Guy takes gun into Chester County Courthouse

[tommy610]

The link:
http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2...0008324766.txt

The story:

By MICHAEL P. RELLAHAN, Staff Writer

WEST CHESTER — A freelance photographer from Phoenixville was jailed after allegedly trying to bring a loaded weapon into the county Justice Center while on his way to a child support hearing.

Brian Benjamin, 42, of the 1200 block of Madison Street, was ordered held in lieu of $100,000 bail after his preliminary arraignment Wednesday before Magisterial District Judge Mark Bruno of West Chester.

Chester County Detective Harold Dutter charged Benjamin with misdemeanor offenses of carrying a firearm without a license and possession of a firearm in a court facility.

Benjamin visited the Justice Center shortly before 11 a.m. Wednesday for a child support conference with the child's mother and her attorney in the county Domestic Relations Office, reports say.

When Benjamin passed through a security station at the building's entrance about 10:55 a.m., Security Officer Donald Erdman saw on a monitor what appeared to be a handgun inside Benjamin's briefcase or satchel as it passed through an X-ray machine, reports say.

The gun was described by investigators as a silver Springfield 1911 .45-caliber semiautomatic. The gun had a magazine with eight rounds inside although no live bullets were in the gun's chamber, reports say.

According to reports, after Erdmen saw the gun, he notified Deputy Sheriff Steven Sibbett, who approached Benjamin and asked if he was a law enforcement officer or had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Benjamin replied that he had left the permit at home. The criminal affidavit filed against him indicates Benjamin also checked his wallet for the missing permit.

Benjamin said he had received the permit in Chester County.

While another deputy detained Benjamin at the entrance, Sibbett went to the county sheriff's office on the first floor of the Justice Center and asked the deputy in charge of firearm license records to check for Benjamin's permit.

A review of the records revealed Benjamin lacked a valid permit, but it was unclear from reports of the incident whether Benjamin owned a permit that had expired or had no permit at all.

Benjamin was then handcuffed and taken to the sheriff's lockup.

On Thursday, Sheriff Carolyn "Bunny" Welsh praised her deputies for having responded appropriately to the situation.

"Probably one of the most dangerous situations in a courthouse is walking through the front door with a handgun," Welsh said. "People at the security monitors are vitally important to maintaining safety and order here, especially when it involves domestic situations or family courts, because they can be so volatile."

It was unclear Thursday whether Benjamin purposefully meant to bring the gun to the hearing in Domestic Relations.

Julie Ganz of Fox Rothschild in Exton, the attorney for the mother of Benjamin's child, could not be reached immediately for comment.

The hearing was apparently not a dispute over back support owed by Benjamin but to begin the determination of how much he should pay and when he should pay.

Benjamin is the nominal owner of Visual-Graphix, a graphic design and photography firm in Phoenixville that has had financial problems recently.

A bank foreclosed on a home on Virginia Avenue in Phoenixville where Benjamin had lived after he reportedly failed to make payments on a $200,000 mortgage.

A credit card company also filed a claim against Benjamin seeking money owed.

And at least one customer has filed a claim against him in Common Pleas Court seeking reimbursement of $3,000 for wedding photos that were paid for in 2008 but not properly delivered, records say.

"I think the officers involved acted absolutely appropriately, and I am very pleased," said Welsh. "It was a job well done. We literally dodged a bullet."

Benjamin's preliminary hearing has been set for 9 a.m. Tuesday, May 25.

To contact staff writer Michael P. Rellahan, send an e-mail to mrellahan@dailylocal.com.

[tommy610]

The gun had a magazine with eight rounds inside although no live bullets were in the gun's chamber, reports say.

Bad form.....

[rikilii]

I guess he had a dead bullet in there.

[markshere2]

$100,000 bail for misdemeanor?!?

now THAT is bad form!

[Kimba]

All in all, I think the article was well written.

No screaming fits, acurate description of weapon, details on how & why he was there, the follow up on the LTCF.

Not too shabby at all.

[tommy610]

All in all, I think the article was well written.

I agree. I was thinking that the comment about there not being a live bullet in the gun's chamber makes it sound actually more harmless than it was, to the average reader. The uninformed would think "Oh, well, sounds like the gun wasn't even prepared to be used", but in reality, it was one rack of the slide away from being able to be used.

[Gangle]

Aside from the whole "permit" thing it was a good article. I promise this wasn't me though! lol.. I am a freelance photog myself, but I have my LTCF and know how to check it at the court house entrance, PRIOR to be screened.

[MDJschool]

So, what were the most factual parts? "allegedly trying to bring a loaded weapon into the county Justice Center" "Probably one of the most dangerous situations in a courthouse is walking through the front door with a handgun," "It was unclear Thursday whether Benjamin purposefully meant to bring the gun to the hearing in Domestic Relations." "It was a job well done. We literally dodged a bullet."

I guess borderline slanderous and libelous statements are just commonly acceptable following illegal arrests. If there isn't even any statement about knowledge or evidence of intent on the affidavit of probable cause, or otherwise some other foreknowledge, that stuff above is simply contemptible bullshit.

Thinking of an alternative scenario that COULD have occurred that would be more contributory to liberty and less an onerous burden on taxpayers would be: "OH HERE IS A WEAPON LETS PUT IT IN A LOCKER". CASE CLOSED. I don't know why everyone pretends that on one side of a magnetometer is peace and immediately to the other side would be gratuitous gunfighting.

Further, if sheriffs are going to be using specifically to gather evidence of wrongdoing rather than to simply facilitate the lockering of weapons to make the courthouse safe, we don't need to be bothered with their security at all on 5A grounds. The searches and seizures that occur are already violative of the 4A/art1sec8, and they can't abuse these systems to get a free pass to fuck people over. These searches and seizures, being WARRANT EXCEPTIONS, have to be circumscribed to their exigencies, and you'll find the courts saying that to believe otherwise is to know that the government could simply build toppling stacks of exceptions that annul the right. I don't think they get to say that because their used their 4A exception to scan a bag that they can then invoke 6122. The guy said he had a permit; that's the end -- no probable cause to believe he isn't licensed -- check the firearm. I've yet to see instructions on how checking is even supposed to work, either in 18 Pa.C.S. 913 or signs on doors. Are we sure reasonable people even believe to have to 'declare' first or just have it taken care of AFTER SECURITY PERSONNEL ARE MADE AWARE BY THEIR POWERFUL AND USEFUL MACHINES?

A 6106 charge is an F3 which can only be mitigated to M1 at time of sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Bavusa, 574 Pa. 620, 643-45, 832 A.2d 1042, 1055-57 (2003). I don't know if they can not grade the 913 charge but it's going to be presumed M3 based on these 'facts'.

Here's a probable violation of 6111:

While another deputy detained Benjamin at the entrance, Sibbett went to the county sheriff's office on the first floor of the Justice Center and asked the deputy in charge of firearm license records to check for Benjamin's permit.

A review of the records revealed Benjamin lacked a valid permit, but it was unclear from reports of the incident whether Benjamin owned a permit that had expired or had no permit at all.

18 Pa.C.S. 6111(g)(3.1) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.
(i) Confidentiality.-- All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.
37 Pa.Code. § 33.103(a) Information furnished under this chapter by an applicant, purchaser, transferee or licensee, or collected by the designated issuing authority under this chapter, is confidential and not subject to public disclosure.

Anyways,
shall not be questioned and shall not be infringed

[FancyFace]

There was absolutely 100% no intent on this event. This was a complete and horrible mistake Brian made. He simply forgot he put the gun in the case that he chose to take to the court house. He is 100% pure of heart and this was a stupid mistake he did at one point have a lic it expired. If he could go back in time trust me this never would have occured. The media has made him look like due to his prior money issues he was destitute....that's disgusting and 100% wrong. There was no intent it was a mistake plain and simple. Anyone who knows him personally backs him as do I. The media has ruined his name and destroyed our family

[Deadpan]

A 6106 charge is an F3 which can only be mitigated to M1 at time of sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Bavusa, 574 Pa. 620, 643-45, 832 A.2d 1042, 1055-57 (2003). I don't know if they can not grade the 913 charge but it's going to be presumed M3 based on these 'facts'.

Interesting, it has been charged as an M1: Docket Sheet. Since 913 requires that the person "knowingly" possessed the firearm, and the 6106 charge appears to be a slam dunk, I could guess how this one is going to go at plea bargain.

Here's a probable violation of 6111:


18 Pa.C.S. 6111(g)(3.1) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.
(i) Confidentiality.-- All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.
37 Pa.Code. § 33.103(a) Information furnished under this chapter by an applicant, purchaser, transferee or licensee, or collected by the designated issuing authority under this chapter, is confidential and not subject to public disclosure.

I'm not sure that they actually disclosed applicant info in this case. Strictly speaking, saying that someone is not currently licensed does not violate 6111(i). Only revealing that someone is licensed or has applied for a license would. In any event, charges of violating 6106(a) necessarily require a claim that the defendant is not licensed.