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

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Dredly

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 that logic actually flew in court, you would essentially have to answer every question any LEO ever asked you or be detained.

and that is obviously not how it works.

it is most certainly possible to tell an LEO to go away without giving rise to RAS.

[mikey0086]

Originally Posted by lildobe

I'll keep this short and sweet. (ETA: 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 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. They have backed this only with their opinion and the opinions of LEOs 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 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!

+1 rep for ya, nice clear and concise post

mikey0086

[ksig1869]

First I have to commend you for your post. I agree completely. And rep inbound. But having a fondness for U.S. History, The writers and delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were very highly educated men. They were some of the most gifted minds of that day. They took a radical idea and transformed that into a statement that we would no longer stand for oppression from a foreign soveriegn. The Constitution was in plain language because they wanted to their fellow patriots to believe in what they fought for and to strengthen a strong nation that would think for themselves and take back our inalienable rights that had been denied to them.

We are now in a battle against those same tyrants who believe that we have too many freedoms. They are trying to take away our rights, but we have to remember that these rights are not governed by the laws of man but are inherent at birth. The Founders wanted the people and future generations to live in a free society. We are guaranteed these rights but they can be taken from us under the guise for the betterment of the community. We cant blindly live our lives under the believe that the government is always right. The government is a structure governed by men, and men are not perfect. IMHO Politicians no longer are driven to make this nation stronger but to attain power for themselves and create their impression of a perfect nation.

Sorry for the long post just got out of a law class and had a heated discussion about the woman who shot that FBI agent during a night raid.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

And again you misquote her. She told him none of his business, he then proceeded to harass and threaten and was put in his place for it.

[Pyrotek85]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

if that logic actually flew in court, you would essentially have to answer every question any LEO ever asked you or be detained.

and that is obviously not how it works.

it is most certainly possible to tell an LEO to go away without giving rise to RAS.

Bingo. Asserting your rights, which in their mind might seem suspicious, doesn't qualify as RAS. What if you truthfully answered "no" to the question of "do you have any drugs on you?". If they don't believe your answer they get to search anyway? They can't act on a hunch.

[AverageJoe]

OP, very well expained! This may put to bed the difference of opinions ... it did for me. Rep sent.

[tlgpa]

Originally Posted by lildobe

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.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The founding fathers were predominately lawyers.

The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds. About half of the men had attended or graduated from college in the colonies or Britain. Some men held medical degrees or advanced training in theology. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group.

Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence
Jefferson had access to the best education available in the American colonies.
Lawyer

John Adams, received an education at Harvard before studying law.
Lawyer

Samuel Adams
Harvard College.

Josiah Bartlett
Physician

Carter Braxton
College of William and Mary

Charles Carroll
College of Louis the Grand

Samuel Chase
Lawyer

Abraham Clark
Lawyer

William Ellery
Lawyer

Benjamin Franklin
Name speaks for itself

Elbridge Thomas Gerry
Harvard

Lyman Hall
Yale

John Hancock
Graduate

Benjamin Harrison
College of William and Mary

Joseph Hewes
Princeton

Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Lawyer

William Hooper
Harvard

Francis Hopkinson
College of Phila.

Francis Lightfoot Lee
Private education

Richard Henry Lee
Lawyer

Francis Lewis
Westminster

Philip Livingston
Yale

Thomas Lynch, Jr
Cambridge

Thomas McKean
Lawyer

Arthur Middleton
St John's College

Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Cambridge

William Paca
College of Phila.

Robert Treat Paine
Harvard

John Penn
Lawyer

George Read
Lawyer

Caesar Rodney
Lawyer

George Ross
Lawyer

Benjamin Rush
Physician

Edward Rutledge
Oxford

Roger Sherman
Lawyer, Physician

James Smith
Lawyer

Richard Stockton
Princeton

Thomas Stone
Lawyer

Matthew Thornton
Physician

George Walton
Lawyer

William Williams
Harvard

James Wilson
Lawyer

John Witherspoon
University of Edinburgh

Oliver Wolcott
Yale

George Wythe
Law Professor

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by tlgpa

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The founding fathers were predominately lawyers. [...]

I try not to hold this fact against them.

Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and (most clearly) the Constitution of the United States were, very obviously, written with clarity that a school-child could understand. In fact, I first read the Constitution in elementary school without too much difficulty (though I did need help with a few words). It would be very difficult for me to believe that your average Junior High/Middle School student would have any difficulty in comprehending any of the afore mentioned 'founding documents'.

While our 'founding fathers' may have indeed been well educated men, they did not write these documents only for "lawyers and scholars" to understand - they wrote them plainly and clearly (albeit very eloquently) for *everyone* to understand.
.

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by tlgpa

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The founding fathers were predominately lawyers.

Point taken... I've edited the essay accordingly.

[tlgpa]

Originally Posted by Bruce

It would be very difficult for me to believe that your average Junior High/Middle School student would have any difficulty in comprehending any of the afore mentioned 'founding documents'.

Ummm hav u notesed how the avg skool stoodent comunicates L8tly?
Those documents may as well be writting in Greek.

While I agree they've been writen well, I have to differ that they're simply interpreted. The vocabulary and language used then differs from now. Many people, scholars, and Supreme Court Justices still debate the meanings. Such as the 2nd ammendment. Still highly debated. Is the right to bear arms solely for a well regulated milita? Where does firearms for hunting and home protection fit in? I'm not asking, just rehtorical questions.