Philly PD assault OCer at gunpoint -Chapter III- How to Solve the Problems [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Philly PD assault OCer at gunpoint -Chapter III- How to Solve the Problems


chivvalry
03-25-2011, 11:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

"Hey, Junior!" comes a voice from the other side of the squad car.
"Junior?!" I replied, as I turned around. I thought to myself, that's kind of a condescending way to greet someone, isn't it? As I turned, I prepared to ask the police officer what I could help him with.

It was then that I noticed the officer had his gun trained on my chest.Scary stuff.

RussP
03-30-2011, 19:57
We are going to continue discussing this incident, now focusing on how to solve the issues and problems surrounding this incident.

If you choose to post in this thread, follow ALL GT Rules, TOS and posting guidelines.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Rude and insulting posts will not be tolerated.

This is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion to resolve the problem with the Philly PD.

Make positive contributions to the discussion and all will be good.

RussP

clos1084
04-04-2011, 19:09
who called mmr's Preston and Steve this morning abt this lol?

RussP
04-04-2011, 19:14
who called mmr's Preston and Steve this morning abt this lol?He did.

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2ce3n0m&s=7You should be able to get the podcast tomorrow at www.prestonandsteve.com - it wasn't anything special, I just thought I would use their "Open Phone Philadelphia" segment to get the word out real quick that OC is legal in Philly if you have an LTCF from PA. Didn't have the time to get into any other details like reciprocal licenses, though.

RussP
04-04-2011, 20:40
I believe we should just cut to the chase and decide how best to correct the issues citizens of Philadelphia have regarding the lawful carry of firearms within the city limits.

THE main issue is the exception granted to 'cities of the first class'. Changing that exception will require legislative action or a legal challenge. Who is best suited to begin those processes?

Next is, lacking a better phrase, the rehabilitation of PPD. What is the best way to begin that process? Who is best qualified to organize the effort?

Another task is educating the public in Philadelphia about the legality of open carry. Are there a couple of squeaky clean open carriers who can representative the rest? Who can organize radio interviews, press releases, informational meetings, etc.?

Those are the issues.

Who wants to take point?

RussP
04-04-2011, 20:48
Forgot, someone needs to counsel open carriers on the risks involved in carrying openly in Philly and the consequences of varying degrees of behavior...just in case.

USAFE7
04-04-2011, 20:52
Both VERY good observations Russ.

Kith
04-04-2011, 20:56
Next is, lacking a better phrase, the rehabilitation of PPD. What is the best way to begin that process? Who is best qualified to organize the effort?


Ok, your way is better then mine, with less BS in the way of getting things done. I was trying to put out my way before I crashed for the night, so i'll get the links together tomorrow for the rest of what you're asking if no one else has by then.

I don't have, and don't know where to find, the answers to the two questions in bold.

Thanks for keeping us coherently making progress.

Bruce M
04-05-2011, 06:07
Another task is educating the public in Philadelphia about the legality of open carry. Are there a couple of squeaky clean open carriers who can representative the rest? Who can organize radio interviews, press releases, informational meetings, etc.?


?


Someone who is squeaky clean probably is reserved in their actions and thoughts, and very deliberate in most everything they do. As a result they may wish to avoid the kind of controversy that can arise out of this. I am not suggesting that open carriers are not squeaky clean, but rather that those that are may eschew potential controversy.

RussP
04-05-2011, 06:12
The entire paradigm of modern policing hinges on complying with Officer instructions, even if wrong. However, for that to work long term, there must be a fair process after the fact that makes things right. Overzealous Officers should still be complied with, but later on any wrongful actions need to be corrected through dicipline, lawsuits, retraining, fines, suspensions, even prison (if bad enough) or any number of ways. There is already that to some degree, but the question remains are there enough checks and balances on a broad scale and is the pendulum far enough on the side of John Q Public or is it almost always automatically on the side of agents of goverment?...See, you do understand. Resolving those points will be part of the solution.

How about you taking the lead on establishing the necessary criteria.

RussP
04-05-2011, 06:20
Someone who is squeaky clean probably is reserved in their actions and thoughts, and very deliberate in most everything they do. As a result they may wish to avoid the kind of controversy that can arise out of this. I am not suggesting that open carriers are not squeaky clean, but rather that those that are may eschew potential controversy.There are plenty of candidates. If you read the posts on PAFOA.org you'll see many passionate supporters of the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry and open carry, who qualify.

For clarification, when you say they may wish to avoid the controversy that can arise, what controversy do you mean?

Kith
04-05-2011, 07:08
I believe we should just cut to the chase and decide how best to correct the issues citizens of Philadelphia have regarding the lawful carry of firearms within the city limits.

THE main issue is the exception granted to 'cities of the first class'. Changing that exception will require legislative action or a legal challenge. Who is best suited to begin those processes?

Next is, lacking a better phrase, the rehabilitation of PPD. What is the best way to begin that process? Who is best qualified to organize the effort?

Another task is educating the public in Philadelphia about the legality of open carry. Are there a couple of squeaky clean open carriers who can representative the rest? Who can organize radio interviews, press releases, informational meetings, etc.?

Those are the issues.

Who wants to take point?


Part of being that good citizen you claim to be is taking an active part in the legislative process of your government.

Today's gonna be a long day for me, but to get you guys started on doing your homework, here's the very short version of what you'll need.

To get a bill passed into law in PA: (short version)

Legislative Reference Bureau writes it into bill form:
http://www.palrb.us/

Then it'll go to the House:
http://www.house.state.pa.us/index.cfm

If it passes there, it goes to the Senate:
http://www.pasen.gov/index.cfm

Then it'll land on the Governor's desk:
http://www.governor.state.pa.us

Then it becomes law if signed.

The process is much more involved then that, but those are the absolute bare basics.

Here's a list of links that'll help in this process:

Legislators by county:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/index.cfm

Email addresses, Members of the House:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/email_list.cfm?body=H

Email addresses, Members of the Senate:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/email_list.cfm?body=S

Contact PA Governor:
http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/contact/2998

Other helpful contact links:

Contact PA Attorney General:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=71

Philadelphia City Council Members:
http://www.phila.gov/citycouncil/CouncilMembers.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok people, here's the deal.

This pretty much just applies to people from Pennsylvania.

Nothing will get done without effort, making changes to laws requires much more then a 5 minute attention span.

I challenge all of you to put your money where your mouth is.

If you didn't think this is what we were working towards, then make no mistake - the easy part was the talking we did here.

We're close to figuring out what to say to the people who can make changes for us.

For as much effort as went into criticizing the way things are, now put the same effort into making the changes you demand.

Nothing will change without people stepping up and taking action. It's gonna take more then one or two to make this happen.

So get your pens ready, you're gonna have a bunch of letters to send.

Type it up, print it out, and sign your name in pen at the bottom. Make sure your name is readable. Typed print version and signature in pen is best.

If you're capable of posting here, you're capable of mailing letters...at the very least sending emails. If you send an email, make sure to request a response.

Email is better then nothing, but a paper letter is much better then an email. Do both and you'll have more of an impact.

If you aren't sure about sending something, ask someone first. Coming off intelligently is more important then just snapping a message out.

...please try not to make blatent grammatical errors, and remember, contractions are bad form in professional letters. Spell check your work.

There's a difference between being heard and being listened to.

MOST IMPORTANT:

Your work doesn't stop with sending the letters. If a new bill is introduced, pay attention to it through the PA General Assembly website. If bad amendments get tagged on, write a whole new batch of letters in protest to all the people who will vote on it.

We want to fix things, not make them worse. Not paying attention can be worse then doing nothing.

I've been fortunate enough to have time over the last few days to spend here, but my work comes and goes in cycles. When I have downtime I have a lot, when I don't I barely get sleep. I'll swing by as often as I can to help with this.

Thanks for your help!

Kith
04-05-2011, 07:21
How about we move on to developing solutions.

Yeah, you're thinking that's no fun, that takes work and is boring. For some, most, yeah it is. They prefer letting others do the heavy lifting.

Thankfully, there are those out there who thrive on solving problems and enjoy the satisfaction of knowing their hard work benefited many. It does feel good.

:goodpost:

johnnysquire
04-05-2011, 07:32
The exception granted to Philadelphia (cities of the first class) by state law, requiring a license to Open Carry in city limits, is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Can we agree on this?

We could achieve the same ends by changing 18 Pa.C.S. § 6122, which permits law enforcement officers to demand proof of license without probable cause or reasonable suspiscion. That would force PPD to change their policy with less upset to the apparent compromise reflected in 6108.

There may be other ways, too - maybe making open carry without a license a secondary offense. That said, I doubt any of these will get traction anytime soon without a headline case.

Kith
04-05-2011, 07:34
...Another task is educating the public in Philadelphia about the legality of open carry. Are there a couple of squeaky clean open carriers who can representative the rest? Who can organize radio interviews, press releases, informational meetings, etc.? ...


There are plenty of candidates. If you read the posts on PAFOA.org you'll see many passionate supporters of the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry and open carry, who qualify.



http://www.pafoa.org/

Being serious about effecting change will mean going to PAFOA to find more resources and people willing to edit and help draft the letters that need to be written.

Going there will also raise awareness of what we have learned over here.

People at that site are a great resource available to Pennsylvanians in what we are going to have to do to fix it, so just be aware of this fact.

Ok, that's it for my morning coffee, so time to get out the door.

I hope this helps everyone get started.

Kith
04-05-2011, 07:35
We could achieve the same ends by changing 18 Pa.C.S. § 6122, which permits law enforcement officers to demand proof of license without probable cause or reasonable suspiscion. That would force PPD to change their policy with less upset to the apparent compromise reflected in 6108.

There may be other ways, too - maybe making open carry without a license a secondary offense. That said, I doubt any of these will get traction anytime soon without a headline case.

Ok, one last thing -

This is a good post and bears more discussion.

chivvalry
04-05-2011, 07:45
http://www.pafoa.org/

Being serious about effecting change will mean going to PAFOA to find more resources and people willing to edit and help draft the letters that need to be written.

Going there will also raise awareness of what we have learned over here.

People at that site are a great resource available to Pennsylvanians in what we are going to have to do to fix it, so just be aware of this fact.

Ok, that's it for my morning coffee, so time to get out the door.

I hope this helps everyone get started.

I hope you don't mind but I already posted (quoted) your previous "here's what to do" message over on the PAFOA forum.

Fox
04-05-2011, 07:50
If there is state preemption, it's likely that city hall is going to act as if state preemption does not exist.

So why not make criminal penalties for city politicians and police that are going against the law?

Gallium
04-05-2011, 08:37
...

This is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion to resolve the problem with the Philly PD.
...

You say "...problem with the Philly PD"

but the scope of the issue is far wider than just with the PD. So far in my tiny mind I've identified...

1. A legislative issue.

2. A training issue. A Philly Sgt should be aware of what is, and is not the law as it applies to folks who can (and how they can) carry guns within that jurisdiction.

3. A human issue. Someone who decides to OC should realize they are as prone to interactions from the police as say, a woman in NYC who decides to go shirtless (it is legal here). That person should make deliberate attempts at being platonic, calm and as cordial as possible. It is entirely feasible to follow lawful commands by LE without making an ass of yourself, or allow your comments or actions to catalyze the situation.

4. An issue of tactics. Some may wear their armor openly, but due consideration should be given to the fact that one is advertising one has a gun. I suspect there are parts of Philly the OCer would not venture in - day or night open carrying, but might venture thru those parts concealed carrying.

RussP
04-05-2011, 08:50
You say "...problem with the Philly PD"

but the scope of the issue is far wider than just with the PD...Yes it is...see post #3. :cool:

OldCurlyWolf
04-05-2011, 08:55
Both VERY good observations Russ.
I Agree.:cool:

guyandarifle
04-05-2011, 09:57
As I understand it VA (as a state) allows OC without permit. It is also my understanding that Philly, being a City of the First Class requires a special carry permit.

Here's what I don't understand; this essentially makes the entire state of TN (and any other state that requires a permit to carry regardless) one great big Philly. Outside of a few niche exceptions (hunting, etc) carrying a loaded firearm in any manner is prohibited.

So if LE in the whole state of TN can handle what, at least to my understanding, is essentially the same situation that Philly has then either TN LEO's deserve some real kudos or the PPD is left looking like total idiots by comparison.

Or am I still missing something?

Bruce M
04-05-2011, 11:08
There are plenty of candidates. If you read the posts on PAFOA.org you'll see many passionate supporters of the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry and open carry, who qualify.

For clarification, when you say they may wish to avoid the controversy that can arise, what controversy do you mean?


For one, the issue that apparently the Philadelphia Police Department is not fond of open carry, and contact between them and open carry can result in controversy. My gut instinct is that at least some of the open carriers may not wish to carry openly with a large city/urban area.

Sam Spade
04-05-2011, 14:05
From the cheap seats:

Y'all need to ignore PPD in this process. Make the changes legislatively first and separate from any concerns about how PPD handled the encounter. Departments are very territorial about their rules and procedures. Street cops are even more territorial about safety issues. Getting into a whizzing contest and trying to impose something like the earlier "training" manual will get heels dug in.

Dragoon44
04-05-2011, 14:10
From the cheap seats:

Y'all need to ignore PPD in this process. Make the changes legislatively first and separate from any concerns about how PPD handled the encounter. Departments are very territorial about their rules and procedures. Street cops are even more territorial about safety issues. Getting into a whizzing contest and trying to impose something like the earlier "training" manual will get heels dug in.

I agree, plus removing the city of the first class thing will remove the basis for the policy as well.

RussP
04-05-2011, 15:40
I'm going to leave this Chapter open a little longer to give Pennsylvanians and those actually living in Philadelphia a chance to join the discussion.

If anyone else would like to contribute what's working and what has worked in your state, please, feel free to join in.

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 15:49
I agree, plus removing the city of the first class thing will remove the basis for the policy as well. to

Yet, the opportunity to have PPD train their officers to gather facts, process the facts, and act according to their logical inferences, reasonable suspicions, and rational beliefs instead of trying to have an "if A then B" policy for every situation should not be passed up.

Fixing only the carry issues leaves the good people of Philly subject to questionable police actions on a regular basis.

RussP
04-05-2011, 15:57
to

Yet, the opportunity to have PPD train their officers to gather facts, process the facts, and act according to their logical inferences, reasonable suspicions, and rational beliefs instead of trying to have an "if A then B" policy for every situation should not be passed up.

Fixing only the carry issues leaves the good people of Philly subject to questionable police actions on a regular basis.How would suggest initiating those efforts?

shaffer
04-05-2011, 16:24
Yeah, those simple answers are frustrating.

I disagree. Brevity is the soul of wit.

I've pissed off some really good, really smart attorneys with short, direct responses. Know what is really fun? Ask an attorney to be more specific with a question.

That's great, congrats.

You're probably thinking David is being evasive.

No, I posted exactly what I was thinking. Here you go:

I apologize if you take offense to this but I was really hoping for a higher caliber response to the issues I raised. "Don't know"... and "No"... and "I think it was quite relevant" without any further explanation isn't much of a rebuttal.

Would any of those who believe the officer's detainment was lawful please (thoughtfully) expose the flaws in post 655? I am very interested in this issue and am willing to be convinced otherwise.


Perhaps if you ask another, very simple question it will get an answer that is more acceptable to you.

Or, make a statement and ask David if he agrees.

Okay, class dismissed, y'all have a good day.

I'm comfortable with the very clear approach I took but I do appreciate the advice.

Now back to #655, if at all possible...

RussP
04-05-2011, 16:27
...Now back to #655, if at all possible...That thread is closed.

shaffer
04-05-2011, 16:31
That thread is closed.

Ok... thanks all for the conversation.

RussP
04-05-2011, 16:36
Ok... thanks all for the conversation.There's still the discussion about solutions and how to implement them. Are you passing on that?

Matthew Courtney
04-05-2011, 16:48
How would suggest initiating those efforts?

Someone who has credibility with PPD trainers could approach the issue from the standpoint that having officers take a few moments to process the circumstances surrounding a call not only makes for better decisions, it enhances officer safety.

The "if A then B" procedures sometimes cause officers to miss or ignore details of a situation which can change the dynamics, putting officers in more danger than is necessary to complete an investigation or apprehend a suspect.

As others have stated, it's tough to get departments to change things from the outside. Changes usually come from within when the department realizes that it in their best interests to change.

Gallium
04-05-2011, 17:30
From the cheap seats:

Y'all need to ignore PPD in this process. Make the changes legislatively first and separate from any concerns about how PPD handled the encounter. Departments are very territorial about their rules and procedures. Street cops are even more territorial about safety issues. Getting into a whizzing contest and trying to impose something like the earlier "training" manual will get heels dug in.


That's a part of the problem. Sometimes viable solutions stare us in the face, but the messenger/delivery system is outside of our circle, often leading to resistance.

What you have stated is too, a part of the problem. The culture of knowledge acquisition must also change.

'Drew

fmfdocglock
04-05-2011, 18:18
Removing the city of the first class distinction is the probably the best approach.

In terms of the Philly police, that will be a long hard road given the history of police corruption there. The only thing in my view that would solve the problems is a multi-million dollar lawsuit by the family of a Philly police CCW or OC victim.

Kith
04-05-2011, 18:22
I hope you don't mind but I already posted (quoted) your previous "here's what to do" message over on the PAFOA forum.

Not at all, that's good at this stage now.

Cross-pollination of information at this stage furthers the interests of all involved.

PAFOA has a history (on an individual basis) of organizing letter-writing campaigns and a knowledge base of which legislators will listen.

There is a lot more information then what I posted needed to be effective in swaying legislators to represent our interests.

Just knowing we need to make a change is not enough, we need to know precisely what and how we want to change something to make this better.

Besides that, the next most important thing is getting enough people to speak up to get something to happen.

Corbett is governor of PA now. He has a history of defending the rights of firearms enthusiasts, one of the key reasons that now is the time to do this. If we can get sensible legislation to his desk, it's a good bet he'll sign.

Encouraging police officers to engage in possible confrontation with law abiding citizens is not wise, and that's what is turning out to be the case with the way the law is written.

One of the approaches in getting this changed is pointing out the safety benefit for all involved. The change we are looking to make is based on that fact more then any other.

I get the unfortunate impression that since we are moving into the stage where people have to do more then just spit words out onto a message board there will be less interest in this issue. Nothing would please me more then to be wrong, though.

I would like to take a quick moment and thank the people who are still contructively adding to this, especially since most of you that are left don't live in PA.

Thank you.

Kith
04-05-2011, 18:36
1. A legislative issue.

2. A training issue. A Philly Sgt should be aware of what is, and is not the law as it applies to folks who can (and how they can) carry guns within that jurisdiction.

3. A human issue. Someone who decides to OC should realize they are as prone to interactions from the police as say, a woman in NYC who decides to go shirtless (it is legal here). That person should make deliberate attempts at being platonic, calm and as cordial as possible. It is entirely feasible to follow lawful commands by LE without making an ass of yourself, or allow your comments or actions to catalyze the situation.

4. An issue of tactics. Some may wear their armor openly, but due consideration should be given to the fact that one is advertising one has a gun. I suspect there are parts of Philly the OCer would not venture in - day or night open carrying, but might venture thru those parts concealed carrying.

This is a good posting.

As citizens, we can try our best on 1.

2 is mostly out of our hands.

3 is an unquestioned responsibility of a citizen. Beyond just the encounter on a micro level, as a firearm owner legally exercising a right a citizen becomes an ambassador of all other firearms owners.

The public perception of people legally exercising their rights falls mostly on the shoulders of the people who do, and they should conduct themselves accordingly.

4 plays directly into situation awareness, which is a skill that someone carrying a firearm cannot afford to just 'passively' be concerned with.

Kith
04-05-2011, 18:48
to

...

Do I sense the remnents of a boy scout past here?

That is probably the biggest reason for me that I got interested in taking an active part in my government.

Let's not forget the boy scouts in this. This issue can become a good civil liberties project for them, and i've been mulling over the idea of talking with some of the people I still know who are leaders for various troops in my area.

I thought that might be a good way to help spread the word through the community once we figure out what we want to do.

CrimsonMKII
04-05-2011, 20:15
Just 2 cents from an officers son:

I have not been able to read every post on what happened but scanning through the topics, I felt like mentioning that the NRA is holding their 2011 NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Pittsburgh, PA April 29th through May 1, 2011. I am certain they would be interested in hearing about his if they haven't already?

Perhaps if the people of PA are interested the NRA could provide direction on the great topics and conversation being raised here from this incident at their meeting?

Kith
04-05-2011, 20:46
CrimsonMKII - That sounds like a wonderful idea, I much appreciate you sharing that information.

I marked that on my calendar. Pittsburgh is a bit of a hike from here but i'm going to do my best to work that in.

RussP
04-05-2011, 21:22
Personal attacks on a member's character will not be tolerated.

If you disagree with a member's position on an issue, debate the issue, not the member's character.

Try to be subtle in doing it and that will just make matters worse for you.

There will be no more warnings.

Misty02
04-06-2011, 01:10
Quoted post removed

I will start my comment by saying that I know nothing about Philly law other than what I’ve read in these threads. I also don’t live in Philly so I’m not directly affected. The rest is just my personal opinion, that and a $1 will buy you a cup of coffee in McDonalds.

I heard the audio, pardon me for being of the opinion that the Sgt’s only mistake was not misquoting the law. I’ve seen and heard officers during the enforcement of laws I might not necessarily be in agreement of, yet they remained respectful and professional through the entire interaction. At times even when I thought the other individual didn’t deserve it at all. I truly admire people that are able to maintain that kind of control and not loose their composure. From the commencement of the exchange this officer was unprofessional and disrespectful (again, my opinion). I don’t have to know the law to be able to detect that.

I’ve read the information posted by Kith and others as well as the PD’s Memo on what to do/how to handle those that OC and other information posted in the other thread. It appears that the physical procedures followed were correct, but it would be one heck of a stretch to insinuate that this particular officer’s actions (in general) were appropriate. Saying that he “misquoted the law”, although not inaccurate, definitely sounds a lot better than the blunt and more clear alternative “he didn’t know the law”. English isn’t my first language and when I read “misquoted” I tend to think there is some truth to the statement although it has been twisted by the speaker (intentionally or not) where one is led to believe something else.

I’ve been reading these threads with interest, I’m impressed with the knowledge some demonstrate and their willingness to work together to find a possible solution. In the meantime, it may behoove everyone to remain civil and professional. Those in law enforcement would continue following their department’s rules and the law while those working toward changing them do so within the law and system to accomplish it, respectfully on both sides of the equation.

I commend you all for working to improve things for those that carry. Do so in a way that ensures you’ll be alive and free to enjoy what you’ve worked toward. When I read in the other thread that Viper continued going while there was a firearm aimed at him the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. I know I’m a scary cat but I think I would have gone mute at that instant. It might not have been pretty after that situation was over, but right then and there I would have gone silent.

Don't risk more than you are willing to loose and don't always assume the other person will react the way you expect them. Being right has very little importance if you completely misjudge someone aiming a firearm at you.

There are many good posts and I’m learning a lot here. Kith, thank you for the education.

Good luck and be safe!

Misty02
04-06-2011, 05:51
One thing for those that elect to become activists for a cause they believe in. You have to know yourself as well as possible before you decide to take an active participation in a demonstration, it requires a well rounded temperament and personality. In addition to remaining calm and collected you have to know when to stop offering a resistance of any type. You cannot loose sight of your objective, it is not just about being right or wrong.

While some are diligently working to change laws from the top down keep in mind that the wrong headlines would hurt not just you but the cause you’re fighting for.

Possible Headline #1:
Man arrested for following the letter of the law

Possible Headline #2:
OC shot and killed during a confrontation with officers following the law


Just as the world renowned expert in XYZ, may not make a good teacher or be able to teach XYZ to others. The most ardent and knowledgeable supporter of ABC may not make be the best person to be in demonstrations with objectives to bring changes to ABC. Know your limitations and participate where your knowledge and talents can be best used. If that is behind the scenes to offer guidance to others that possess the right character for demonstrating, then you would be more valuable in that role.

You also need the right resources behind you. If your engagement is in the front line where officers following the letter of the law can arrest you, make sure you’ve retained a lawyer that will defend you for free (because he/she is also fighting for the same cause) or that there is a group behind you with the financial resources to pay for one (and know you may still loose).

Again, don’t risk more than you’re willing to loose. If your freedom is at stake you better be willing to be arrested and possibly incarcerated for your cause.

I’m not rich and certainly don’t have the temperament necessary to allow being pushed around and submitting when the time is right. I’m not even sure I would know how to recognize that moment in time (unless I had a gun aimed at me; that would be loud and clear!). That means I belong to letter writing group that either uses a letter that someone else prepared or have mine reviewed before sending so I don’t do more harm than good.

If the welfare of my children or that of my grandchildren was at stake, I would be willing to risk a lot more and act accordingly.
.

Beware Owner
04-06-2011, 07:40
Very good posts, Misty.

Beware Owner
04-06-2011, 07:48
I say that there should be some kind of punishment for those who break the law stemming from the new legislation designed to protect The People from unlawful search and seizure.

Misty02
04-06-2011, 07:49
My apologies for my prior indiscretion, Russ. I no longer see the comment I was about to comment on before I left home this morning. If you find the following opinion inappropriate, please remove it or feel free to adapt it to reflect what I mean in spite of what I may incorrectly state.

While an officer’s opinion may not represent those of the PD, they do in fact represent the opinion of at least one officer that would have to enforce the laws as passed. Just because an officer’s personal opinion may be somewhat conflictive with a law, it doesn’t mean they will not act with the outmost professionalism in enforcing it. Before being an officer they are human beings and as such entitled to their own personal opinions, my full agreement with it is not a requirement for me to respect it.

If I lived in Phillly I would like to know both, the position of the PD as well as the general opinion of officers that I would have to work with. That knowledge would provide the foundation for whatever mental plan I develop and the activities I elect to participate in.

For me, support from the PD and it’s officers provides sufficient peace of mind to participate in demonstrations geared toward peacefully raising awareness of the general public (to gain acceptance), this may involve a media circus but at least I would have the support from those that could have a high impact in my freedom and wellbeing.

You’re not all at that stage yet but I have every confidence it will be reached based on the comments I’ve read here and the other site posted.

.

Gallium
04-06-2011, 08:16
To add, we (all of us) should never attempt to categorize comments made by anyone here as representative of an institution, IN PARTICULAR police agencies.

Hypothetically speaking, a dept as large as PPD (remember, they ARE a 1st class city after all ... :)) have official, designated police spokespeople. We should not quote folks who CAN ONLY provide their own personal opinions, and brand those quotes as ever being representative of any public agency they work for, or are affiliated with,

unless they have formally identified themselves as a spokesperson for that entity.

Thanks. :)
'Drew

Dragoon44
04-06-2011, 08:22
To add, we (all of us) should never attempt to categorize comments made by anyone here as representative of an institution, IN PARTICULAR police agencies.

Hypothetically speaking, a dept as large as PPD (remember, they ARE a 1st class city after all ... :)) have official, designated police spokespeople. We should not quote folks who CAN ONLY provide their own personal opinions, and brand those quotes as ever being representative of any public agency they work for, or are affiliated with,

unless they have formally identified themselves as a spokesperson for that entity.

Thanks. :)
'Drew


+1 and I have never taken Drews comments to represent the position or opinion of whatever asylum....err.... institution... he is a part of .

:supergrin::wavey:

Gallium
04-06-2011, 09:25
+1 and I have never taken Drews comments to represent the position or opinion of whatever asylum....err.... institution... he is a part of .

:supergrin::wavey:


Sir, I am MY OWN mental institution. Upstairs there are many of us running this errant spaceship! :rofl:

RussP
04-06-2011, 14:49
Wow, I did not expect this thread to fade away this fast.

Guess there is not as much interest in solving the problems as there was in laying blame.

:wavey:

ViperGTS19801
04-06-2011, 15:06
The whole idea of going to Harrisburg is something that I have discussed with a few of the people who are closer to me in this issue. We're actually working on a plan for removing the "City of the First Class" thing, and there's also an effort underway for Constitutional Carry.

gommer
04-06-2011, 15:20
Wow, I did not expect this thread to fade away this fast.

Guess there is not as much interest in solving the problems as there was in laying blame.

:wavey:

Well, given this is the third incarnation of this thread - I'd wager it's probably just that many of the major contributors in the conversation haven't 'tagged' this instance of the discussion yet.

That said - I'm kinda taking the position that this is something that a court needs to decide on. I know many have tried to point to case law and the such but so far I'm not convinced of anything.

Really, to me - what it comes down to is a situation that was unfortunate. We get to 'hear' how that played out but can't see what happened. One thing I've learned in my time is that sometimes there's more to a situation then you can see or hear immediately. Since we can only hear - I'm sure we missed quite a bit of what happened.

Nonetheless - what I eventually took from this was that it's an audio file that really evokes a lot of emotion from two strongly willed groups of people. (Police Officers and Firearms Carrying Enthusiasts?)

It's really hard to have a fair opinion and be part of either group, with the limited material we have available of the totality of the situation.

Plus, I'm a few pages behind on the discussion anyway. :whistling:

Shepherds_Hook_47
04-07-2011, 03:13
I had a really good post all typed out and then I decided.... what am I thinking...
I live in a world that has more surveillance that Nazi Germany..... :wow:

Yikes.... lol :whistling:

all I can say is .... If it's broke.....

It's not working.....

:faint:write letters if you must.

Misty02
04-07-2011, 04:51
We might end up with licensed open carry in Florida. That is another reason I’ve found these threads interesting. Many in the Florida forum have been working very hard for this. It appears that what they’re getting is not exactly what they originally set out to do but with baby steps they just may get what they really want.

The group is well organized and dedicated. The OC demonstrations have consisted of fishing in groups and the like, never quite pushing the envelope but still remaining visible.

I’ll admit that all I’ve done is send the letters they recommended to the people they indicated but taking in consideration that I’m not interested in OC personally it may be better than nothing.

My very limited participation in my state has been on behalf of others that are interested in OC and I hope to learn a thing or two from what you are all going through and doing about it.

So please, keep discussing it, I’m interested in reading it.

.

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 06:24
There are a few loose ends on this incident... Viper is still consulting with lawyers to see if there is one that is willing to tackle a suit and we don't yet have the police report or any police recordings or video.

There may not be a huge amount of movement, other than some letters and complaints, until those are tied up.

RussP
04-07-2011, 06:45
There are a few loose ends on this incident... Viper is still consulting with lawyers to see if there is one that is willing to tackle a suit and we don't yet have the police report or any police recordings or video.

There may not be a huge amount of movement, other than some letters and complaints, until those are tied up.Has anyone crafted a letter that would serve as a guide for those interested in expressing concern?

I ask because I've seen such letters and emails posted on OCDO laying out the issue and suggesting actions to correct the problem.

Here in Virginia, VCDL sends suggested emails and letters to its membership when we run into a problem.

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 07:08
Has anyone crafted a letter that would serve as a guide for those interested in expressing concern?

I ask because I've seen such letters and emails posted on OCDO laying out the issue and suggesting actions to correct the problem.

Here in Virginia, VCDL sends suggested emails and letters to its membership when we run into a problem.

You're talking about the petition letters? No, I have not seen anything crafted along those lines. I am hoping one of the folks in a leadership position in the PA Firearms Owners Against Crime (PA-FOAC) will take up the cause.

http://www.foac-pac.org/

RussP
04-07-2011, 08:24
You're talking about the petition letters? No, I have not seen anything crafted along those lines. I am hoping one of the folks in a leadership position in the PA Firearms Owners Against Crime (PA-FOAC) will take up the cause.

http://www.foac-pac.org/Petition letter, is that a formal type of letter specific to proposed legislation?

PA-FOAC, PAFOA, PA Open Carry, OCDO-Pennsylvania all address firearms issues, but the latter three are more focused on the daily carry for self defense.

Viper's audio recording is on multiple sites. How many of those are helping with solving the problems?

RickD
04-07-2011, 08:46
The next thing that needs to be done is for someone of standing (in PA) submit a Freedom of Information request (FOIA), if it exists in PA.

The police officer not only interpreted the law against the citizen, the police officer did so with *great* zeal and confidence. This suggests an agency dogma that he feels supports his actions, including the stop, the badgering, the repeated use of gutter language and the threat of death made on the citizen by the PPD Sgt.

It would be interesting to FOIA documents relating to training, e-mails, etc that would tend to show what attitude PPD has toward citizens with firearms, CCW, Open Carry, as well as the techniques.

RussP
04-07-2011, 09:02
The next thing that needs to be done is for someone of standing (in PA) submit a Freedom of Information request (FOIA), if it exists in PA.

The police officer not only interpreted the law against the citizen, the police officer did so with *great* zeal and confidence. This suggests an agency dogma that he feels supports his actions, including the stop, the badgering, the repeated use of gutter language and the threat of death made on the citizen by the PPD Sgt.

It would be interesting to FOIA documents relating to training, e-mails, etc that would tend to show what attitude PPD has toward citizens with firearms, CCW, Open Carry, as well as the techniques.Viper did request documents related to the incident.

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 09:29
Petition letter, is that a formal type of letter specific to proposed legislation?

PA-FOAC, PAFOA, PA Open Carry, OCDO-Pennsylvania all address firearms issues, but the latter three are more focused on the daily carry for self defense.

Viper's audio recording is on multiple sites. How many of those are helping with solving the problems?

I don't know.

Update on the RTK requests....

Update: So I called the Open Records office in Philadelphia this morning to get an update on the RTK request I filed on the 25th. They already have mailed out their determinations, but I haven't received them yet - that's USPS + Philadelphia for ya. :D

The officer on the phone explained all three determinations:

1. RE: A copy of the original handwritten report: Denied - long story short, the PPD Office of Records maintains these documents for a period of up to ten years, and they sell copies of them for $25 a pop. According to a section in the RTK Act, if the records are already available through another means, public or not, the act cannot supercede that procedure, meaning I just have to go to City Hall again to file for a copy of it myself. Fair enough, I guess.

2. RE: Follow up reports including 75-48A: Denied - 708(b)(16)(ii) The requested documents are considered "Investigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos [or] reports" and are therefore exempt from the RTK law.

3. RE: Audio or video recordings such as from dashcams: Denied - because the technology "does not exist" (he told me that none of the Philadelphia police cruisers are outfitted with dashcams or microphones), they are forced to deny this portuion of the request.

Misty02
04-07-2011, 10:30
Has anyone crafted a letter that would serve as a guide for those interested in expressing concern?

I ask because I've seen such letters and emails posted on OCDO laying out the issue and suggesting actions to correct the problem.

Here in Virginia, VCDL sends suggested emails and letters to its membership when we run into a problem.

Same for FL, Russ. It makes things a lot easier when you have the wording redacted by someone that knows exactly what needs to be said to accomplish the desired goal, referencing the right statutes if needed, etc.

wyoglock
04-07-2011, 10:39
So was he carrying legally or not? I haven't picked that up yet.

David Armstrong
04-07-2011, 10:45
. RE: Audio or video recordings such as from dashcams: Denied - because the technology "does not exist" (he told me that none of the Philadelphia police cruisers are outfitted with dashcams or microphones), they are forced to deny this portuion of the request.
Maybe there is an angle that can be looked at. Push for dashcams on all patrol vehicles as an officer-safety issue. Gets the people and the police and the govt. behind it. After all, who doesn't want to support officer safety? Getting a record that can be brought into court has certainly led to changes before.

RussP
04-07-2011, 10:58
So was he carrying legally or not? I haven't picked that up yet.Yes, he was carrying with a valid LTCF. Verification is required in Philadelphia by its classification as a city of the first class.

wyoglock
04-07-2011, 11:03
Yes, he was carrying with a valid LTCF. Verification is required in Philadelphia by its classification as a city of the first class.

Thanks

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 11:12
Maybe there is an angle that can be looked at. Push for dashcams on all patrol vehicles as an officer-safety issue. Gets the people and the police and the govt. behind it. After all, who doesn't want to support officer safety? Getting a record that can be brought into court has certainly led to changes before.

I've read that the FOP in Philly did not want dashcams or mikes on LEOs but I do not have a reference or citation for that other than the below.

Yeah, if I recall correctly, the FOP for PPD fought having them installed tooth and nail because it would impinge on them doing their jobs. Can't really argue with that. Performing their jobs lawfully would be harder than just doing whatever they want whenever they want.

I have asked for anything that can corroborate that statement as it appears emotional vs. calmly factual.

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 11:15
Yes, he was carrying with a valid LTCF. Verification is required in Philadelphia by its classification as a city of the first class.

By law and state MPOETC, verification is allowed by its classification as a city of the first class. By internal Philly PD directive it is required.

It's a nit... I know.

BailRecoveryAgent
04-07-2011, 11:39
I've been to Philadelphia, a city of first class it is not. More like a busted seat back in coach right next to the bathroom.

That being said, without a change is legislation, trying to force police depts to enact policy in dealing with oc in a more favorable approach is futile at best.

I think handlng this in the courts is the only way to see more clear defined wording of the law on carrying and how the police can treat someone who is doing so and not breaking any laws or acting in a manner that warrants contact with the police, but that is a whole nother can of worms open to interpretation by each individual person unless it is spelled out precisely in the laws.

chivvalry
04-07-2011, 13:31
I've read that the FOP in Philly did not want dashcams or mikes on LEOs but I do not have a reference or citation for that other than the below.



I have asked for anything that can corroborate that statement as it appears emotional vs. calmly factual.


This is the only thing located so far... it is in relation to street cameras though and not dashcams or mikes on LEOs. Everyone except the FOP in Philly seems to think they are great. Oh, and the ACLU doesnt like them either... what a shock.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/cameras/articles/1297667-Philadelphia-police-say-surveillance-cameras-cutting-crime/

But both major-party mayoral candidates, Democrat Michael Nutter and Al Taubenberger, said they supported the cameras.
The police union is only a lukewarm supporter.
"Cameras are an effective tool for crime-fighting if they're used properly. I've never seen them used properly," said Eugene Blagmond, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman. "Until they do that, the money is better spent on equipment, personnel and training."

Misty02
04-08-2011, 06:05
By law and state MPOETC, verification is allowed by its classification as a city of the first class. By internal Philly PD directive it is required.

It's a nit... I know.

I’ve read memos of other PDs where contact in absence of any other suspicion of criminal activity is prohibited. I don’t remember them all but as I recall in at least some there was no license required to OC.

I can see where the water gets muddy if a license is required in order to OC legally. There is only one way to determine if that person is carrying legally and that is to initiate contact and ask for the license. You throw in there that verification is “required” and you’ve eliminated officer judgment from the equation (which still doesn’t negate acting professionally while performing their duties).

The PD’s stance on the “required” part would have to change, but is it possible to reduce/eliminate unnecessary contact when a license is required to OC legally?

I can see how a person would have done absolutely nothing illegal but had a bad day and without realizing it be acting nervous, preoccupied and suspicious in the eyes of others observing that don’t know. Would it be considered unreasonable for an officer in that case to initiate contact and request to see a license?

What would be an acceptable wording for those places where a license is required to carry?
.

chivvalry
04-08-2011, 07:02
I’ve read memos of other PDs where contact in absence of any other suspicion of criminal activity is prohibited. I don’t remember them all but as I recall in at least some there was no license required to OC.

I can see where the water gets muddy if a license is required in order to OC legally. There is only one way to determine if that person is carrying legally and that is to initiate contact and ask for the license. You throw in there that verification is “required” and you’ve eliminated officer judgment from the equation (which still doesn’t negate acting professionally while performing their duties).

The PD’s stance on the “required” part would have to change, but is it possible to reduce/eliminate unnecessary contact when a license is required to OC legally?

I can see how a person would have done absolutely nothing illegal but had a bad day and without realizing it be acting nervous, preoccupied and suspicious in the eyes of others observing that don’t know. Would it be considered unreasonable for an officer in that case to initiate contact and request to see a license?

What would be an acceptable wording for those places where a license is required to carry?
.

The analogy of driving a car has been brought up several times... you are required to have a license to drive a car yet the courts have found that it is unreasonable to stop someone under most circumstances JUST to check if they have a driver's license. Many have said under all circumstances but we continue to see drunk driving checkpoints and the like.

The Philly PD's directive that removes officer discretion from checking for a license is, IMHO, a deliberate attempt to harass open carriers and suppress that behavior thru official oppression. It also seriously escalates the dangers for both the LEOs and the civilians. The additional risk involved in the performance of felony or high risk stops makes this, IMHO again, an intolerable risk.

The wording within the MPOETC materials allows for officer discretion when checking for a license... this is the correct method and the approach for conducting that check should also be at the officer's discretion. However, I think the conduct of a high risk stop to check someone's license is a bit excessive and should be used only when there is some additional indication of an unlawful act being performed. I have scripted what I would consider a "safe" and professional encounter between a LEO and an open carrying civilian previously.

I must toss in that THIS IS MY OPINION... as I do not wish to be accused of dictating police procedure.

RussP
04-08-2011, 08:22
...I have scripted what I would consider a "safe" and professional encounter between a LEO and an open carrying civilian previously.

I must toss in that THIS IS MY OPINION... as I do not wish to be accused of dictating police procedure.Would you like to see PPD adopt your 'script' as policy?

dosei
04-08-2011, 08:44
I have scripted what I would consider a "safe" and professional encounter between a LEO and an open carrying civilian previously.

I must toss in that THIS IS MY OPINION... as I do not wish to be accused of dictating police procedure.

Link to or "quote"? (Previous "chapters" are close to a thousand replies long)

This?
http://paopencarry.org/pa-open-carry-training-memos

dosei
04-08-2011, 08:58
Would you like to see PPD adopt your 'script' as policy?

...and would you be comfortable/content/happy with your son/daughter/spouse/self working as a LEO and being required to follow said script at all times when a gun is noticed, no matter what part of Philly they/you are in? Does the script allow for any deviation from script for any reason, and if so what reasons allow different actions and what different actions are allowed? Do you feel you have a script that helps to keep them (the LEOs) safe, or does the script take more of a "LEOs are disposable" approach?

Sam Spade
04-08-2011, 09:54
Sigh. Of course I'm biased. Which is another way of saying "experienced" in this case. But I'm going to object to the common tendency to make cops on the street bear the burden of people's folly and utopian vision. PPD is going to object, too.

Your problem is not a law enforcement problem. Your problem is a law problem. Certain conduct is illegal, and may be a felony. The guys that you've commissioned to hunt felons are not at all amused when Joe GunBoardPoster does his "may be felon" impersonation and are going to be positively irked when you try and script their approach to the situation. Moreso when your script removes life-protecting safety valves for dealing with may be felons in favor of making you feel good.

And don't bring up other states in trying to justify the utopian script. See, the default out here (for example) is that it's known and legal conduct that just might be a crime. The default in Philly is that it's highly unusual and illegal conduct that only becomes legal with a license. You're dealing with a specific place and have to deal with the situation that applies there.

Fix the law, and the guys upholding the law will follow. Tell those guys your preference for ignoring a law on the books, or the tactics to do the job, and they're going to look at you like you have three heads.

RussP
04-08-2011, 10:26
Would you like to see PPD adopt your 'script' as policy?

Sigh. Of course I'm biased. Which is another way of saying "experienced" in this case. But I'm going to object to the common tendency to make cops on the street bear the burden of people's folly and utopian vision. PPD is going to object, too.

Your problem is not a law enforcement problem. Your problem is a law problem. Certain conduct is illegal, and may be a felony. The guys that you've commissioned to hunt felons are not at all amused when Joe GunBoardPoster does his "may be felon" impersonation and are going to be positively irked when you try and script their approach to the situation. Moreso when your script removes life-protecting safety valves for dealing with may be felons in favor of making you feel good.

And don't bring up other states in trying to justify the utopian script. See, the default out here (for example) is that it's known and legal conduct that just might be a crime. The default in Philly is that it's highly unusual and illegal conduct that only becomes legal with a license. You're dealing with a specific place and have to deal with the situation that applies there.

Fix the law, and the guys upholding the law will follow. Tell those guys your preference for ignoring a law on the books, or the tactics to do the job, and they're going to look at you like you have three heads.Just repeating your message, Sam.

Some will need to read it at least twice to understand.

Snowman92D
04-08-2011, 10:32
Nicely stated, Sam. :thumbsup:

chivvalry
04-08-2011, 11:33
Would you like to see PPD adopt your 'script' as policy?

Loaded question!! :tongueout:

Okay, so serious answer... the level of professionalism and respect that the encounter begins with seems reasonable to me. Note that I say that only if the officer is responding to a MWAG call or has some other non-threatening but slightly suspicious reason to stop the civilian (this is broad, I know) should a demand for license even be started. The course the encounter takes will most certainly depend on a quite a number of factors, including compliance vs. non-compliance to the officer's initial orders.

If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed AND dangerous not just armed then I can see justification for a high risk stop. I would think that even a high risk stop should be done with a level of professionalism far above, "Hey Junior!"

Am I smoking wacky tabacky here or is this reasonable?

chivvalry
04-08-2011, 11:39
Link to or "quote"? (Previous "chapters" are close to a thousand replies long)

This?
http://paopencarry.org/pa-open-carry-training-memos


Good golly, no!

Let me see if I can find it again... it was just a "utopian" encounter description with a polite officer and polite suspect.

Here it is... okay call me an idiot now for thinking this makes sense... this particular quote was from a call about a LEO responding to a MWAG call on a concealed carry person... there is another quote somewhere that is mildly altered to take into account an open carry incident.

I'm thinking here... (notice the smoke?)

I am okay with an officer responding to a MWAG call with extreme caution... I am NOT okay with an officer responding to a MWAG call with a drawn weapon pointed at someone who doesnt have a gun IN HIS HAND. If the LEO had his gun unsnapped and his hand on his weapon at first contact I would consider that a reasonable preparatory step to defending himself if the MWAG suspect went for his weapon upon contact.

Obviously all situations are different and very dynamic and the responding LEO is required to actually engage someone on whom a call has been made but the tone and actions taken within that engagement are so very important. An accusatory tone with lots of "Hey Junior!" and drawn guns with profanity streaming from the LEO's mouth is certainly different from a cautious officer calmly engaging the "suspect" and asking a few questions.

If I was the LEO in this situation (note that I have received NO law enforcement training whatsoever) I would have been cautious and polite... I would also likely have had (as I stated earlier) a hand on my weapon with it ready to be drawn quickly. In fact, I would probably have engaged the "suspect" from a decent distance away and preferably where I could take cover quickly... like from the opposite side of my cruiser's engine.

"Excuse me, sir, we had a call about a MWAG matching your description. Are you currently armed?"
"Why, yes, I am."
"Do you have a LTCF?"
"Yes, I do."
"Would you please keep your hands visible, make no sudden movements or reach for your wallet, and come over here to my cruiser? Because of the call and the fact that you told me you are armed I need to verify your license."
"Certainly."
"Thank you, sir. I understand this is an aggravation and I appreciate your cooperation. Where is your license to carry?"
"In my wallet in my back right pocket."
"I see your weapon is on your back right hip. Would you mind if I retrieve your wallet for you? Alternatively I can place my hand over your weapon while you retrieve your wallet."
"Um... alright, you can pull out my wallet."
"Thank you sir. Okay, here's your wallet. Would you please show me your LTCF?"
"Here you go."
"Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. That's all I needed. You are free to go and, again, I really appreciate your cooperation. Say... that's a nice looking holster, what is it?"

This is, of course, assuming a cooperative "suspect".

chivvalry
04-08-2011, 11:59
Sigh. Of course I'm biased. Which is another way of saying "experienced" in this case. But I'm going to object to the common tendency to make cops on the street bear the burden of people's folly and utopian vision. PPD is going to object, too.

Your problem is not a law enforcement problem. Your problem is a law problem. Certain conduct is illegal, and may be a felony. The guys that you've commissioned to hunt felons are not at all amused when Joe GunBoardPoster does his "may be felon" impersonation and are going to be positively irked when you try and script their approach to the situation. Moreso when your script removes life-protecting safety valves for dealing with may be felons in favor of making you feel good.

And don't bring up other states in trying to justify the utopian script. See, the default out here (for example) is that it's known and legal conduct that just might be a crime. The default in Philly is that it's highly unusual and illegal conduct that only becomes legal with a license. You're dealing with a specific place and have to deal with the situation that applies there.

Fix the law, and the guys upholding the law will follow. Tell those guys your preference for ignoring a law on the books, or the tactics to do the job, and they're going to look at you like you have three heads.

My only nit-pick with this is that it is not necessarily a "law problem". The MPOETC materials make it allowable to stop and ask for a license from an open carrier in Philadelphia. It also states that a felony stop isn't appropriate.

The philly PD directive, which is NOT law, MANDATES that stop. Eliminate the directive and reinforce that a felony or high risk stop isn't appropriate and you end up with something much less heinous than what the current situation is.

IMHO, though the law allowing Philadelphia to be treated different (and violating the 14th amendment) is part of it a big part of the problem IS with the Philly PD senior leadership and the Philly mayor being rabid anti-gun fanatics and using official oppression to illegally persecute law abiding citizens.

RussP
04-08-2011, 16:47
Would you like to see PPD adopt your 'script' as policy?Loaded question!! :tongueout:Nope, real simple. Would you like to see PPD adopt your script as policy?Okay, so serious answer... the level of professionalism and respect that the encounter begins with seems reasonable to me.Okay.Note that I say that only if the officer is responding to a MWAG call or has some other non-threatening but slightly suspicious reason to stop the civilian (this is broad, I know) should a demand for license even be started.Then the law needs changing.The course the encounter takes will most certainly depend on a quite a number of factors, including compliance vs. non-compliance to the officer's initial orders.What other factors? List all factors that would affect the course of the encounter.If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed AND dangerous not just armed then I can see justification for a high risk stop. I would think that even a high risk stop should be done with a level of professionalism far above, "Hey Junior!"Okay.Am I smoking wacky tabacky here or is this reasonable?Depends on what your list of those factors includes.

Misty02
04-08-2011, 20:10
I’ve read the comments after mine and I thank you all for clarifying things further for me. I also apologize for not having read every post as I obviously missed Chivvalry’s utopian encounter.

I understand the gist of it, it is the professionalism and civility from both parties acting at their very best. I have a feeling that a good portion of the encounters may go along those lines. However, since everything goes as it should we don’t often get to find out about it. Practically, if the officer was my son or daughter I would strongly recommend against entering the personal space of another individual without backup as the hand to hand capabilities of another should never be underestimated. That is neither here or there as it is not relevant to the discussion and I know exactly what you mean.

Being on the receiving end of a drawn firearm would scare me half to death. Being at the receiving end of unprofessional, derogatory and foul language would just irritate me. I can deal with the irritating part and file a complaint, if it bothered me enough, later. From what I heard, Viper dealt with that second part perfectly, his language stayed clean and his tone proper.

Obviously, the goal here is to minimize the encounters in the first place and have those restricted to when it is viewed as necessary. The memo requiring contact with OC encountered leaves no room for officer discretion. Will elimination of this requirement be sufficient to achieve the desired goals? Are the goals clearly stated? What would constitute acceptable deviations from what is held as the utopian encounter? I’m not trying to be obtuse (although at times I can be rather dense); I’m trying to develop my own lines of what is acceptable and what is not.

Please take no offense, Viper as I am just thinking out loud here. The officer’s own tone and language removed, for me, much of the consideration and leeway I may have given due to the fact that I wasn’t there and didn’t witness the entire thing. But let’s assume for a second that it was not you and that the officer’s verbal part of the encounter had stood scrutiny. Body language carries a higher percentage in our communication with others than actual words when transmitting messages. What kind of behavior (body language) was observed preceding the encounter? (that wouldn’t be the case here either since it appears the PD made contact a requirement regardless of officer observations.)

Certain allowances have to be made (for all sides of the equation) that go beyond the obvious and what can be actually proven. I enjoy people watching and often seeing the reaction of other toward certain things. Decades ago, while I was attending community college, I conducted a little experiment. The building I selected had a rectangular opening in the center; each floor had an internal balcony. I purposely leaned over the balcony on the first floor and twisted my wedding ring while biting my lip. Ever so often I took my ring off and just looked at it. I gave the appearance of being preoccupied and distracted. I tried this more than once for a Saturdays when there fewer students in attendance. I did not select the benches on the ground floor for a reason. Those that saw me had to either look up from the ground floor, look down from the higher balconies or from another section of the same balcony. I was leaning forward enough to be seen from the higher floors. Obviously, there was no way for me to know for certain how many people noticed. I was trying to absorb too much information from too many sources to have noticed anyone that gave a quick glance. My objective was to see how many people would maintain a prolonged and noticeable visual contact and how many would actually engage in any verbal contact. Ever so often I allowed the other person to believe they had broken my concentration by their stare, looked at them with a half smile just implying a “hi”. More often than not the fact I looked at them made them stop looking and continue walking to where they were going. Several (more than I expected) actually utilized the eye contact to approach and ask if everything was ok. I just said “sure” in a low tone (as if I didn’t mean it) and smiled back, this often prompted an “are you sure?” I recall one person’s initial verbal contact consisting of something similar to “Don’t worry, whatever is wrong will find its way to get fixed.”

The point to the story is that I was sending sufficient signals which appeared to be subconscious to those observing to create a certain level of concern in complete strangers, some of them even feeling compelled to further investigate if I was ok.

I will be the first to admit that I would be mighty ticked off if I was treated in a way I believed was unjust and with no regard toward me as a person when knowing I’ve done nothing wrong. I want others, regardless of who they are, to treat me properly. Actually, it is something I demand from every person I come in contact with; hopefully without the need of verbalizing it.

I’m neither a lawyer nor a police officer. To my untrained and uneducated eye it appears that the PD’s memo and instructions to the officers as respect contact with those that OC (post #8 in Chapter II) is in direct conflict with post #70 here and post #10 in Chapter II quoting the training material.

It seems the one way to truly minimize unwarranted contact is to find a way to have the law amended where a license is not required for OC. There is only one way to determine if someone is carrying legally. I understand the analogy with the license for driving. Using the holstered firearm as the equivalent of normal driving and the drawing of the weapon being the equivalent to causing an accident; which would be the actions/signs that would equate erratic change of lanes, running a red light, not stopping at a stop sign, speeding, etc? (all of which could lead to an accident and considered justifiable reasons for a stop?)

My apologies for being terribly long winded, it is truly my desire to fully understand all sides in order to better develop my own opinion and learn to distinguish what I personally will find acceptable or not.

EMTCOP
04-09-2011, 03:05
Sigh. Of course I'm biased. Which is another way of saying "experienced" in this case. But I'm going to object to the common tendency to make cops on the street bear the burden of people's folly and utopian vision. PPD is going to object, too.

Your problem is not a law enforcement problem. Your problem is a law problem. Certain conduct is illegal, and may be a felony. The guys that you've commissioned to hunt felons are not at all amused when Joe GunBoardPoster does his "may be felon" impersonation and are going to be positively irked when you try and script their approach to the situation. Moreso when your script removes life-protecting safety valves for dealing with may be felons in favor of making you feel good.

And don't bring up other states in trying to justify the utopian script. See, the default out here (for example) is that it's known and legal conduct that just might be a crime. The default in Philly is that it's highly unusual and illegal conduct that only becomes legal with a license. You're dealing with a specific place and have to deal with the situation that applies there.

Fix the law, and the guys upholding the law will follow. Tell those guys your preference for ignoring a law on the books, or the tactics to do the job, and they're going to look at you like you have three heads.

Well said!!! Bravo!!!

RussP
04-09-2011, 08:33
My only nit-pick with this is that it is not necessarily a "law problem". The MPOETC materials make it allowable to stop and ask for a license from an open carrier in Philadelphia. It also states that a felony stop isn't appropriate.I've read the MPOETC, but must have missed a part. Where does it say a felony stop in Philadelphia, specifically, isn't appropriate? Is it in the sections quoted from the laws, or in the instructor narratives?

You keep coming back to the word "may" in this sentence of the instructor narrative: "A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption."

Once before you said (I believe it was you) "may" means "officer discretion". Now you say "make it allowable to stop". The law is actually silent on this, isn't it? The law does not address if a stop can be made, or can a stop be made, or should a stop be made to confirm the possession of a valid LTCF, does it? It's been agreed before that something not prohibited by law is therefore lawful, correct?

Would you say the MPOETC education and training instructor narratives provide general guidelines to remain within the law?The philly PD directive, which is NOT law, MANDATES that stop. Eliminate the directive and reinforce that a felony or high risk stop isn't appropriate and you end up with something much less heinous than what the current situation is.Neither are the instructor narratives law.

Do you believe the directive that all persons open carrying be stopped to verify possession of a valid LTCF provides for uniform enforcement of the unique exception granted cities of the first class? Or, would you rather that be eliminated and allow patrol officers, acting legally under current laws, to pick and choose who gets stopped and who doesn't?IMHO, though the law allowing Philadelphia to be treated different (and violating the 14th amendment) is part of it a big part of the problem IS with the Philly PD senior leadership and the Philly mayor being rabid anti-gun fanatics and using official oppression to illegally persecute law abiding citizens.See, chivvalry, you want to minimize the root problem.

Existing law is the base issue.

I am not saying that things can't be done to lessen the pain of dealing with PPD on the street. There are, but as Sam and Dragoon and other law enforcement types here have said, unless it is done properly, it will do nothing but widen the chasm separating those non-LEO who carry for self defense and the LEO who carry for self defense who have a bad law to enforce.

You're out in Western PA. What are LE's beliefs there about open carry?

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 08:41
I wonder how changing the law alone would fix the problem, as it is the mandate that obliges officers to stop people. Would an amendment on the mandate stating that officers should make contact with people in a precautionary manner, yet with professionalism, change the situation?

Dragoon44
04-09-2011, 08:45
I wonder how changing the law alone would fix the problem, as it is the mandate that obliges officers to stop people. Would an amendment on the mandate stating that officers should make contact with people in a precautionary manner, yet with professionalism, change the situation?

Removing the "city of the first class" status removes the basis for Philly PD's directive.

In short Philly becomes just like any other city in PA.

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 08:46
Please help me understand something here.

First we agree that the law does NOT criminalize open carry.

Once before you said (I believe it was you) "may" means "officer discretion". Now you say "make it allowable to stop". The law is actually silent on this, isn't it? The law does not address if a stop can be made, or can a stop be made, or should a stop be made to confirm the possession of a valid LTCF, does it? It's been agreed before that something not prohibited by law is therefore lawful, correct?

Then you say that the existing law is the base issue.

Existing law is the base issue.

If OC is NOT a crime, then, how is the law an issue?

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 08:47
Removing the "city of the first class" status removes the basis for Philly PD's directive.

In short Philly becomes just like any other city in PA.

But if the mandate remains the same, what difference does it make? I mean, the mandate can then be issued statewide, can it not?

RussP
04-09-2011, 08:58
I wonder how changing the law alone would fix the problem...It will not. That's the whole point.

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 09:00
It will not. That's the whole point.

Then, why did you say that existing law is the base issue?

chivvalry
04-09-2011, 09:01
I’m neither a lawyer nor a police officer. To my untrained and uneducated eye it appears that the PD’s memo and instructions to the officers as respect contact with those that OC (post #8 in Chapter II) is in direct conflict with post #70 here and post #10 in Chapter II quoting the training material.

It seems the one way to truly minimize unwarranted contact is to find a way to have the law amended where a license is not required for OC. There is only one way to determine if someone is carrying legally. I understand the analogy with the license for driving. Using the holstered firearm as the equivalent of normal driving and the drawing of the weapon being the equivalent to causing an accident; which would be the actions/signs that would equate erratic change of lanes, running a red light, not stopping at a stop sign, speeding, etc? (all of which could lead to an accident and considered justifiable reasons for a stop?)



I concur completely.


I've read the MPOETC, but must have missed a part. Where does it say a felony stop in Philadelphia, specifically, isn't appropriate? Is it in the sections quoted from the laws, or in the instructor narratives?

You keep coming back to the word "may" in this sentence of the instructor narrative: "A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption."

Once before you said (I believe it was you) "may" means "officer discretion". Now you say "make it allowable to stop". The law is actually silent on this, isn't it? The law does not address if a stop can be made, or can a stop be made, or should a stop be made to confirm the possession of a valid LTCF, does it? It's been agreed before that something not prohibited by law is therefore lawful, correct?


Yes, the law is silent on that... there is case law for other licensed activities that can be used as an example of proper conduct. No, I will not go looking for examples. Yes, I think the MPOETC materials allow for officer discretion and are the best possible interpretation of the existing law. The same licensing requirement exists for carrying in a vehicle and the rest of the state doesn't feel the need to felony stop people to check licenses. This leads to the conclusion there is an inherent problem in the Philly PD.


Would you say the MPOETC education and training instructor narratives provide general guidelines to remain within the law?Neither are the instructor narratives law.

Do you believe the directive that all persons open carrying be stopped to verify possession of a valid LTCF provides for uniform enforcement of the unique exception granted cities of the first class? Or, would you rather that be eliminated and allow patrol officers, acting legally under current laws, to pick and choose who gets stopped and who doesn't?See, chivvalry, you want to minimize the root problem.


I never said that either the MPOETC training was law nor the directive. The MPOETC appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the law while the directive is obvious oppression. Again, the Philly PD engaging in widespread oppression and harrassement. To be a purist as you seem to be demanding, we need to then eliminate all licensing within the state to ensure that there is no reason for a LEO to ever ask for a license. Okay, I'm fine with that if you want black and white.


Existing law is the base issue.

I am not saying that things can't be done to lessen the pain of dealing with PPD on the street. There are, but as Sam and Dragoon and other law enforcement types here have said, unless it is done properly, it will do nothing but widen the chasm separating those non-LEO who carry for self defense and the LEO who carry for self defense who have a bad law to enforce.

You're out in Western PA. What are LE's beliefs there about open carry?

I agree that the existing law requiring licensing of any sort is the base issue if you wish to engage in black and white scenarios. Though I must say that I am not one that believes in binary situations in real life. Real life is an almost infinite selection of shades of gray.

I do not personally know the local LE's beliefs about open carry. I've stated before that I do not open carry. I do have a vague desire to speak with the local LEOs about open carry and will likely broach the subject when I go try and get fingerprints for my FL license. I may not depending on the reception I get when I tell them what I want the fingerprinting done for.

On the "utopian encounter" scenario... I am not an idiot... I fully understand that such a scenario is only ONE of the possible outcomes and that scenario as I wrote it likely contains stupid mistakes that one such as I, an UNTRAINED and INEXPERIENCED individual, might make in an encounter of that sort. It was intended to demonstrate what I would consider a "good" encounter only. Polite and professional.

I'm getting a little fed up with this discussion so I'm going to step away for a bit... I have a shoot tomorrow and then am headed to Philadelphia for a few days for business. I may or may not have a chance to check on the board.

No... I will NOT be open carrying in Philadelphia.

RussP
04-09-2011, 09:05
If OC is NOT a crime, then, how is the law an issue?You've been around this debate when that has been answered. Why are you asking the question?

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 09:07
You've been around this debate when that has been answered. Why are you asking the question?

Because you just mentioned it again. What I want to know is if you think that the mandate is part of the problem or not.

RussP
04-09-2011, 09:13
...Existing law is the base issue.

I am not saying that things can't be done to lessen the pain of dealing with PPD on the street. There are, but as Sam and Dragoon and other law enforcement types here have said, unless it is done properly, it will do nothing but widen the chasm separating those non-LEO who carry for self defense and the LEO who carry for self defense who have a bad law to enforce...Please help me understand something here.

First we agree that the law does NOT criminalize open carry.

Then you say that the existing law is the base issue.

If OC is NOT a crime, then, how is the law an issue?It will not. That's the whole point.Then, why did you say that existing law is the base issue?You've been around this debate when that has been answered. Why are you asking the question?Because you just mentioned it again. What I want to know is if you think that the mandate is part of the problem or not.Because it is the base problem, but not the only problem. See the part in blue above that you failed to quote.

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 09:23
Because it is the base problem, but not the only problem. See the part in blue above that you failed to quote.

I didn't see that part, my vision is failing.

dosei
04-09-2011, 09:53
Please help me understand something here.

First we agree that the law does NOT criminalize open carry.



Then you say that the existing law is the base issue.



If OC is NOT a crime, then, how is the law an issue?

Per the "city of the first class" clause, OC is criminalized (must have a permit to do it). Remove the "city of the first class" clause and you have effectively removed the "ground" upon which the current mandate stands. There is absolutely nothing to "check" to see if what is being done is within the law if the "city of the first class" clause goes away and OC without a license becomes legal in Philly.

How is it people are not getting this? Come on people, you've got tunnel vision on this and Russ is trying to help you see the bigger picture.

RussP
04-09-2011, 10:14
I’m neither a lawyer nor a police officer. To my untrained and uneducated eye it appears that the PD’s memo and instructions to the officers as respect contact with those that OC (post #8 in Chapter II) is in direct conflict with post #70 here and post #10 in Chapter II quoting the training material. I concur completely.Is it in conflict, or does it more specifically define based on the unique exemption for cities of the first class?I've read the MPOETC, but must have missed a part. Where does it say a felony stop in Philadelphia, specifically, isn't appropriate? Is it in the sections quoted from the laws, or in the instructor narratives?Answer?You keep coming back to the word "may" in this sentence of the instructor narrative: "A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption."

Once before you said (I believe it was you) "may" means "officer discretion". Now you say "make it allowable to stop". The law is actually silent on this, isn't it? The law does not address if a stop can be made, or can a stop be made, or should a stop be made to confirm the possession of a valid LTCF, does it? It's been agreed before that something not prohibited by law is therefore lawful, correct?Yes, the law is silent on that... there is case law for other licensed activities that can be used as an example of proper conduct.Involving firearms? No, I will not go looking for examples. Yes, I think the MPOETC materials allow for officer discretion and are the best possible interpretation of the existing law. The same licensing requirement exists for carrying in a vehicle and the rest of the state doesn't feel the need to felony stop people to check licenses. This leads to the conclusion there is an inherent problem in the Philly PD.And that inherent problem is rooted where?

Would you say the MPOETC education and training instructor narratives provide general guidelines to remain within the law?Neither are the instructor narratives law.

Do you believe the directive that all persons open carrying be stopped to verify possession of a valid LTCF provides for uniform enforcement of the unique exception granted cities of the first class? Or, would you rather that be eliminated and allow patrol officers, acting legally under current laws, to pick and choose who gets stopped and who doesn't?I never said that either the MPOETC training was law nor the directive. The MPOETC appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the law while the directive is obvious oppression. Again, the Philly PD engaging in widespread oppression and harrassement. To be a purist as you seem to be demanding, we need to then eliminate all licensing within the state to ensure that there is no reason for a LEO to ever ask for a license. Okay, I'm fine with that if you want black and white.You didn't answer the part in blue.I agree that the existing law requiring licensing of any sort is the base issue if you wish to engage in black and white scenarios. Though I must say that I am not one that believes in binary situations in real life. Real life is an almost infinite selection of shades of gray.So then that "almost infinite selection of shades of gray" applies to PPD as well, how they deal with people on the street, right?I do not personally know the local LE's beliefs about open carry. I've stated before that I do not open carry. I do have a vague desire to speak with the local LEOs about open carry and will likely broach the subject when I go try and get fingerprints for my FL license. I may not depending on the reception I get when I tell them what I want the fingerprinting done for.So you are expecting a negative reaction.On the "utopian encounter" scenario... I am not an idiot... I fully understand that such a scenario is only ONE of the possible outcomes and that scenario as I wrote it likely contains stupid mistakes that one such as I, an UNTRAINED and INEXPERIENCED individual, might make in an encounter of that sort. It was intended to demonstrate what I would consider a "good" encounter only. Polite and professional.Okay.I'm getting a little fed up with this discussionWhy?

Misty02
04-09-2011, 10:21
Please don’t give up on us. I’m trying to learn, the only way to do so is to get input from others to fully understand and dissect what we have versus what we want and then identify what changes are needed to get closer to what is desired. Identifying what is needed alone is quite a challenge, second only to knowing how to proceed in accomplishing the goal.


Edited to remove second paragraph as it was not relevant at the moment.

.

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 11:00
Per the "city of the first class" clause, OC is criminalized (must have a permit to do it). Remove the "city of the first class" clause and you have effectively removed the "ground" upon which the current mandate stands. There is absolutely nothing to "check" to see if what is being done is within the law if the "city of the first class" clause goes away and OC without a license becomes legal in Philly.

I understand that the criminalization is an "if" kind of criminalization. Carrying is a crime IF not permitted to do so. OCing isn't even in the law, so OC is de facto legal, again, with a permit. So it's legal with a condition, not absolutely illegal. In other words, people don't HAVE to be stopped because they're OCing.

I understand that this would, in effect, pull the rug from under the mandate's feet, so to speak. That would be, in my opinion, very legally smart, and a comprehensive approach to the situation, hitting all bases, so to speak. Very good.

However, even if that's not attainable at the present for some odd reason, having the mandate modified and officers well trained would resolve the problem of encounters like these.

How is it people are not getting this? Come on people, you've got tunnel vision on this and Russ is trying to help you see the bigger picture.

Maybe we're just getting caught up in semantics. I do think this is necessary and a good step away from the TAABO that was so pervasive. I guess we're not used to "working together," but we're getting there.

Sam Spade
04-09-2011, 11:44
I understand that the criminalization is an "if" kind of criminalization. Carrying is a crime IF not permitted to do so. OCing isn't even in the law, so OC is de facto legal, again, with a permit. So it's legal with a condition, not absolutely illegal. In other words, people don't HAVE to be stopped because they're OCing.
What you understand isn't what PPD understands. You're starting from an assumption that's valid in your eyes, but you need to set it aside a moment. In Philly, OC is illegal, unless there's a permit. You think, "legal with condition", they think "illegal with an exception". That distinction about people's default setting is what drives the tone of the encounter, and goes to why the OC crowd's "why can't they just not make a stop?" plan won't work. Note that I'm NOT advocating here, I'm explaining.


Maybe we're just getting caught up in semantics. I do think this is necessary and a good step away from the TAABO that was so pervasive. I guess we're not used to "working together," but we're getting there.
Sometimes semantics, but here it's mindset. Part of the reason that you'll be better served by addressing the law.

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 11:51
What you understand isn't what PPD understands. You're starting from an assumption that's valid in your eyes, but you need to set it aside a moment. In Philly, OC is illegal, unless there's a permit. You think, "legal with condition", they think "illegal with an exception". That distinction about people's default setting is what drives the tone of the encounter, and goes to why the OC crowd's "why can't they just not make a stop?" plan won't work. Note that I'm NOT advocating here, I'm explaining.

Ok, I'm not trying to be smart here, this is an honest question, what is the difference between legal with a permit and illegal without a permit? Maybe it has to do with the mindset, but I'm just not getting it.

Sometimes semantics, but here it's mindset. Part of the reason that you'll be better served by addressing the law.

IMOVHO, addressing the law will not change the mindset, and that's what I would like to see changed.

Dragoon44
04-09-2011, 12:02
Ok, I'm not trying to be smart here, this is an honest question, what is the difference between legal with a permit and illegal without a permit? Maybe it has to do with the mindset, but I'm just not getting it.


Your posts reflects the difference in mindset.

Notice YOUR focus, LEGAL with a permit. THEIR focus, ILLEGAL without a permit.

Your position is that it is legal with a permit, their position is you are committing a felony if you don't have a permit.

Sam Spade
04-09-2011, 12:13
Ok, I'm not trying to be smart here, this is an honest question, what is the difference between legal with a permit and illegal without a permit? Maybe it has to do with the mindset, but I'm just not getting it.
In the applied word, it's the difference between a license inspection with conversation and a felony stop with commands. In the former, you check to see that eveything is okay. In the latter, you check to figure out what's wrong. Picture the homeowner, waking to the sound of breaking glass. Does he stumble down the hallway in his BVDs to see what a mess the cat made, or does he grab the gun off the nightstand and listen hard for other indicators of an invasion? Mindset.

PPD is listening hard because of the way the law is written. They've been told that they may do these things in the opinion. They've been told by policy that they have to do things, and their experience tells them that there aren't that many cats around. So, you can try and convince them that their concern is unfounded, except they still get killed if they're wrong. You can try and convince them to use discretion in ignoring what they see, which is like telling you to ignore the crash that wakes you. Or you can go over their head and legislate the whole issue away.

(Please don't anyone pick on my hasty analogy, or stretch it til it breaks. One, I know no analogy is perfect; it'd be the actual thing if it were. And two, I think we're better served understanding the situation as it is, no?)

Jud325
04-09-2011, 12:30
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 (http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/II/G/61/A/6106/firearms-not-to-be-carried-without-a-license/) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).


The rest of the exceptions under 6106. Will you felony stop all of these people too?

(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(1) Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.
(2) Members of the army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves when on duty.
(3) The regularly enrolled members of any organization duly organized to purchase or receive such firearms from the United States or from this Commonwealth.
(4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with a firearm, if such persons are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to or from their places of assembly or target practice, the firearm is not loaded.
(5) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed firearm.
(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties.
(7) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person, having in his possession, using or carrying a firearm in the usual or ordinary course of such business.
(8) Any person while carrying a firearm which is not loaded and is in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business, or to a place of repair, sale or appraisal or back to his home or place of business, or in moving from one place of abode or business to another or from his home to a vacation or recreational home or dwelling or back, or to recover stolen property under section 6111.1(b)(4) (relating to Pennsylvania State Police), or to a place of instruction intended to teach the safe handling, use or maintenance of firearms or back or to a location to which the person has been directed to relinquish firearms under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating to relief) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a licensed dealer's place of business for relinquishment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S § 6108.2 (relating to relinquishment for consignment sale, lawful transfer or safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a location for safekeeping pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.3 (relating to relinquishment to third party for safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm.
(9) Persons licensed to hunt, take furbearers or fish in this Commonwealth, if such persons are actually hunting, taking furbearers or fishing as permitted by such license, or are going to the places where they desire to hunt, take furbearers or fish or returning from such places.
(10) Persons training dogs, if such persons are actually training dogs during the regular training season.
(11) Any person while carrying a firearm in any vehicle, which person possesses a valid and lawfully issued license for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state.
(12) A person who has a lawfully issued license to carry a firearm pursuant to section 6109 (relating to licenses) and that said license expired within six months prior to the date of arrest and that the individual is otherwise eligible for renewal of the license.
(13) Any person who is otherwise eligible to possess a firearm under this chapter and who is operating a motor vehicle which is registered in the person's name or the name of a spouse or parent and which contains a firearm for which a valid license has been issued pursuant to section 6109 to the spouse or parent owning the firearm.
(14) A person lawfully engaged in the interstate transportation of a firearm as defined under 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3) (relating to definitions) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 926A (relating to interstate transportation of firearms).
(15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the state under section 6109(k), provided:
(i) The state provides a reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms under section 6109.
(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.
(16) Any person holding a license in accordance with section 6109(f)(3).

Misty02
04-09-2011, 13:12
Ok, I have the “legal with a license”, “illegal without a license” part down. Add to that an individual with a very strong personal opinion in the matter trying to make a point and you may have a problem. Add to it a directive that requires a stop for no other apparent reason than OC and you have the recipe for disaster.

I can see how changing the law will assist in controlling the manifestation and ability to act based on a strong personal opinion for one side of coin. Training will reinforce that. Still, for it to work well and as desired all sides of the equation need to achieve a less confrontational approach.

I’m afraid Florida is in for a rude awakening, even if OC with a license is viewed as a step in the right direction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ALgGpTMj8k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ALgGpTMj8k) posted in the FL forum I belong to.

We are possibly headed in the same path as Philly. Time will tell. It will definitely put a strain in an already thinly staffed department at first.

.

Sam Spade
04-09-2011, 13:31
The rest of the exceptions under 6106. Will you felony stop all of these people too?



(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
Welcome aboard. Are you in Philly? Some more local flavor would be great.

First of all, I won't do any such felony stops, since I'm not in PA. I am
*very* likely to take armed suspects at gunpoint, though, even if they are
only suspected of a misdemeanor, even if the gun isn't an element of the
crime and even if they later turn out to be uninvolved in criminal activity.

Second, I'm betting that most of these have nothing to do with the thread. Could you point out which of the exceptional people are likely to be seen on the streets of your City of the First Class? Then we can see if the list really matters for the issue on tap.

Jud325
04-09-2011, 14:15
Welcome aboard. Are you in Philly? Some more local flavor would be great.

First of all, I won't do any such felony stops, since I'm not in PA. I am
*very* likely to take armed suspects at gunpoint, though, even if they are
only suspected of a misdemeanor, even if the gun isn't an element of the
crime and even if they later turn out to be uninvolved in criminal activity.

Second, I'm betting that most of these have nothing to do with the thread. Could you point out which of the exceptional people are likely to be seen on the streets of your City of the First Class? Then we can see if the list really matters for the issue on tap.

Sorry. I did not realize my location was hidden. I live 50 miles NE of Pittsburgh and have carried OC or semi CC for 26 years. I was just ribbing a little about the felony stop.:kidding:On the other hand,under these exceptions alot of people could have a exposed pistol/rifle/shotgun on the public property in Phili.

Ps. Thanks for the welcome.

USAFE7
04-09-2011, 16:22
I would guess training the 911 operators to ask the questions, "is it holstered?" "has he/she made threats?" "just what is he/she doing at this moment?" would be too much to ask of said operator? There could be de escalation of the situation over the phone. Seriously....would that be too much to ask of the operator or dispatcher?

Sam Spade
04-09-2011, 16:49
I would guess training the 911 operators to ask the questions, "is it holstered?" "has he/she made threats?" "just what is he/she doing at this moment?" would be too much to ask of said operator? There could be de escalation of the situation over the phone. Seriously....would that be too much to ask of the operator or dispatcher?

This case comes from a cop that saw Viper walking on the street and not a dispatch, as far as anyone can tell.

Dragoon44
04-09-2011, 17:53
I would guess training the 911 operators to ask the questions, "is it holstered?" "has he/she made threats?" "just what is he/she doing at this moment?" would be too much to ask of said operator? There could be de escalation of the situation over the phone. Seriously....would that be too much to ask of the operator or dispatcher?

Maybe, if the "City of the first class" thing is done away with. Meanwhile in the here and now it appears to me that Philly PD's position is they will treat any OC as potential felonies in progress until proven otherwise.

USAFE7
04-09-2011, 21:19
This case comes from a cop that saw Viper walking on the street and not a dispatch, as far as anyone can tell.

Yes Sir, that's the way I see it as well. I was grouping the 911 calls into this as part of the "solving the issue". If the operator were to ask those questions when first receiving the call, it "may in theory" bring it down a notch or two. Not saying it would but, it's possible....even in Philly.

Maybe, if the "City of the first class" thing is done away with. Meanwhile in the here and now it appears to me that Philly PD's position is they will treat any OC as potential felonies in progress until proven otherwise.

I think you are spot on there. Even if there are changes, the officers will have to go through a mindset reconditioning before it will work.

RussP
04-10-2011, 05:06
...On the other hand,under these exceptions alot of people could have a exposed pistol/rifle/shotgun on the public property in Phili.

Ps. Thanks for the welcome.As Sam said, Welcome to GT and Carry Issues.

Sam asked which of the people listed under exceptions would likely be found on the streets of Philly. I'll ask the same question another way.

Which of the excepted people listed are most like Viper in reason for carrying?

RussP
04-10-2011, 06:53
I would guess training the 911 operators to ask the questions, "is it holstered?" "has he/she made threats?" "just what is he/she doing at this moment?" would be too much to ask of said operator? There could be de escalation of the situation over the phone. Seriously....would that be too much to ask of the operator or dispatcher?Yes Sir, that's the way I see it as well. I was grouping the 911 calls into this as part of the "solving the issue". If the operator were to ask those questions when first receiving the call, it "may in theory" bring it down a notch or two. Not saying it would but, it's possible....even in Philly.This comes up from time to time in threads about responses to MWAG calls.

Those are all good questions and information important to responding officers who will have eyes-on the situation.

The average citizen is not trained to observe and report objectively. Add to that lack of training their emotional state which is somewhere between concerned and scared. Add to that any bias they have about guns. They may or may not be accurately describing the situation. The dispatcher cannot rely on what might be inaccurate information to make a tactical decision for the officers.

Having the information from those questions gives the officers history - that's what happens before they arrive on scene. It will affect how they approach a person, however, what a person does as they arrive is what officers will use to determine the immediate course the encounter will take.

RussP
04-10-2011, 07:01
Maybe, if the "City of the first class" thing is done away with. Meanwhile in the here and now it appears to me that Philly PD's position is they will treat any OC as potential felonies in progress until proven otherwise....I think you are spot on there. Even if there are changes, the officers will have to go through a mindset reconditioning before it will work.Mindset reconditioning? Can you elaborate on that, please.

USAFE7
04-10-2011, 11:54
Mindset reconditioning? Can you elaborate on that, please.

Yes Sir,
The Philly PD is in a frame of mind at this point that all encounters (used loosely) involving OCers are considered felony stops. If the changes do occur, the same officers will fall back on training/mindset while responding to that encounter....that's what they are trained to do after all. So I (just me), feel that without a serious SOP training, it will continue to result in the same type of stops until that "mindset" of felony stop is done away with. I mean after say 10 years of doing something one way...it's not going to just change over night so a "mindset reconditioning" will have to take place.

Dragoon44
04-10-2011, 12:12
Yes Sir,
The Philly PD is in a frame of mind at this point that all encounters (used loosely) involving OCers are considered felony stops. If the changes do occur, the same officers will fall back on training/mindset while responding to that encounter....that's what they are trained to do after all. So I (just me), feel that without a serious SOP training, it will continue to result in the same type of stops until that "mindset" of felony stop is done away with. I mean after say 10 years of doing something one way...it's not going to just change over night so a "mindset reconditioning" will have to take place.

It is actually not quite as bad as all that. Laws change cops change with them. What was criminal yesterday may be legal today.

I was a veteran police officer and supervisor by the time Florida reformed it's CCW laws. Prior to that a firearm carried inside of the passenger compartment of a vehicle without a CCW permit (Issued by Sheriff's back then) was illegal. after the passage of the CCW reform it was not illegal as long as it was either snapped in a holster or in a case locked or not.

Changing laws are simply something that Police deal with all the time.

DocwithGlock
04-10-2011, 14:13
It's been a few years since I lived in Philly, but I seem to remember that the law required a license to drive a vehicle on public roads. Does the PPD also stop every driver they see (or any for that matter) simply because a license is required to drive and they assume that the law is being broken until proven otherwise?

My point is; there are lots of things that are illegal without a license, but it seems that carrying a gun safely in a holster with no indications of any other crimminal activity is the only thing that the PPD deems worthy of threatening violence while investigating.

USAFE7
04-10-2011, 14:25
what a person does as they arrive is what officers will use to determine the immediate course the encounter will take.

I fully agree. It you act like a asshat when the officer gets there...well don't be upset when they treat you like a asshat.

Dragoon44
04-10-2011, 14:45
It's been a few years since I lived in Philly, but I seem to remember that the law required a license to drive a vehicle on public roads. Does the PPD also stop every driver they see (or any for that matter) simply because a license is required to drive and they assume that the law is being broken until proven otherwise?

While I don't much like the "city of the first class" exception, and don't particularly agree with Philly Pd's approach I would point out that the analogy used her (and it has been used a lot on this topic) is flawed.

Unless PA is vastly different from other states you have to have a DL to drive ANYWHERE on public roads in PA. So the comparison to be accurate would need to be that you don't need a DL to drive on the public roads in PA except Philly.

You do NOT have to have a LTCF to open carry anywhere in PA EXCEPT Philly.

DocwithGlock
04-10-2011, 15:17
You do NOT have to have a LTCF to open carry anywhere in PA EXCEPT Philly.

I understand it isn't a perfect analogy, but we are talking about needing a license in Philly for something to be legal. Licenses are needed to drive and to carry guns. They ARE NOT pulling over drivers to simply to see if they have licenses. What happens outside of Philly has little to do with the PPD's policy of assuming guilt when it comes to guns and not with driving. If they pulled over people simply because they need a license (and without any ROS) and the PPD assumed that everyone driving didn't have one until proven otherwise, at least they would be consistent.

DocwithGlock
04-10-2011, 15:29
I wonder if this excerpt from the decision Commonwealth v Hawkins would have any bearing on the Philly issue:

"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.
The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to
stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has
a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,4 it is
difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the
Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray
schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go
undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such
invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not --
such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.
Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of
conflict where none need exist."

USAFE7
04-10-2011, 15:32
Maybe they could give Philly to China as a payment towards the money we borrowed from them....... It's not like they would have to make a lot of changes...:whistling:

DocwithGlock
04-10-2011, 15:39
Maybe they could give Philly to China as a payment towards the money we borrowed from them....... It's not like they would have to make a lot of changes...:whistling:

:rofl:

(I'm only laughing because I used to live in Philly's Chinatown):rofl:

James Dean
04-10-2011, 16:24
In the applied word, it's the difference between a license inspection with conversation and a felony stop with commands. In the former, you check to see that eveything is okay. In the latter, you check to figure out what's wrong. Picture the homeowner, waking to the sound of breaking glass. Does he stumble down the hallway in his BVDs to see what a mess the cat made, or does he grab the gun off the nightstand and listen hard for other indicators of an invasion? Mindset.

PPD is listening hard because of the way the law is written. They've been told that they may do these things in the opinion. They've been told by policy that they have to do things, and their experience tells them that there aren't that many cats around. So, you can try and convince them that their concern is unfounded, except they still get killed if they're wrong. You can try and convince them to use discretion in ignoring what they see, which is like telling you to ignore the crash that wakes you. Or you can go over their head and legislate the whole issue away.

(Please don't anyone pick on my hasty analogy, or stretch it til it breaks. One, I know no analogy is perfect; it'd be the actual thing if it were. And two, I think we're better served understanding the situation as it is, no?)
Sam I like the way you explained it from a Police officers point of View. You put up a very good post

RickD
04-11-2011, 22:04
About the Pennsylvania FOIA idea. Seems like the Commonwealth of PA can play hardball when it wants to...I wonder what Philly might do?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pennsylvania-health-department-denies-fo

Pennsylvania Health Department Denies FOIA Request about Abortionist Charged with Capital Murder
Monday, April 11, 2011
By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(CNSNews.com) – The Pennsylvania Health Department has denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by CNSNews.com regarding conversations between the department and abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell regarding his practice at the Women’s Medical Society in Philadelphia.

Diane Thorn, Agency Open Records Officer, for the health department replied on March 14, 2011, with a letter indicating that the request was “denied due to insufficient specificity insofar as ‘all [records] that refer or relate to … conversations between the Pennsylvania Health Department and Dr. Kermit Gosnell regarding his practice at the Women’s Medical Society’ are requested, which is not sufficiently specific to enable the Department to ascertain which records are being requested.”

The letter claimed that the “request does not identify a particular record that you seek, nor does it specify a time period, employees of the Department with whom the conversations allegedly occurred, or a specific topic of such conversation. Instead, you broadly seek all records that refer or relate to a generally described matter.”

“Further, Department inspection records are exempt from disclosure under section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL as they are records relating to a noncriminal investigation. Your request is also denied as far as it relates to the records of the internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency specifically exempt from disclosure under section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the RTKL,” Thorn wrote, referring to what is considered the Right to Know Law in Pennsylvania.
“Your request is denied to the extent that it falls within the attorney-work product doctrine or relates to attorney-client privileged communications that are excluded from the definition of ‘public records,’” she added.

More interesting give and take omitted.

RussP
04-12-2011, 06:40
About the Pennsylvania FOIA idea. Seems like the Commonwealth of PA can play hardball when it wants to...I wonder what Philly might do?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pennsylvania-health-department-denies-fo
More interesting give and take omitted.Remind us what this has to do with solutions to these issues.

RickD
04-12-2011, 07:09
Your post #61 regarding a FOIA request:

Viper did request documents related to the incident.

If one is to avail themselves of state FOIA statutes (I have twice here in Phx), be aware that some agencies comply fairly easily, and others put up a fight if they want to.

RussP
04-12-2011, 09:32
...If one is to avail themselves of state FOIA statutes (I have twice here in Phx), be aware that some agencies comply fairly easily, and others put up a fight if they want to.Do you have the outcome of his, I think it's a Right to Know, request?

RickD
04-12-2011, 16:56
The CNSNews story was dated yesterday and the request was made by CNSNews, so it looks fresh. They are essentially reporting what they have to date.

The lesson is, be very concise and precise on what is requested or they could say "This is too vague" or "Too general."

Sorry for the diversion.

RussP
04-12-2011, 18:19
I meant Viper's request.

ViperGTS19801
04-13-2011, 05:57
I meant Viper's request.

All were denied -

Update: So I called the Open Records office in Philadelphia this morning to get an update on the RTK request I filed on the 25th. They already have mailed out their determinations, but I haven't received them yet - that's USPS + Philadelphia for ya. :D

The officer on the phone explained all three determinations:

1. RE: A copy of the original handwritten report: Denied - long story short, the PPD Office of Records maintains these documents for a period of up to ten years, and they sell copies of them for $25 a pop. According to a section in the RTK Act, if the records are already available through another means, public or not, the act cannot supercede that procedure, meaning I just have to go to City Hall again to file for a copy of it myself. Fair enough, I guess.

2. RE: Follow up reports including 75-48A: Denied - 708(b)(16)(ii) The requested documents are considered "Investigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos [or] reports" and are therefore exempt from the RTK law.

3. RE: Audio or video recordings such as from dashcams: Denied - because the technology "does not exist" (he told me that none of the Philadelphia police cruisers are outfitted with dashcams or microphones), they are forced to deny this portion of the request.

RussP
04-13-2011, 07:23
Thanks, Viper.

You've stated on another forum that you are seeking policy changes rather than a monetary award in your suit against PPD.

Have you defined the specific changes in the PPD policy you want to see?

Drew Furst
04-13-2011, 08:00
I just ran across this thread.... and read most of it. The ONE thing I didn't see is the text of the law or statute that permits the defendant to Open Carry in Philly.

I'm sorry if it has already been posted. If it has, can someone point me in the right direction, please?

One thing that I found interesting (and scary) was that as soon as the PD backup arrived, the tone of the officer(s) completely changed. They became very belligerent! How many times did they use the "F" word??? That shouldn't happen.

Another thing that surprised me is that when they found the tape recorder they didn’t turn it off and/or confiscate the tape. How did that NOT happen?

RussP
04-13-2011, 11:32
I just ran across this thread.... and read most of it. The ONE thing I didn't see is the text of the law or statute that permits the defendant to Open Carry in Philly.

I'm sorry if it has already been posted. If it has, can someone point me in the right direction, please?

One thing that I found interesting (and scary) was that as soon as the PD backup arrived, the tone of the officer(s) completely changed. They became very belligerent! How many times did they use the "F" word??? That shouldn't happen.

Another thing that surprised me is that when they found the tape recorder they didn’t turn it off and/or confiscate the tape. How did that NOT happen?
There were two earlier threads... Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter I (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1330904&highlight=philly) and Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter II (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1332430&highlight=philly). Post #4 in Chapter II has links to the laws.

Drew Furst
04-13-2011, 11:59
Thanks. Going there, now.

Jud325
04-13-2011, 12:00
I just ran across this thread.... and read most of it. The ONE thing I didn't see is the text of the law or statute that permits the defendant to Open Carry in Philly.

I'm sorry if it has already been posted. If it has, can someone point me in the right direction, please?

One thing that I found interesting (and scary) was that as soon as the PD backup arrived, the tone of the officer(s) completely changed. They became very belligerent! How many times did they use the "F" word??? That shouldn't happen.

Another thing that surprised me is that when they found the tape recorder they didn’t turn it off and/or confiscate the tape. How did that NOT happen?

In most free states, laws tell you what you cann't do not what you can.

Drew Furst
04-13-2011, 15:29
In most free states, laws tell you what you can't do not what you can.

Point well taken. But after all, it is Philly..... :whistling:

Drew Furst
04-13-2011, 16:15
There were two earlier threads... Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter I (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1330904&highlight=philly) and Philadelphia police assault open carrier at gunpoint - Chapter II (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1332430&highlight=philly). Post #4 in Chapter II has links to the laws.

Well, I spent the better part of the day reading "Chapter II" and feel like I fell down Alice's rabbit hole. :wow:

To state the obvious for those who come behind me---
1. The LEO who made the stop mishandled the situation. He didn't know the law, or the directives that had been issued by the department.
2. Viper was either un-wise to OC, or was looking forward to the confrontation where he could advance his agenda. IF you have the option to CC, WHY would you OC except to draw attention to yourself? I understand the whole "I'm within my rights" argument, and I understand the part about wanting to expose the bias against you exercising your right(s), but what did you think was going to happen?????????
3. Setting aside the fact that the LEO was a horse's butt, if you put yourself in the officer's shoes, would you really walk up to a person who is openly carrying and ask to see their permit??? At that point, he’s just “A GUY WITH A GUN”. If he DOESN'T have a permit you could be in a heap of hurt.
4. As I see the current law, the permit is the only thing separating someone who is legally exercising their RKBA from a person committing a felony. Since you don't OC your permit, it is up to the LEO to verify your eligibility.

Maybe that is the answer!!! If you are going to OC in Philly, you also have to OC your permit. :supergrin:

And finally...
5. Due to Viper's courage (or foolishness) this will end up in court, where I hope that we get a decision to eliminate the whole "First Class" city status. It is ridiculous to think that just because I live in an urban setting means that I lose my God given rights.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck with your battle.

Drew Furst
04-13-2011, 16:31
It's been a few years since I lived in Philly, but I seem to remember that the law required a license to drive a vehicle on public roads. Does the PPD also stop every driver they see (or any for that matter) simply because a license is required to drive and they assume that the law is being broken until proven otherwise?

My point is; there are lots of things that are illegal without a license, but it seems that carrying a gun safely in a holster with no indications of any other crimminal activity is the only thing that the PPD deems worthy of threatening violence while investigating.

It's more like you are driving a fully decked out NASCAR car. It may be completely street legal and you may be obeying every traffic law, but I bet you will cross paths with an officer who wants to see the paperwork!

RussP
04-13-2011, 17:04
5. Due to Viper's courage (or foolishness) this will end up in court, where I hope that we get a decision to eliminate the whole "First Class" city status. It is ridiculous to think that just because I live in an urban setting means that I lose my God given rights.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck with your battle.Unfortunately that's not where he's headed. He is focusing on changing PPD's policy.

RussP
04-21-2011, 07:55
Bumping for newcomers...

RussP
05-17-2011, 10:06
Bumped for reference...

DrBob
06-12-2011, 10:36
I believe we should just cut to the chase and decide how best to correct the issues citizens of Philadelphia have regarding the lawful carry of firearms within the city limits.



How about taking a page from the civil rights movement's playbook --

organize a march on the 4th of July of hundreds of people legally carrying open and parading down the street. could be added to the regular 4th of July parade. Carry signs with the 2nd amendment and 'Free Viper," and signs with the relevant city regs...

It would serve to educate the police and the general public but most important, it would desensitize people to seeing people carry open...:wavey:

chivvalry
06-12-2011, 12:13
How about taking a page from the civil rights movement's playbook --

organize a march on the 4th of July of hundreds of people legally carrying open and parading down the street. could be added to the regular 4th of July parade. Carry signs with the 2nd amendment and 'Free Viper," and signs with the relevant city regs...

It would serve to educate the police and the general public but most important, it would desensitize people to seeing people carry open...:wavey:

A group of folks did pretty much just that already except it wasn't on the 4th.

steveksux
06-12-2011, 12:39
How about taking a page from the civil rights movement's playbook --

organize a march on the 4th of July of hundreds of people legally carrying open and parading down the street. could be added to the regular 4th of July parade. Carry signs with the 2nd amendment and 'Free Viper," and signs with the relevant city regs...

It would serve to educate the police and the general public but most important, it would desensitize people to seeing people carry open...:wavey:
That's worked really well with the Gay Pride parades.. :whistling:

Randy

DrBob
08-28-2011, 15:53
THIS DECISION IS A BIG DEAL

One of the things Viper was threatned with - but never charged - was that it was illegal to tape record Police.

The first Circuit covers Maine, Mass, NH, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico and this decision was major and might possibly have some (AT LEAST INFORMATIONAL) effect on other circuits.

The first and fourth amendments live!
check it out: http://www.righttorecord.org/?p=448

SCmasterblaster
08-28-2011, 16:51
There's no video with this.