Mere carry of a weapon RAS? NO! (Here's why!)

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by lildobe

But I give you the final word as to why the mere act of carrying a firearm is not RAS of a crime: The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Article 1, Section 21: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

i would agree with you, but i'm not sure why you think the courts will pay any more attention to what the constitution actually says in this case than they do in any other case.

there are really two questions here:

1. is CC or OC in a car actually RAS of a crime (actually, does the constitution even permit it to be defined as a crime)? nope, of course not.

2. will the courts consider it RAS of a crime? quite possibly. and there have been cases where that plus little else concrete in the way of a "totality of circumstances" have been upheld as RAS of a crime. stevenson is one such case.

[Frenchy]

beautiful, the only thing I would suggest when posting some thing with so many Accronyms is to spell them out the first time they are used in a post, so the newbies can read and see what they mean....

Edited to show what I mean.

Originally Posted by lildobe

I'll keep this short and sweet. (ETA: (edit to add) Ok, so it didn't come out so short)

In the last couple weeks, we've had an explosion of threads here that have dealt with the issue of RAS (reasonable articulate suspicion) when it comes to carry of a firearm.

Many of the members here have taken the position that the mere act of carrying a firearm is enough RAS of a crime that a police officer can detain said carrier and ask for their LTCF (License to Cary Firearms). They have backed this only with their opinion and the opinions of LEOs (Law Enforcement Officer) that they have spoken to.

Others, among which are some of our more respected and venerable members, have put together a convincing argument that, since in general carrying a firearm is a legal activity, they cannot. These people have backed this assertion with PASC (PA Supreme Court) rulings and opinions as well as references to statutes.

The simile to driving a car has been made as well - since both require a license to do. A police officer cannot stop you and check to see if you hold a valid driver's license just because you are operating a vehicle absent an actual, observable, violation. Vis–à–vis, an officer cannot demand to see your LTCF simply because you are carrying a firearm absent RAS of a crime in progress. I agree with this comparison, personally, but many of the detractors here do not.

But I give you the final word as to why the mere act of carrying a firearm is not RAS of a crime: The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Article 1, Section 21: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Assuming that anyone carrying a firearm is carrying illegally and demanding they produce a LTCF is, in fact, questioning their right to bear arms as affirmed by our states constitution and therefore is a violation of their civil rights - not only under out states constitution but under the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution which guarantees us "The right [...] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

For those of you who still think that the act of carrying a gun is RAS of a crime, I pity you - you do not understand the rights you have in our free society. It is because of people who do not understand what their rights are that we are slowly loosing them. As each person bows to government agents who go beyond the scope of authority granted them by the laws, another chip is taken away from our freedoms. Unless we start to stand up to the government and those who would subjugate us to total rule and remove all of our freedoms, we will find ourselves living in a totalitarian state. Much like the frog who didn't notice he was being boiled for dinner until it was too late.

I urge every one of you who reads this to go and read the constitution word-for-word. It is written in fairly plain language as our founding fathers were not highly educated men. They were working-class men who got fed up with the standing government and stood together against it, forming the republic in which we have lived for the past 200-odd years. Please don't let our freedom and our great country be destroyed by ignorance!

[silverfox031]

Let me stir the "Pot" Food for thought

As the Criminal ellement, illegal aliens, and Legally admitted "Covert Islamic extremists" study USA Laws that Allow open carry, do so, just as they are about to commit a crime of violence.

Since they know they have no fear of being stopped for just openly carrying, to validate their legality.


And please don't respond that they would not be that stupid to do so, because, if the majority of criminals were "Rocket scientist's they would not get caught, in many instances.


What tools under the "Law" as previously described would Law Enforcement have, (without reasonable suspicion of a crime is about to occurr, or has occurred).

To prevent a such persons from carrying out criminal acts?

[1861]

Excellent Lildobe , +REP to you.

[andrewjs18]

sticky please?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by silverfox031

Let me stir the "Pot" Food for thought

As the Criminal ellement, illegal aliens, and Legally admitted "Covert Islamic extremists" study USA Laws that Allow open carry, do so, just as they are about to commit a crime of violence.

Since they know they have no fear of being stopped for just openly carrying, to validate their legallity.


And please don't respond that they would not be that stupid to do so, because, if the majority of criminals were "Rocket scientist's they would not get caught, in many instances.


What tools under the "Law" as previously described would Law Enforcement have, (without reasonable suspicion of a crime is about to occurr, or has occurred).

To prevent a such persons from carrying out criminal acts?

what the heck are you trying to say?

that terrorists/criminals will be more likely to commit a crime because they know they can open carry instead of having to conceal their weapon?

if so, frankly, that is just absurd--to think that such a small obstacle as having to conceal a gun is going to alter a terrorist/criminal's plans in an meaningful way is folly.

btw, criminals and terrorists can can openly wear shoes, too. these openly worn shoes will facilitate their escape after committing the crime.

so, tell me, if we do not allow law enforcement to detain and search people for openly wearing shoes, what tools would law enforcement have to prevent these crimes/acts of terrorism?

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

beautiful, the only thing I would suggest when posting some thing with so many Accronyms is to spell them out the first time they are used in a post, so the newbies can read and see what they mean....

Edited to show what I mean.

WTF?????????????? LOL

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by silverfox031

Let me stir the "Pot" Food for thought

As the Criminal ellement, illegal aliens, and Legally admitted "Covert Islamic extremists" study USA Laws that Allow open carry, do so, just as they are about to commit a crime of violence.

Since they know they have no fear of being stopped for just openly carrying, to validate their legallity.


And please don't respond that they would not be that stupid to do so, because, if the majority of criminals were "Rocket scientist's they would not get caught, in many instances.


What tools under the "Law" as previously described would Law Enforcement have, (without reasonable suspicion of a crime is about to occurr, or has occurred).

To prevent a such persons from carrying out criminal acts?

So what you are saying is that because a Covert Islamic extremist might drive a car with a large bomb in it into a building, you believe it would be ok to stop any car any time to do a bomb check?

I will submit that it would make many feel very safe, but the only people who would enjoy it are the people who are in no hurry to get anywhere fast.

I remember when there where "Random" checks after 911 and I worked in the parking industry in downtown PGH. Every time I went into the USX tower parking where my office was, I was randomly checked. This caused a 10 to 15 minute stop of traffic in and out of the parking every time.

So now, you are suggesting that people who are carrying should subject themselves to random checks or maybe even mandatory checks, this would place a very large stress on officials and cause massive stoppages where ever the check was done as you could not just disarm a citizen in a crowd and allow others to walk around freely while doing so. Then to check the

You then would have to validate the gun against a database that is not existent, validate where the person is coming from, where they are going, what they are doing there, all of these go against your basic freedoms.

So now you add to the PICS and NICS more function (they already are over loaded) and possibly add to the USCIS a burden that already has been verified.
My personal file at ISCIS because I am a permanent resident working with police and other officials is over a foot thick. I get printed every 3 to 6 months, I am licensed in 7 states for the work I do, but now, I should be subjected to additional searches “Random” of course or possibly not seeing I do carry regularly where my whole file would be researched again and again taking possibly a few days at least to make you feel safe?

Are the words “America land of the Free” just a slogan for you, or do they really mean some thing?
Let me give you “Food for thought” in the words of Benjamin Franklin and How I translate them to today's life.

Mankind naturally and generally love to be flatter'd: Whatever sooths our Pride, and tends to exalt our Species above the rest of the Creation, we are pleas'd with and easily believe, when ungrateful Truths shall be with the utmost Indignation rejected. "What! bring ourselves down to an Equality with the Beasts of the Field! with the meanest part of the Creation! 'Tis insufferable!" But, (to use a Piece of common Sense) our Geese are but Geese tho' we may think 'em Swans; and Truth will be Truth tho' it sometimes prove mortifying and distasteful. B.F.

There have been more United States Citizens who have terrified the US then non American.

At present I shall only give you my Opinion that tho’ your Reasonings are subtle, and may prevail with some Readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general Sentiments of Mankind on that Subject, and the Consequence of printing this Piece will be a great deal of Odium drawn upon your self, Mischief to you and no Benefit to others. He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face. B.F.

This thing you suggest would surely be spit in your own face as you would probably be stopped and searched more often then any conspirator who would not only know the laws of open carry, but know how to get around the officials.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. B.F.

These words, I can only fathom the wisdom behind, they are words that will last for ages. By giving a little freedom to gain a little personal security, we the US residents and citizens would give up all freedon and security. It has always been rule in the United States that we where better to let one guilty free, then to hang 100 innocent.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” B.F.

By giving your liberty away to make others feel safe, you are also giving the power to the governement. Please do not sign a check that I will have to cash out. By enough Americans believing they can be better off by allowing the governament all the powers, the few of us who enjoy liberty can not survive.
This would cause a civil disturbance or war at least, and no one would win in the long run.

I often hear about how the French let the German walk all over them. Reality is, during the Ohio Treaty, the French also signed a peace accord that stated they would never go to war against any nation, and that if war was waged on them, the US would be there to protect them. The French government of the day then disarmed al its citizen, they also created the French Legion (La Resistance) and made it law that any one in the French Foreign Legion could not be a French citizen.
Canada signed a similar accord in the 50’s where the US would protect Canada as long as Canada agreed to not have weapons that would cross borders, shortly after, (less then 20 years) Canadians where disarmed by the government. To this day, when ever Canadians are seen at war, they are considered blue Hats, meaning Peace keepers and have no live rounds in their guns unless they are given to them by an American Unit.
Are you ready to give all the power to the US governement just to later see them disarm you?
It is already happening, and phrases like

Let me stir the "Pot" Food for thought

As the Criminal ellement, (element) illegal aliens, and Legally admitted "Covert Islamic extremists" study USA Laws that Allow open carry, do so, just as they are about to commit a crime of violence.

Since they know they have no fear of being stopped for just openly carrying, to validate their legallity. (legality)

only re-enforces their power.
The people who believe this phrase, who believe we should give the government power of search and diminish the peoples power regardless of the nationality and or belief, deserve no freedom or security. They are the people who give power to the officials to believe this is a good way of running a country. They are the people who are slowly disarming the United States of America.

[Michele]

Seems to be an all out explosion pertaining to this very thing in my thread over my little encounter.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...arassment.html (Game Officer harassment)

Rep to you Andrew as soon as the rep gods repair my button!

[Dredly]

While I agree 100% with you that carrying a gun does not give an officer RAS to search you, they do NOT need RAS to QUESTION you and if your RESPONSE to their questions are not what they expect it may give them RAS.

I'm going to use Michelle's example, not that she did anything wrong but when asked if she had a license for her pistol she told the officer to go harass someone else because he can't ask that.

This, in my opinion, WOULD give an officer RAS to assume you are doing something illegal, they asked a simple yes/no question and instead of answering they were told to go away. If when they asked she would have said "yes" and then when asked to display it she refused she would have been on better standing in my opinion as she did not give the officers the RAS they would need to request the permit. If she said "I'm not talking to you without a lawyer" she would have been better off then saying "go harass someone else"

Carrying a gun = No RAS
printing =No RAS
Being questioned about a gun and either being "shady" or combative = RAS.