Dickson City: Police Report shows confusion on gun dispute

[LittleRedToyota]

well...assuming i correctly understand the dickson city incident and what happened to PA Patriot. and assuming he is taking the follow-up legal action i think he is. we might get a ruling specifically addressing this point.

as i understand it, they demanded his LTCF because he told them he was carrying a concealed weapon and he refused to provide it. so, they arrested him.

if that is the case and he sues them for unlawful arrest (or whatever the correct legal term is) and he wins, then we will have proof.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by TaePo

Hawkins addressed it for OC but not CC.

i disagree. hawkins wasn't even OCing...he was CCing.

hawkins is all about whether or not there is an independent reason to believe a crime is in progress.

anyway, we are starting to go in circles.

[TaePo]

LittleRedToyota,

Most assuredly! Among other things that went wrong in Dickson City, BTW!

The court did not write their statement very well. But I think what they were saying is...apply this (PA v Hawkins ruling) to OC. We will not define what is required for CC.

And so they were not that precise in their writing/wording. Although, granted, it may make some kind of legal sense that we mortals are not aware of!

[TaePo]

Hawkins was about a third party report who saw the weapon in the open. The officers did not see the weapon at all per my understanding. So is a third party report sufficient for the police to stop and search said person?

Now, if an officer saw the weapon first-hand, barring anything else, is that RAS? They just said they were not going to address that. So it is moot.

Maybe Gunlawyer can help explain to us.

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by headcase

Maybe I am playing devil's advocate here, but I have never been convinced by the drivers license=carry license argument. I believe one is a traffic offence and one is a criminal offence. snip

One is a privilege, one is a Constitutional right.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by TaePo

LittleRedToyota,

Most assuredly! Among other things that went wrong in Dickson City, BTW!

The court did not write their statement very well. But I think what they were saying is...apply this (PA v Hawkins ruling) to OC. We will not define what is required for CC.

And so they were not that precise in their writing/wording. Although, granted, it may make some kind of legal sense that we mortals are not aware of!

Actually, I believe the OC reference is thrown in to the ruling, as a point of reference. The ruling is about needing more than a 911 call to assume an illegal act is occurring. He was CCing, and they stopped and searched him solely on the tip from the 911 call. They did not actually see the weapon before the stop, which is why, I believe, they added the footnote. I believe by adding the footnote, they are saying that the officers could have used that as an independent reason. That's how I have always read it, and why I believe that seeing a concealed weapon become exposed is reason enough to ascertain if you have a LTCF. That is the point of contention I have and why I would like a clearer ruling on the subject before I start refusing to show my LTCF to an officer who requests it, if I am CCing, and he sees it.

If there are no other examples or case citings, I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. Thank you very much for the discussion LRT and TaePo

[Pa. Patriot]

Guys, guys, guys...

Hawkins was in Philadelphia... IOW, it is exactly the same as CC as an LTCF is needed to legally OC in Phila.

So since OC is a licensed activity in Phila, and Hawkins ruling says OC is not grounds for stop and ID, then the same must apply to CC (also licensed) as well.

...Again, it is just like driving, LEO can NOT stop you to check license just because your driving on a public road where license is needed.

[TaePo]

Originally Posted by headcase

why I would like a clearer ruling on the subject before I start refusing to show my LTCF to an officer who requests it, if I am CCing, and he sees it.

Well put headcase. But I think you would want a clear ruling as they said they were not ruling or addressing it at all. It is still up-in-the-air.

I admit, my hopes are for them to rule the LEO could not demand in that scenario, but it has not been decided yet and they would probably decide otherwise in my opinion.

It may seem like splitting hairs until one is a subject of the scenario at hand in court.

[TaePo]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Guys, guys, guys...

Hawkins was in Philadelphia... IOW, it is exactly the same as CC as an LTCF is needed to legally OC in Phila.

So since OC is a licensed activity in Phila, and Hawkins ruling says OC is not grounds for stop and ID, then the same must apply to CC (also licensed) as well.

...Again, it is just like driving, LEO can NOT stop you to check license just because your driving on a public road where license is needed.

Thanks PaPatriot, I forgot it was in Philly. I should have reread it right away!
So then, they are addressing when a third party calls in.

They refused to address if an officer of the law sees the weapon directly, is that it?

(my apologies to some that may find this boring but I am trying to get my head around the ruling/non-ruling.)

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by TaePo

I admit, my hopes are for them to rule the LEO could not demand in that scenario, but it has not been decided yet and they would probably decide otherwise in my opinion.

actually it has been decided...

they need RAS that you are committing a crime.

not RAS that you are carrying a gun.

sorry...couldn't resist.

will stop posting the same thing over and over now.