica... and with the same dubious legality.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Philly and the Philly PD ROUTINELY violate state gun and CCW laws, and are being sued for it on a variety of fronts, including for their highly unlawful refusal to recognize out of state non-resident carry credentials.

Philadelphia has ZERO power to make firearms or carry law. Even the requirement for a credential to open carry in Philly is a STATE law.

And all of that leaves aside the general predilection for criminality by the Philly PD. When a police department has an armed robbery ring operating inside of it, NOTHING they say should be trusted or taken at face value. They're currently on the downward trajectory that leads to Chicago.

Philly LONG ago lost any reasonable "benefit of the doubt".

If you want to find out what REALLY goes on there, I highly encourage you to read the PAFOA discussion forums.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Feel free to point out that which was UNTRUE in my "rant".

• Is firearms law preempted in PA?
• Does Philadelphia and the Philly PD have a LONG history of flouting state firearms law?
• Does the Philadelphia PD have a rather shocking recent history of criminal behavior?

I understand Dreamers responce on the T-shirt thing, but on a serious note, how about a OC'r get together. Get all the Philly OC'ers together and go visit the Phily PD. See if the PD would like to discuss their negative attitude toward Law Abiding Citizens.

mrjam2jab said:

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.

Click to expand...

So you do have to produce if asked...but doesn't say they can ask just because they see a firearm.

Click to expand...

Read this again.

It only covers concealed carry and carry in a vehicle. An OCer would not have to produce upon lawful demand.

eye95 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that decision coming out. However, this topic is about someone open carrying and easily distinguished from an affirmative defense law.

smn said:

Yes, I remember that decision coming out. However, this topic is about someone open carrying and easily distinguished from an affirmative defense law.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLT said:

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?

Click to expand...

IANAL, but I agree completely with your reasoning.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Ubiles case covers PA.

eye95 said:

Can someone address my question from a legal (not a spiteful) POV?

Click to expand...

I already did.

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.

Click to expand...

NO. They have no such authority. PA law states that you need an LTCF to carry openly in Philadephia; in the rest of the state you only need a license to carry concealed, in a vehicle, during declared emergencies, etc. This in no way removes the requirement for police to have RAS before detaining you.

HOWEVER, PA law also requires license-holders to show their license upon "lawful demand," and there's no definition in law or case law to tell us what "lawful demand" means. So in practice you probably need to show your license any time a cop demands it, anywhere in the Commonwealth.

And finally, there is some case law that says a gun plus some other factor, such as children in the vicinity, equals RAS. That's also true everywhere in the commonwealth, not just Philadelphia.

But NO, nothing in the law gives Philadelphia cops special authority to detain you or demand your LTCF without reasonable, articulable suspicion. The answer to your question is NO.

What you read was people mistakenly thinking that since Philadelphia requires an LTCF to carry at all, therefore the cops must be authorized to demand proof of licensure without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The posters who said that were mistaken. Yes, you need a license to carry at all in Philadelphia. But NO, that does not give cops authority to act without RAS or PC. No.

NavyLT said:

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?

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the same with §6108 of the PA crimes code. Licensure is not a defense; instead, non-licensure is an element of the crime. Therefore, cops need at least a reasonable suspicion that you aren't licensed, before they can detain you and investigate whether you're violating §6108.

smn said:

The Ubiles case covers PA.

Click to expand...

And that means....what?

eye95 said:

And that means....what?

Click to expand...

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.

smn said:

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.

Click to expand...

And, that means...what?

(I already knew what you got pedantic about in your post.) I am asking for substance instead of a drive-by. However, you don't have to be substantive. I'll just move on. Others in this thread are participating in a useful exchange. I'll can discuss with them.

Deanimator said:

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.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem...

The Commissioner of PPD is Charles Ramsey.

Before he was PPD Commish, he was the Chief of Washington DCs Metro PD, where he was convicted of MULTIPLE counts of violating the civil rights of citizens, and resigned in disgrace. Within a few days of his resignation, he was offered the position of Philly's "top cop".

The Mayor of Philadelphia actually WANTED a man who was a convicted civil rights violator to be their Police Commissioner.

'nuff sed...

Philadelphia should be proof-positive that large portions of our government are being operated by sociopaths.

They lie to the public. They cover for each other's lawlessness. They pass "laws" that violate civil rights, State, and Federal law, and then get all indignant when We The People object to these egregious infringements and attempt to hold them accountable for their lawlessness.

And they do it all with a straight face.

Sociopaths are running this country. They will ALWAYS rise to the top of a heirarchical society--history bears this out. Rome, France, Germany, England, the USSR, Chile, Peru, most of the Middle East...

The question is what can we do to stop this takeover and conversion of our society into a sociopathic anti-utopia?

Perhaps the example given in the oral traditions of the Pueblo Indians is our only hope...