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

mrjam2jab said:

There is a law that states a person must have a carry license to carry in Philly OC or CC. There is a law that states a person must have a drivers license to operate an automobile. There is no law in either case that says an LEO can stop a person to just confirm the presents of a license.

Click to expand...

Did I read someplace on this forum that police in Philly can indeed stop you to check your pistol license?

eye95 said:

Did I read someplace on this forum that police in Philly can indeed stop you to check your pistol license?

Click to expand...

You probably read it, but it's not true. They still need RAS to detain and investigate someone. However, there's a dangerous gray area: when carrying concealed or in a vehicle, §6122 states that an individual shall, upon lawful demand, produce evidence of [licensure]. It doesn't define "lawful demand," and there's no case law yet, so as far as anyone knows, you're required to produce the license whether or not the LEO really ought to demand it.

Also, Commonwealth v. Stevenson held that "observation of the weapon in combination with her concern with the presence of children in the area" was enough to create reasonable suspicion justifying investigative detention. In practice this means that cops have RAS any time they want it: Mr. OC has a gun, and look! There are kids somewhere nearby!

It still comes down to how good your lawyer is and how biased your judge is.

Ponch said:

You probably read it, but it's not true. They still need RAS to detain and investigate someone. However, there's a dangerous gray area: when carrying concealed or in a vehicle, §6122 states that an individual shall, upon lawful demand, produce evidence of [licensure]. It doesn't define "lawful demand," and there's no case law yet, so as far as anyone knows, you're required to produce the license whether or not the LEO really ought to demand it.

Also, Commonwealth v. Stevenson held that "observation of the weapon in combination with her concern with the presence of children in the area" was enough to create reasonable suspicion justifying investigative detention. In practice this means that cops have RAS any time they want it: Mr. OC has a gun, and look! There are kids somewhere nearby!

It still comes down to how good your lawyer is and how biased your judge is.

Click to expand...

PA is in the 3d circuit which has already opined on OC in a public place with proper Terry analysis in US v. Ubiles, 224 F. 3d 213 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2000:

Holding that the search and seizure of Ubiles was unlawful, we will reverse. The "Terry" stop in this case was not supported by reasonable suspicion "that criminal activity [was] afoot...." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). First, it is not a crime to possess a firearm in the Virgin Islands—even when standing in a crowd. Second, the anonymous tipster who approached the authorities had said nothing that would indicate that Ubiles possessed the gun unlawfully (e.g., without registration); that he was committing or about to commit a crime; or that he posed a threat to the officers or anyone in the crowd. Therefore, the stop and subsequent search were unjustified because the precondition for a "Terry" stop was not present in this case. In reaching this conclusion, we reject the Government's contention that Ubiles had a lessened expectation of privacy because he was standing in a crowd. We will therefore vacate the conviction and remand for further proceedings.

Click to expand...

Of you have read the Ubiles case then you'll quickly understand the officer and the department and the city have no leg to stand on to stop anyone OCing without RAS. And walking in Philly isn't RAS.

eye95 said:

Did I read someplace on this forum that police in Philly can indeed stop you to check your pistol license?

Click to expand...

You read that they THINK they can by virtue of their OWN directive.

Police departments can have all kinds of "directives" or "policies". They're not LAW, and if they violate the law, they are not just null and void, their enforcement can be a crime, even a felony.

The Birmingham, AL PD could have directives calling for the arrest of Black people who eat at public lunch counters, or even invalidating the 13th Amendment. They'd be meaningless... just like Philly's directive on open carry. Any LEO who enforced them would be liable both criminally and civilly.

Did you notice that at the recent open carry protest march, NOBODY got stopped to have their LTCF validated? That:

1. proves that the "directive" is randomly and capriciously applied.
2. proves that Viper's subsequent arrest was PURELY retaliatory against his audio and planned lawsuit and UTTERLY unrelated to his actions when he was stopped originally.

Philly is SOOOOO screwed.

smn said:

Of you have read the Ubiles case then you'll quickly understand the officer and the department and the city have no leg to stand on to stop anyone OCing without RAS. And walking in Philly isn't RAS.

Click to expand...

Reread Commonwealth v Stevenson: it holds that while OC does NOT furnish RAS, OC with children nearby DID furnish RAS in that case. Any cop with half a brain can therefore manufacture RAS any time he wants to. He just needs to articulate something in addition to OC, which could be as simple as having children in the vicinity. And there are always children in the vicinity.

Ubiles made the law MORE RESTICTIVE on the police. Therefore Steveson is not applicable. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals covers PA. So the Phillie Thugs are governed by that decision.

Ponch said:

Reread Commonwealth v Stevenson: it holds that while OC does NOT furnish RAS, OC with children nearby DID furnish RAS in that case. Any cop with half a brain can therefore manufacture RAS any time he wants to. He just needs to articulate something in addition to OC, which could be as simple as having children in the vicinity. And there are always children in the vicinity.

Click to expand...

From Stevenson, the following is quoted from Commonwealth v Robinson:

In the present case, [the police officer] was acting upon a reasonable suspicion based upon her personal observation of the weapon in combination with her concern with the presence of children in the area.

Click to expand...

So you had "observation" and "children nearby" to provide RAS. Well, that's some really poor Terry analysis. Crappy opinion. To further emphasize it's crappy Terry analysis it follows with this:

Thus, in light of the above authority, we emphasize that police safety, and the safety of other citizens, must always be afforded great weight when balanced against the privacy rights of an individual during an investigatory detention and pat down or frisk for weapons when the police have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed.

Click to expand...

Ok, now let's go re-read Terry:

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.

Click to expand...

Note the and is a conjunction so both conditions must be met for a proper Terry stop. Stevenson wouldn't survive the circuit court had it gone that far.
How did Stevenson and the police meet?

[Stevenson] and uniformed police officers Ronald Absten and John Prilla were, by coincidence, making purchases inside a convenience store in Pittsburgh.

Click to expand...

Sounds really dangerous to me.

Ubiles is the law of the land in the 3d Circuit.

eye95 said:

Did I read someplace on this forum that police in Philly can indeed stop you to check your pistol license?

Click to expand...

Actually, the police in Philly CAN run over you with their cruiser, chop your head off with a weed-whacker, and urinate down your bloody stump of a neck.

They CAN duct-tape you to a light post, pour honey on your ears, pull down your pant and stick daisies in your gluteal cleft.

They CAN join hands in a circle around you, sing "Skip to my Lou" and then skip merrily off down the street.

The question is not if they CAN do something.

The question is whether they MAY do it, under the law and statutes of Pennsylvania.

And that is a VERY different thing, indeed...

Dreamer said:

Actually, the police in Philly CAN run over you with their cruiser, chop your head off with a weed-whacker, and urinate down your bloody stump of a neck.

They CAN duct-tape you to a light post, pour honey on your ears, pull down your pant and stick daisies in your gluteal cleft.

They CAN join hands in a circle around you, sing "Skip to my Lou" and then skip merrily off down the street.

The question is not if they CAN do something.

The question is whether they MAY do it, under the law and statutes of Pennsylvania.

And that is a VERY different thing, indeed...

Click to expand...

Alright Mr. English Teacher, that's enough class for one day (not that I don't do this IRL with my troops, but in a bit nicer of a way).

j4l said:

And you folks actually wonder why it's difficult to get OC passed for some of us in states where we are having difficulty getting it?
On top of the idiocy we have to contend with at the legislative level, we've got yahoos out there attempting to prove points of some kind or other,and trying to take it upon themselves to "educate" cops. Especially when they know full well they are living/OCing in an area where LE is hostile to the concept.
Im not saying surrender or give in-BUT. Stop carrying on like ranting lunatics and inciting such nonesne.
Yes, ok, some of the cops may not be hip to it, may outright oppose it, or just plain claim ignorance-take it up with the Dept- at the command levels, not on the street with the Barney Fifes..

Click to expand...

I though you were passing out the tissues.

One of the few things you've said that actually make sense.

I say light the candle at both ends though.

j4l said:

Tell ya what though. How about a sollution, rather than criticism, before any more of you get your panties in a wad.
How about instead of always wasting our time whining and crying and trying to "bust" cops for this stuff, and begging and grovelling before our law-makers to legalize things, we try this instead:

Instead of trying to fix things with this bottom-up approach- we try a top-down approach?
Get some candidates from amongst us-or step up and take the plunge yourselves, and get on the ballot for local or State office for your area.
The same amount of time spend bitching and moaning on a message board, or wandering the streets with cameras and recorders looking for cops to piss off, could be spent instead volunteering for, and supporting a potential candidate to office.
One to whom you dont have to convince,beg or grovel,because they want the same thing you do?
Then IF (and yes,of course it's a long-shot) He/She gets elected-(and even better if you get X# from as many districts as possible to do the same) you begin to make the changes we need from up top.
Opposition anti's in Senate/House offices, or city councils? Replace them. Overthrow them-at the ballots. For all the talk about our "rights" I see entirely too few willing to step up and excersize the most important one of all.
Once you're in, and the legislation is being written-include in it specific instructions to LEO's NOT to conduct themselves as they have, and lay out specific penalties for failing to do so.

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

What prompted the officer to draw his service weapon on a citizen, with his back to the officer I think, engaged in a legal activity? I think we have data that indicates that the officer believed that the citizen was in violation of a law. A law that does not apparently exist. The threat of use of lethal force by the officer seems to have made what should have been a consensual casual encounter into a seemingly unlawful use of force for a lawful detention. Is the officer not equipped with less than lethal devices?

Click to expand...

Still reading so this may have been pointed out. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Having said that, this whole encounter was FUBAR.

Aknazer said:

Alright Mr. English Teacher, that's enough class for one day (not that I don't do this IRL with my troops, but in a bit nicer of a way).

Click to expand...

The reason why it is VERY difficult for 2A activists to make any headway with legislators and courts is because we are trying to change or repeal LAWS. And the Legal system in the US is (by all anthropological and sociological definitions of the word) a PRIESTHOOD. They have their own secret language, procedures, and rituals, and if you cannot use that language and act out their rituals in a manner appropriate to their standards and conventions, they will IMMEDIATELY discount ANYTHING you have to say.

Words ave meaning. When discussing matters of the Law, words have VERY specific meanings. Use of accurate language is FUNDAMENTAL to any discussion of matters of law.

Inaccurate language used to discuss the Law is like using a trombone to hammer a nail into a 2x4 on a construction site. You will make a lot of interesting noises, but in the end, the job doesn't get done, and anyone with any expertise on the subject will just laugh, point, and summarily disregard your entire effort...

According to a recent article in the New York Times, there were only two cities in 2010 that saw a rise in murder, DESPITE the massive drop in overall violent crime in other locations nationwide...

New York City and Philadelphia...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1

And not to leave our gun-grabbing buddies in Maryland out of the discussion, DESPITE the decline in overall violent crime and murder in Baltimore, the "Charm City" still ranks as #7 in the nation in terms of most overall violent crimes per 100,000 residents, and it also garners the #5 position in terms of murders per 100,000.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...d-ci-fbi-crime-stats-20110523,0,3737765.story


How's that "gun control" thing working out for you, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Nutter, and Mayor Rawlings-Blake?

Of particular note in the NYT article is the attitude that the writer (and many government crime pundits) have about the continued fall in overall violent and property crime in the US over the last decade, despite the toilet-bound economy, the high rate of incarceration, the continued practice of cash-strapped states like CA to release violent criminals before their sentences are over to make room for newly-arrested thugs, and record firearms sales?

In the cities that have been staunch hold-outs on restoring gun rights for law-abiding citizens, we see INCREASES in violent crime, or much lower reductions than the national average...

And the top cities in the US for violent crime also have another thing in common. They include most of the cities that have the highest payouts for Civil Rights Violations Settlements by their police departments...

AND many of them also have the highest per-capita increases in police-to-citizen ratios over the last decades.

But the rest of the nation is seeing DOUBLE DIGIT reductions in violent crime since the 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the USA.

Uh, can anyone say MASSIVELY EXPANDED CC and OC rights, boys and girls?

More guns = less crime.
More cops = more crime.
More cops + less guns = even MORE crime...

This isn't rocket science, folks...

Dreamer said:

The reason why it is VERY difficult for 2A activists to make any headway with legislators and courts is because we are trying to change or repeal LAWS. And the Legal system in the US is (by all anthropological and sociological definitions of the word) a PRIESTHOOD. They have their own secret language, procedures, and rituals, and if you cannot use that language and act out their rituals in a manner appropriate to their standards and conventions, they will IMMEDIATELY discount ANYTHING you have to say.

Words ave meaning. When discussing matters of the Law, words have VERY specific meanings. Use of accurate language is FUNDAMENTAL to any discussion of matters of law.

Inaccurate language used to discuss the Law is like using a trombone to hammer a nail into a 2x4 on a construction site. You will make a lot of interesting noises, but in the end, the job doesn't get done, and anyone with any expertise on the subject will just laugh, point, and summarily disregard your entire effort...

Click to expand...

I'm not debating that words have meaning, I was simply saying there's a nicer way to point out the differences between "can" (which is the physical ability to do something) and "may" (which is being allowed to do something).

Though another issue would be that while under the law cops may not do things, the justice system still allows them to.

eye95 said:

Did I read someplace on this forum that police in Philly can indeed stop you to check your pistol license?

Click to expand...

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.

Great idea!!!

Hey???
How about everybody in the Phily area get T-shirts made with a photo copy of your carry license printed on the shirt. :lol:
Front and back.

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...

The State law...

18 Pa.C.S. § 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 of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

Click to expand...

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.

Similarly, the PA state law on drivers license:

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1511. Carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.
(a) General rule.--Every licensee shall possess a driver's
license issued to the licensee at all times when driving a motor
vehicle and shall exhibit the license upon demand by a police
officer, and when requested by the police officer the licensee
shall write the licensee's name in the presence of the officer
in order to provide identity.
(b) Production to avoid penalty.--No person shall be
convicted of violating this section or section 1501(a) (relating
to drivers required to be licensed) if the person:
(1) produces at the headquarters of the police officer
who demanded to see the person's license, within 15 days of
the demand, a driver's license valid in this Commonwealth at
the time of the demand; or
(2) if a citation has been filed, produces at the office
of the issuing authority, within 15 days of the filing of the
citation, a driver's license valid in this Commonwealth on
the date of the citation.
(May 30, 1990, P.L.173, No.42, eff. 60 days; Dec. 21, 1998,
P.L.1126, No.151, eff. 60 days)

Click to expand...

The entire argument in Philly for the police being legally authorized to demand ID and a permit when they see someone OCing will ultimately rest on a few very specific words in the Statute:

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...

"Lawful demand" means that an officer has a legal right to demand such a document.

Since the Federal, and the PA courts have ruled in several cases that the mere carrying of a properly holstered firearm is not RAS, a VERY strong argument can be made that, absent any other extenuating circumstances (evidence of a crime being committed, violent behavior, threats being made, etc) the PPD has no standing to demand proof of a carry permit based on the mere observation of an OCed firearm.

Of course, we have also seen that police of this ilk are more than willing to fabricate "extenuating circumstances" such as the "presence of children", or "the presence of large crowds" or other such spurious "public safety" reasons to establish RAS.

Until the Courts follow the letter of PA State Law and established State and Federal Case Law precedent, and stop catering to the anti-2A agenda of the criminal conspiracy known as the Philadelphia City Government, this will continue.

Ultimately, it is going to take a few Law-Abiding citizens getting brutally beaten, or shot, by overzealous LEOs to facilitate any change in the Philly Regime.

With a Police Commissioner who has a LONG record of Federal Civil Rights violations and convictions and a resume that reads like a "who's who of corrupt American LEAs", and a mayor who instituted unconstitutional warrantless random "stop and frisk" searches of citizens, and evicted the local Boy Scout council from their city-owned building in 2008 (which they had occupied since 1929) because he didn't like their politics, I think we know just what kind of people we are dealing with in the Philly government.

Ultimately the courts will sort this out.

And if not, perhaps the good People of Philadelphia need to start stocking up on sticky petrochemicals, soft pillows and large lumber...

MR Redenck said:

Hey???
How about everybody in the Phily area get T-shirts made with a photo copy of your carry license printed on the shirt. :lol:
Front and back.

Click to expand...

This has been suggested. Hard-core OC activists usually poo-poo this solution, because it is seen as a "sell out" to the illegal and unconstitutional intimidation being used by the PPD. And besides, the PPD would just say that a "copy" of a permit doesn't qualify as a legitimate permit, and they would use such a shirt as RAS to demand your REAL card, to verify that you actually have such a permit.

It has also been suggested that OCers in Philly wear their permits in a window pouch holder on a lanyard around their neck. This has also been shot down for similar reasons.

The Philly PD is NOT interested in keeping firearms out of the hands (or off the hips) of criminals or other prohibited persons. They are ONLY interested in dog-training the Citizens of Philadelphia that they have no 1A, 2A, 4A, and 14A rights. They are a goon squad headed up by a convicted tyrant, and being led by an administration that has displayed--time and time again--it's utter disregard for rule of law, adherence to PA Statutes, and Fundamental Human rights.

This has NOTHING to do with the rights of the City of Philly to keep it's Citizens safe. It has EVERYTHING to do with a self-anointed ruling class of oligarchs and sociopaths setting the precedent that they are above the law, and training the citizenry that they are, in fact, subjects, and not Free Citizens.

Anyone who is OCing in Philly without an audio or video recorder at hand and operating at all times is foolish. When dealing with a despotic regime, TRUTH is perhaps the most powerful weapon of the Citizenry.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?