Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Checkmating RAS for OCers against Phila Police

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    Checkmating RAS for OCers against Phila Police

    I am opening a new thread to repeat my reply to the Philly Police Memo thread and to consolidate my thread from the Penna Firearms Owners Asssoc site. I noticed that the Phila Commissioner's memo re OC started off saying that "no police officer can know who does or does not possess a LTCF." That is the RAS to seize, disarm, cuff and detain an OCer since, until the officer verifies that there is a LTCF, he cannot know that the OC is legal in Phila. (For outsiders, OC in Phila and only in Phila requires a LTCF). I wonder what the effect would be if OCers had a reduced size copy of their LTCF laminated and attached to their holster plus a full size copy (notarized?) hanging from a chain around their neck plus the original in their wallet for backup. Could the PPD justify a stop with evidence of the OC being legal right in front of their noses? Just like an officer can tell at a glance that a motor vehicle is licensed and inspected by the documents posted on the vehicle, the legality of the OC could be presumptively verified. The PPD might continue their current practices but how will it play out in court?? If they get spanked a few times in court re the lack of RAS, will the practice change over time on seeing an openly holstered firearm? If OCers make it visually clear they DO have a LTCF, the RAS for a stop dissapears. Only an informal contact would be justified. Ever see an old movie where a camerman or reporter has a PRESS card in their hatband? I do not propose mandating wearing the copies of a LTCF in Phila but if frequent OCers started doing it, I think it would have an effect. Maybe Phila police would start calmily approaching OCers to read the LTCF copies and asking to see the original. Think Kalifornia Stop Lite. That could lead to calm approaches to OCers who do not display the LTCF since they would have learned that OCers are law abiding folks and they know that they have NEVER seen a BG OCing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788
    Someone from Tennessee came up with the idea to use this type of non-badge permit holder. Mind you, they are not talking about the three examples at the top of the page, rather the pouches below.

    http://legallyarmed.com/resources/badgealternative.htm

  3. #3
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    Posts
    388
    i don't drive around with a placard on top of my car with an enlarged reproduction of my driver's license, because that's just as stupid as wearing my LTCF outside my wallet.

    *le sigh


    one more time, shall we?

    THE OPEN CARRY OF A HANDGUN DOES NOT PROVIDE RAS FOR LEO TO STOP, DETAIN, QUESTION, ARREST, HARASS, OR SHOOT SOMEONE OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    It is typical Anti-Firearm Sentiment throughout Philadelphia to Ascertain any Reason to try to Justify a Terry Stop against a Pedestrian who is Openly Carrying a Firearm in The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania.
    [OMIT]
    Since OPEN CARRY Protections are Built into The CommonWealth Law, Cities or Counties anywhere within The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania would NOT be able to Justify Terry under the aforementioned Circumstances listed as above.
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-04-2010 at 01:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    However, it is within my Belief that Philadelphia Police would be Justified for a Terry Stop concerning a 'Man with a Gun' Call form Dispatch in Pennsylvania's only City of The First Class, Philadelphia, as, Pennsylvania Law 18 Pa.C.S. 6108 REQUIRES that a Man must either be: 1. Licensed to Carry a Firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. 6109 OR 2. Exempt from such Licensure under 18 Pa.C.S 6106(b).
    And based on such a belief, any police officer would be justified for a Terry Stop concerning someone seen driving a motor vehicle. After all, state law requires that such a person be licensed.

    Concerning the latter, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled different.

    We're all presumed innocent until proven guilty, even supposedly in Philadelphia.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    RAS for a Terry stop in Phila

    Quote Originally Posted by jahwarrior72 View Post
    i don't drive around with a placard on top of my car with an enlarged reproduction of my driver's license, because that's just as stupid as wearing my LTCF outside my wallet.

    *le sigh


    one more time, shall we?

    THE OPEN CARRY OF A HANDGUN DOES NOT PROVIDE RAS FOR LEO TO STOP, DETAIN, QUESTION, ARREST, HARASS, OR SHOOT SOMEONE OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM.
    It was my mistake for using the word "licensed" re a vehicle. I meant registered (and inspected) You do drive around with proofs of those requirements showing, i.e. the license plate with a current registration sticker and the inspection sticker(s) on the windshield. Unless they are missing or look "funny" (as in possibly counterfeited), there is no RAS for a car stop. For Phila and Phila only, absent a certain knowledge that the OCer has a LTCF, no police officer can know that there is not a crime afoot. Until and unless he/she verifies a valid LTCF there is the possibility that the OC is illegal since having a LTCF is required to convert possibly illegal OC into legal OC in Phila. My proposal is that OCers shortstop the verification process by conspicuosly showing the LTCF and orally notifying the officer what the documents in plain sight are. If and when this becomes a common and well known practice, RAS dissapears. By extension, RAS would dissapear in time for OCers who do not display the LTCF because accumulated experience would demonstrate to the PPD that OCers are NEVER the BGs. I see this as jiu-jitsu; using the strength and momentum of the opponent to put him on his keister and wondering how he got there. The Commish says "no police officer can know who does or does not have a LTCF." (paraphrased) Take that uncertainty away and RAS melts away. Only a simple encounter would be justified. Officer: " Do you mind if I come close enough to read that LTCF? Would you show me the original please? That appears to be a valid LTCF. Have a good day." It can happen that way in time and it would be priceless. Ne ce pas?

  7. #7
    Regular Member jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nizzy EEzzy in da Pizzy
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by bill gray View Post
    It was my mistake for using the word "licensed" re a vehicle. I meant registered (and inspected) You do drive around with proofs of those requirements showing, i.e. the license plate with a current registration sticker and the inspection sticker(s) on the windshield. Unless they are missing or look "funny" (as in possibly counterfeited), there is no RAS for a car stop. For Phila and Phila only, absent a certain knowledge that the OCer has a LTCF, no police officer can know that there is not a crime afoot. Until and unless he/she verifies a valid LTCF there is the possibility that the OC is illegal since having a LTCF is required to convert possibly illegal OC into legal OC in Phila. My proposal is that OCers shortstop the verification process by conspicuosly showing the LTCF and orally notifying the officer what the documents in plain sight are. If and when this becomes a common and well known practice, RAS dissapears. By extension, RAS would dissapear in time for OCers who do not display the LTCF because accumulated experience would demonstrate to the PPD that OCers are NEVER the BGs. I see this as jiu-jitsu; using the strength and momentum of the opponent to put him on his keister and wondering how he got there. The Commish says "no police officer can know who does or does not have a LTCF." (paraphrased) Take that uncertainty away and RAS melts away. Only a simple encounter would be justified. Officer: " Do you mind if I come close enough to read that LTCF? Would you show me the original please? That appears to be a valid LTCF. Have a good day." It can happen that way in time and it would be priceless. Ne ce pas?
    i'm curious as to why you seem intent on pushing this idea, not just here, but on other forums. as in, what's in it for you?

    it doesn't matter if the Philly PD ride around with x-ray machines that can see your LTCF through your pants, and have assigned psychics to patrol cars, so that they can tell who's lawfully carrying or not. it's still an abridgement of the rights of citizens to stop and detain them when they're shopping for milk while carrying a gun. make no mistake, if you carried your license in a case framed with neon lights, you will still be stopped, you will be disarmed, and you will more than likely not get your gun back.

    acting like a ***** will not fix the situation in Philly. dealing with the criminality of the Philadelphia PD will. unfortunately, i predict someone eventually responding to the oppression with force. that seems to be the only thing corrupt police understand.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    What's in it for me? Satisfaction.

    Over the past year or so I have run into a number of sites that deal with govt bullying. Some examples are CheckpointUSA, Photography is not a crime, Ridleyreport, PAFOA and this one. I never liked bullies. I once got great satisfaction of putting one on his butt so fast he couldn't figure out how it happened.
    I like the idea of jijitsu. You use the strength and momentum of the opponent against him with very little apparent effort and it is over. Example: Israel was going through eminent domain procedures to take some vacant land. The Palestinian owners planted young fruit trees during the night. In the morning they applied to the court for the application of an Israeli law that gave special protections to orchards. Genius!!
    The 9-22-10 memo from the Phila Police Commissioner said that stops on OCers are legitimate because (paraphrased) "no officer can know who does and does not have a LTCF." (Has that memo been published here or on PAFOA?) That is the keystone and the linchpin to the policy (mixed mataphors?). Take away the doubt as to whether the OC is legal and there is no RAS. Only a casual contact would be justified. Officer-"Do you mind if I approach close enough to read that LTCF copy? Would you mind showing me the original? That appears to be a valid LTCF. Have a good day." Priceless.
    If (when) the PPD continues to do felony stops on OCers with plain evidence of having a LTCF, the DA's office may see the wisdom of not pressing charges. (I think they will see the writing on the wall and they don't like to lose) If they do file, judges at the prelminary hearing will tend to dismiss. They don't like to be criticized or reversed on obviously weak cases. If such an OC case should go to trial I hope the judge at that level will rip the PPD and the DA a new one where there was so obviously no RAS to begin with. The word will get out that these cases make you look foolish. If the DA has a pair he will issue his own memo a la Wisconsin that OC with evidence of LTCF in Phila means there is no RAS. By the way, could a PPD officer be vulnerable to a Federal charge of official oppression and false arrest and lose his immunity from prosecution for so blatently overstepping his authority? He/she could be personally liable for any judgment. What would the effect be on the PPD as a whole if an officer has to shell out his/her own bucks? Could the Sgt, Lt, Training Officer and legal liason be dragged in too? Situational blindness might set in re noticing OCers. The memo might become almost irrelevent.
    Yank out the keystone and the linchpin from the policy and the PPD will be floored and wondering how they got there. That will be satisfaction.
    The copies, laminating, chain and (if needed) notarization should cost less than $10. I will reimburse that cost to the first OCer who tries out this tactic in Phila just to prime the pump. Frequent OCers in Phila should ask themselves, "Would I be any worse off in a PPD encounter or in court with these LTCF copies having been in plain sight at the beginning of my PPD encounter?" Audio and video is suggested. It is not much but I will put some skin in the game.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    no, this idea will not work - police claim right to detain, seize gun, and run permit to confirm validity so they will still detain and run permit even if you tape it to your head - good luck re states which do not have a verification system!

    You need to find a good Plaintiff who has been unlawfully detained to check permit, and then sue for damages and injunctive relief. See Delaware v. Prouse (unconstitutional to seize driver's to check to see if they have driver's license absent some reasonable suspicion of crime afoot or that driver has no license).

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    The perfect plaintiff

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    no, this idea will not work - police claim right to detain, seize gun, and run permit to confirm validity so they will still detain and run permit even if you tape it to your head - good luck re states which do not have a verification system!

    You need to find a good Plaintiff who has been unlawfully detained to check permit, and then sue for damages and injunctive relief. See Delaware v. Prouse (unconstitutional to seize driver's to check to see if they have driver's license absent some reasonable suspicion of crime afoot or that driver has no license).
    I have written mostly about getting the PPD in line and shortstopping criminal charges but you have extended my point. This tactic will create the PERFECT civil plaintiff; hopefully with video and audio. With reasonable proof right in front of their noses that no crime was afoot, the PPD will have a hard time justifying a Terry stop and/or a felony stop. I agree they will probably make the stops. The average citizen cannot overrule the instructions given to the officer on the street by the Commish. But when DA's refuse to charge, when judges dismiss charges at preliminary hearings and trial judges hit the roof over blatent disregard for the law (RAS), the tide will begin to turn. Civil suits resulting in damages paid to OCers will speed it up. (Again, think of the effect if police officers have to PERSONALLY pay damages.) The memo will be re-written. The training will focus more on the legal niceties rather than "put 'em up against the wall, cuff 'em, stuff 'em and let the courts sort it out."
    We are talking about frequent OCers in Phila. carrying around less than an ounce of paper, lamination and chain. That is not much of a burden compared to the value it may provide in the "justice" system. Some people carry a rabbit's foot for luck. Can't hurt and who knows?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    Apples and Oranges

    driving is a privilege........defending one's self is a right.

    Why not just get micro chip permits and pass out scanners to the cops?
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Statkowski:

    Your Point is Increasingly Valid when Weighted against my Argument.

    Terry would not exist against Operating a Motor Vehicle, an Act seemingly Legal in The CommonWealth, and thus, should not apply to mere Open Carry.

    I have confirmed the Validity of your Argument under: Hawkins v. The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania, as declared by The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania Supreme Court on 1996, per Docket No. 349 Pa.Super. 615, 503 A.2d 48.

    I will adopt the Findings of The CommonWealth Supreme Court, and discontinue the use of 18 Pa.C.S. 6108 as some sort of exception against The CommonWealth Constitutional Protections afforded under both Sec. 8 AND Sec. 21 of The Constitution of The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania.

    aadvark

    P.S.: I will Omit my former, Incorrect analysis, of Terry.
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-04-2010 at 01:27 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Schuylkill County, PA
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    Apples and Oranges

    driving is a privilege........defending one's self is a right.

    Why not just get micro chip permits and pass out scanners to the cops?
    Because the Philadelphia police wouldn't read the manual on how to use the scanner, they would just beat people with it. Remember folks, the Filthadelphia PD has indicted 9 officers this year on criminal charges ranging from robbery to drug dealing. I'm not saying that all of their cops are bad, but they obviously have too many bad ones. I don't go any closer to that city than the Ikea in Conshohocken.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    no, this idea will not work - police claim right to detain, seize gun, and run permit to confirm validity so they will still detain and run permit even if you tape it to your head - good luck re states which do not have a verification system!

    You need to find a good Plaintiff who has been unlawfully detained to check permit, and then sue for damages and injunctive relief. See Delaware v. Prouse (unconstitutional to seize driver's to check to see if they have driver's license absent some reasonable suspicion of crime afoot or that driver has no license).
    This is correct and it would seem to be the best way to attack these practices.

    On a side note, with the republican sweep in Pennsylvania, I wonder how many more RKBA votes did the Commonwealth get.

    Perhaps they could get weapons preemption (not just firearms) and loosen those knife laws a bit. Also, if the votes are there to repeal the Philly exception and have them in line with the rest of PA, then there would be no reason for Philly to "see your LTCF"

    Anyone in PA know what the chances are of these things maybe becoming reality?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    Back on track

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    This is correct and it would seem to be the best way to attack these practices.

    On a side note, with the republican sweep in Pennsylvania, I wonder how many more RKBA votes did the Commonwealth get.

    Perhaps they could get weapons preemption (not just firearms) and loosen those knife laws a bit. Also, if the votes are there to repeal the Philly exception and have them in line with the rest of PA, then there would be no reason for Philly to "see your LTCF"

    Anyone in PA know what the chances are of these things maybe becoming reality?
    Thank you Jared for getting us on the subject of "the best way to attack these practices" again.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    That is what needs to happen: Repeal 18 Pa.C.S. 6108 and Ratify Pennsylvania General Assembly HB 750, as introduced under The 2009 Session of The Pennsylvania General Assembly.
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-05-2010 at 12:58 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    We all have the same goal-OC without hassle

    I think that Jared and Aardvark are saying the same thing. Repeal the Philly exception = repeal 6108. Have them in line with the rest of PA=pass HB 750. (I think I understand the English better that the mathematical statements of intent.) But until and unless those two things happen, OCers in Phila have to deal with the symptoms. (Or is excising 6108 sufficient in and of itself?) Hopefully the republican sweep is the cure. There is a strong treatment resistant strain of hoplophobia in the extreme southeastern body of the patient to contend with however. We can initiate an intensive, multidiciplinary and multifaceted regime of treatment at the Harrisburg facility and hope that it will overwhelm the infection given adequate time and persistence. ("Gun violence" is often described in terms of infectious organisms by the antis so I thought I'd return the favor.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •