OC in Philly/ and ATF hasseling me

[larrymeyer]

If you had nothing to fear from ATF why would you give them a hard time. Their just doing their job.

As for the handguns I brought the paper work was going to the Sheriff and the call to PSP was a background check. The paper work may have wound up at the PSP I don't know

[XD45]

In this situation(wether it did happen or not) I would have let them see the gun, mabe thery got a tip the suspect had just robbed a house close by and stole the gun and they wanted to see it who knows. A local PD officer pulling me over can lick my balls, but feds arent gonna waste time on nothing so i'd prob help them out.



Dragon,

you not making laws up as I misspoke a bit but you are interpereting them very dfferent then how they are used in real life situations. Also i'm sure phily has 24/hr judges so those agents would be in jail in about 20in. then they will make your life hell, and make it impossible for the 2 departments to work together. If the truly invaded someones rights surely there would be more of a penalty than a tresspassng charge.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by dragonofpa

Because of a little thing called the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The fourth doesn't guarantee you what you think Some court examples

[Footnote 52] The prime example is the home, so that for entries either to search or to arrest, ''the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.'' Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212 (1981). And see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).
Exigent circumstances would be the shooting of a police officer

Thus, protection of the home is at the apex of Fourth Amendment coverage because of the right associated with ownership to exclude others; 44 but ownership of other things, i.e., automobiles, does not carry a similar high degree of protection. 45 That a person has taken normal precautions to maintain his privacy, that is, precautions customarily taken by those seeking to exclude others, is usually a significant factor in determining legitimacy of expectation. 46 Some expectations, the Court has held, are simply not those which society is prepared to accept. 47 While perhaps not clearly expressed in the opinions, what seems to have emerged is a balancing standard, which requires ''an assessing of the nature of a particular practice and the likely extent of its impact on the individual's sense of security balanced against the utility of the conduct as a technique of law enforcement.'' As the intrusions grow more extensive and significantly jeopardize the sense of security of the individual, greater restraint of police officers through the warrant requirement may be deemed necessary. 48 On the other hand, the Court's solicitude for law enforcement objectives may tilt the balance in the other direction.

The Fourth Amendment applies to ''seizures'' and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants or probable cause in instances in which warrants may be forgone. 60 Some objective justification must be shown to validate all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of arrest, although the nature of the detention will determine whether probable cause or some reasonable and articulable suspicion is necessary.

The ATF agents were not there to seize the weapon unless it was used in the murder. However you'd more then likely lose you CCW permit. Remember it is issued at the discretion of the sheriff and he can revoke it if you fail to cooperate with federal agents

[XD45]

But when the courts interpret something one way, its not gonna change because of how you feel they should be. You need to work with what you've got, and playing games with a thesaurus isn't it.

[jerkin]

How would failing to cooperate with a federal agent, inside of your rights, justify a revocation of ones ltcf? Sounds exactly like what happened Gunbrotz's thread to me. Also, where does it say it is at the discretion of the sheriff?

[ar15jules]

Originally Posted by dragonofpa

I wasn't. This is foul because it can deny people the right to buy guns without due proccess. Not a big fan of this one.

You did, however, come close to the idea. If no judge or magistrate is available (such is the case at night or on weekends) they will be spending some time in the county jail.

You are confusing the word EMERGENCY and INVOLUNTARY. I made no reference to psychological or mental wellness or lack thereof. I know you are a CJ major, but this is how it works. OUTSIDE of Philly and the city of Pittsburgh. You arrest someone, either with a warrant that was issued by a magistrate, or make a warrantless arrest for certain crimes. You then MUST....MUST.....MUST have that person arraigned before the magistrate who issued the warrant, or in the case of a warrantless, in the jurisdiction where the crime took place. After hours, every jurisdiction (and they are run by county outside of Philly and Pittsburgh) has an ON CALL magistrate. They usually rotate weekly. Again, there is a SIX HOUR rule in Rules of Criminal Procedure that says YOU MUST have the person arraigned within six hours. At the arraignment, the magistrate tells the person what he has been charged with and if he/she feels they place a BOND on the defendant. The BOND is to ensure the person returns for a preliminary hearing before the same magistrate. IF the person can not post the bond, they go right to the county jail. Now, there IS a rule in at least ONE county (crawford) that allows officers to "EMERGENCY COMMIT" someone to the county jail IN LIEU of an arraignment for up to 48 hours. There is a big difference in detaining someone for questioning and processing for six hours opposed to 48. There would have to be EXTREME circumstances for the on call magistrate not to come out. And in Pittsburgh and Philly, they usually have night court. So, when I said EMERGENCY commit, that it what I meant.
Jules

[sgt7546]

Yeah I know what your getting at Jules, I was referring more to the fact, that if these guys were arrested under trespass, it would either be a non-traffic citation (summary offense) or a M3 violation, which by the change in the Rules of Criminal Procedures of 2006, a non-violent M3, where the arresting Officer has no reason to believe that the person arrested is a flight risk, or a danger to himself or others (drunk/high) then the case proceeds via summons, IE catch and release, paperwork comes in the mail.

[wewo]

Originally Posted by sjl127

While this is what I would have done, they could have come back with a warrant, seized all of your guns, and have fun shelling out the cash for an attorney to get them back.

Could this happen?

Need probable cause to get a search warrant, see the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I dont think living near a crime scene and owning a gun is sufficient to get a warrant

[wewo]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

The fourth doesn't guarantee you what you think Some court examples

[Footnote 52] The prime example is the home, so that for entries either to search or to arrest, ''the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.'' Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212 (1981). And see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).
Exigent circumstances would be the shooting of a police officer

Thus, protection of the home is at the apex of Fourth Amendment coverage because of the right associated with ownership to exclude others; 44 but ownership of other things, i.e., automobiles, does not carry a similar high degree of protection. 45 That a person has taken normal precautions to maintain his privacy, that is, precautions customarily taken by those seeking to exclude others, is usually a significant factor in determining legitimacy of expectation. 46 Some expectations, the Court has held, are simply not those which society is prepared to accept. 47 While perhaps not clearly expressed in the opinions, what seems to have emerged is a balancing standard, which requires ''an assessing of the nature of a particular practice and the likely extent of its impact on the individual's sense of security balanced against the utility of the conduct as a technique of law enforcement.'' As the intrusions grow more extensive and significantly jeopardize the sense of security of the individual, greater restraint of police officers through the warrant requirement may be deemed necessary. 48 On the other hand, the Court's solicitude for law enforcement objectives may tilt the balance in the other direction.

The Fourth Amendment applies to ''seizures'' and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants or probable cause in instances in which warrants may be forgone. 60 Some objective justification must be shown to validate all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of arrest, although the nature of the detention will determine whether probable cause or some reasonable and articulable suspicion is necessary.

The ATF agents were not there to seize the weapon unless it was used in the murder. However you'd more then likely lose you CCW permit. Remember it is issued at the discretion of the sheriff and he can revoke it if you fail to cooperate with federal agents

Um, if the gun is in the home (presumably it was since it was in a box), or on his person, or even in his trunk he is protected by the Fourth Amendment. By that I mean they do not even get to see it (i.e. seize it temporarily). I dont blame the O.P. for voluntarily complying, but he certainly could have refused and there was nothing the ATF could legally do (Stress on the word legally).

[Zef_66]

And you would think that someone that wants to be sheriff would know the laws...and if not, research them before spouting off on the internet...