I have now officially been harassed by the PSP

[headcase]

I think you have a good case, but I don't think it's slam dunk. Hawkins was an uncorroborated broadcast of "man with a gun", and had no RAS that he actually had a gun, other than that Hawkins fit the description. One could make the argument that if an officer spots a firearm that's being concealed, either through a jacket, or because a shirt came up, what have you, that he now has RAS to conduct a Terry stop to determine whether the individual is licensed as required. Hawkins even footnotes this fact:

We do not address the scenario in which the officer has an independent reason to believe that a crime (carrying an unlicensed gun) may be in progress, inquires as to whether the gun is licensed and the person does not answer.I'd tread cautiously when dealing with concealed firearms. I'd love a ruling that wouldn't allow the police to disarm a person, but I'm not confident in it. To me, Hawkins pretty clearly applies to the situation at the open carry dinner, since that was the proverbial "man with a gun" call, and all were open carrying, which is not illegal under the described circumstances. Not so confident it can be applied to this instance successfully.

I am really trying hard to bite my tongue with some of these responses(not directed at you sebastian..) as I am not sure what I should write and what I shouldn't. I will say a few things though...

In relation to the quote above involving Hawkins, the Trooper demanded I "assume the position"(not a quote) and I immediately complied, and informed him I was licensed. There was no reason, for him to control me and remove my firearm, at all.

As for the racial implications, I am Italian and Native American. I am white, light eyed, and dirty blond. My wife is Dominican. She is waiting on her ceremony date to officially become a naturalized citizen. Her brother has a heavy accent, but speaks English well. Both he and his other sister are also well along in their effort to become naturalized citizens. There was no "language barrier". My BIL was simply unsure of a complicated word and wanted to make sure the Trooper did not misunderstand him. They use me to correct any stray words they might say, all the time. I deal with their speech patterns on a daily basis and can usually complete words they are fumbling for.

As for whether it is verifiable...hmmm.. well, it is verifiable, and will be verified. It is insulting for a redneck to post that drivel about me. I am not some newbie, or a troll, or someone who makes up fanciful stories on this board. I tend to post serious, thoughtful threads and replies, and for you to post that, is insulting.

I also want to say thank you for the support of most of my fellow PAFOA brothers and sisters. The moral support means a great deal.

That's all I got for now...

[Exbiker]

As for the racial implications, I am Italian and Native American. I am white, light eyed, and dirty blond. My wife is Dominican. She is waiting on her ceremony date to officially become a naturalized citizen. Her brother has a heavy accent, but speaks English well. Both he and his other sister are also well along in their effort to become naturalized citizens. There was no "language barrier". My BIL was simply unsure of a complicated word and wanted to make sure the Trooper did not misunderstand him. They use me to correct any stray words they might say, all the time. I deal with their speech patterns on a daily basis and can usually complete words they are fumbling for.

I don`t know how long you`ve been around but I don`t see profiling as an issue. That`s probably what happened. You showed up and from the LEO`s perception he was dealing with your BIL who he felt wssn`t being as communicative as he could have been or had been minutes before. Never seen that happen I guess? I have and a lot. I spent 30 years in the trucking industry and I`ve been amazed how many different people suddenly lose their ability to communicate. Not just Hispanic but Polish and Russian and French Canadian.
Perhaps a phone call to the Swiftwater PSP and a conversation with that trooper would be in order.

[DaveM55]

I am really trying hard to bite my tongue with some of these responses(not directed at you sebastian..) as I am not sure what I should write and what I shouldn't. I will say a few things though...

In relation to the quote above involving Hawkins, the Trooper demanded I "assume the position"(not a quote) and I immediately complied, and informed him I was licensed. There was no reason, for him to control me and remove my firearm, at all.

As for the racial implications, I am Italian and Native American. I am white, light eyed, and dirty blond. My wife is Dominican. She is waiting on her ceremony date to officially become a naturalized citizen. Her brother has a heavy accent, but speaks English well. Both he and his other sister are also well along in their effort to become naturalized citizens. There was no "language barrier". My BIL was simply unsure of a complicated word and wanted to make sure the Trooper did not misunderstand him. They use me to correct any stray words they might say, all the time. I deal with their speech patterns on a daily basis and can usually complete words they are fumbling for.

As for whether it is verifiable...hmmm.. well, it is verifiable, and will be verified. It is insulting for a redneck to post that drivel about me. I am not some newbie, or a troll, or someone who makes up fanciful stories on this board. I tend to post serious, thoughtful threads and replies, and for you to post that, is insulting.

I also want to say thank you for the support of most of my fellow PAFOA brothers and sisters. The moral support means a great deal.

That's all I got for now...

I am only replying to the bolded section that I bolded.

How does the officer know you are telling him the truth about having a LTCF? I assume you never met this officer before. During a traffic incident a gun appeared from under your clothing.

Running the serial number is the aspect I do have a problem with.

[Pa. Patriot]

I am only replying to the bolded section that I bolded.

How does the officer know you are telling him the truth about having a LTCF? I assume you never met this officer before. During a traffic incident a gun appeared from under your clothing.

My understanding is that an officers lack of personal knowledge of headcase is not relevant. Guns are not contraband in PA. People legally carry guns in PA. The mere presence of a firearm is not equal to suspicion of criminal activity.
So lack of knowledge about headcase is not relevant, but knowledge of criminal activity is.
Hawkins clearly states that the officer must have independent reason for suspicion of a crime (besides the gun) for a terry stop. Essentially, the same as if there was no gun.

I hope that came out right

IOW: Gun(by itself) does not = Terry stop.

[DaveM55]

My understanding is that an officers lack of personal knowledge of headcase is not relevant. Guns are not contraband in PA. People legally carry guns in PA. The mere presence of a firearm is not equal to suspicion of criminal activity.
So lack of knowledge about headcase is not relevant, but knowledge of criminal activity is.
Hawkins clearly states that the officer must have independent reason for suspicion of a crime (besides the gun) for a terry stop. Essentially, the same as if there was no gun.

I hope that came out right

IOW: Gun(by itself) does not = Terry stop.

It's relevant because prior to this encounter, the officer did not know headcase and didn't know that he has a LTCF. Any common criminal carrying concealed can say I have a LTCF when it pops out from under their shirt during a police encounter. The officer investigated and made sure he was carrying legally. I doubt you'll ever get a court to rule otherwise.

[SFMarine]

Yet another unnecessary "run of serial numbers." I know....have the PSP or game warden go to every range and tell everyone to lay their weapons on the table and go back to their cars. So they can run all the weapons to see if they are "infact stolen"

I never knew it was such a "sinful crime" to carry a gun legally. For now on, if we have a run-in(s) with a LEO, we should just throw our weapon out the window and say " here's my gun, run the numbers, Check to see if it's stolen...that is infact the new protocol is it not?"

I wasn't there when headcase had his rights violated. For an officer to procede to "run the numbers" after a valid ltcf had been presented, is just completely outlandish and obtuse. I mean "hello" this is a law-abiding citizen who has went through an extensive and thourough backround check. Cleared to possess a firearm on his person. Like I said, I guess it's a crime to carry a gun on you these days. Because that's how LE has been treating it lately.

[Pa. Patriot]

It's relevant because prior to this encounter, the officer did not know headcase and didn't know that he has a LTCF. Any common criminal carrying concealed can say I have a LTCF when it pops out from under their shirt during a police encounter. The officer investigated and made sure he was carrying legally. I doubt you'll ever get a court to rule otherwise.

Your saying that gun = RAS

Police can not detain you/check ID or licenses unless they have RAS of a crime. Plenty of case law on this, both PA and FED. Many people, myself included, believe this applies to all stops, gun or no gun. This is because, as mentioned previously, we have case law stating that gun does not = RAS.

If a gun is not RAS, it can not be grounds for ID/Terry stop.

[gnbrotz]

It's relevant because prior to this encounter, the officer did not know headcase and didn't know that he has a LTCF. Any common criminal carrying concealed can say I have a LTCF when it pops out from under their shirt during a police encounter. The officer investigated and made sure he was carrying legally. I doubt you'll ever get a court to rule otherwise.

Can you please indicate for me how the below passage (from Hawkins) makes any difference if the firearm was open or concealed or under what circumstances the officer became aware of it's presence? Your comments seem to support the first sentence quoted (and the actions of the officer involved in the Hawkins case) which the Supreme Court ruling clearly refuted. (bold added by me)

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, 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.

What "might be going on" doesn't even come close to RAS.

[Sebastian]

In relation to the quote above involving Hawkins, the Trooper demanded I "assume the position"(not a quote) and I immediately complied, and informed him I was licensed. There was no reason, for him to control me and remove my firearm, at all.

I should note that I wasn't meaning to imply that quote fits neatly into your case, just noted that The Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically stated they weren't addressing the issue of RAS that someone had a concealed firearm. In Hawkins, no such RAS existed, because all the police knew was they had an uncorroborated report of a man with a gun that fit a certain description. They didn't have any suspicion the man they stopped had a gun until they searched him.

[gf45acp]

If the members of this forum can not read the very clear wording of Hawkins and determin that gun is NOT RAS (and we are the pro gun people), we can have no expectation that people who do not care will figure out or follow the limits set on them by our society (read police).
As long as this behavior by servants of the people is accepted it will continue.
You will never teach people who just don't care about the legality of what they do as long as they get what they want (read politicians and their minions).