Sick of Open Carry Harassment by Cops? READ THIS!

[Gray Peterson]

So, now I am a cop, who gets all these calls all day long from these people who don't know I'm allowed to carry out in the open. They are reporting a man with a gun. You know what. Be it legal or not. You are a pain in my side. And after a while, I'm not going to be real happy with you or anyone else that wears a pistol openly.

As a professional police officer, it is not professional for you to express your unhappyness or anger towards someone in the manner you are talking about.

With my job, if I mistreat someone on the phone, I am terminated and I get walked out the door. Just because you have a badge doesn't give you license to harass, threaten, and intimidate.

Btw, FultonCoShooter, you have no class, comparing an open carrier to pictures of a man pointing firearms and racking a slide.

[Holleta]

troll:

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Holleta

troll:

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

Great to know that you defined yourself.

[KeithPA]

Originally Posted by Holleta

troll:

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

I assume your not talking about Lonnie? If you are he has been very helpful and fashioned letters for us to send to elected officials and peace officers about the lawfulness of open carrying. Especially considering a number of people agree with his statements and support open carry you can even come close to calling him a troll. If it isn't about him then ignore my post and have yourself a brownie.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally posted by danp:

I think we've really gotten off-topic in this thread and I'm kind of disappointed by some of the replies so far. It's one thing to disagree with each other on an issue (I don't think anyone expects us all to agree all the time) but I think it's another when we start throwing personal attacks around. Nothing is accomplished by this and all it does it create bad blood between a group of people who desperately need to be working together.

We've had the open carry debate a few times on this forum and while this is not by any means the most "spirited" one, but I'd really like to keep this thread on the topic at hand.

As ChamberedRound pointed out:

1. Open Carry is legal
2. Some people choose to open carry
3. Some people choose not to open carry
4. Some people are harassed illegitimately for open carrying

Those are facts that I don't think are disputable and this thread was created for the sole purpose of solving the problem that is #4 More so it was started by someone who doesn't even live in this state no less and is taking his time to help us.

If we want to debate the pros and cons of open carry there are 2 or 3 other threads on the issue that have plenty of heated debate, this thread is about how we can best educate law enforcement to the law regarding it so let's try to stay on topic for that.

I think it funny that FultonCoShooter and Holleta seem to think that it's a wise idea to ignore the directive of the forum owner.

[exceltoexcel]

You're all a bunch of fan-boyz

Open carry if you like it don't if you don't. It's legal except in philladelphia and your car without a permit and of course whereever having a gun is illegal.

[exceltoexcel]

Just a reminder

Open Carry Legal in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hawkins
In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. *Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license*. See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (*only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license*). 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,4 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.* Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and this court's relevant case law. Upon receiving unverified information that a certain person is engaged in illegal activity, the police may always observe the suspect and conduct their own investigation. If police surveillance produces a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, the suspect may, of course, be briefly stopped and questioned (the Terry investigative stop),
Commonwealth v. Ortiz
53 Pa.C.S. section 13133. Philadelphia appellants assert that they are limited by the acts of the General Assembly only if those acts are applicable in the entire commonwealth, and the firearms statute is not. In particular, they argue that in Philadelphia County, the legislature requires that a person must be licensed to carry weapons openly and not concealed from sight,*

18 Pa.C.S. section 6108, [footnote 1] whereas in all other counties of Pennsylvania, *weapons may be carried openly without a license*, 18 Pa.C.S. section 6106. [footnote 2]\



Only the Issuing Authority has the Right to Confiscate a Pennsylvania LTCF

§ 6109. Licenses

Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail, and, at that time, a copy shall be forwarded to the commissioner. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.

LTCF Only Required if Carrying Concealed or in a Vehicle

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

(a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.



Possible Penalty for Police Actions against a citizens lawful possession of firearms

§ 5301. Official oppression.

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.



Terroristic threats/Disorderly conduct not applicable to lawful open carrying of a firearm

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.

(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another; cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "communicates" means conveys in person or by written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex and similar transmissions.

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; makes unreasonable noise; uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.



Legitimate purpose to open or conceal carry a firearm: Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[wewo]

Originally Posted by DR. GLOCK

You know what the real beauty of it is. If someone asks why, you can ignore the question or tell them to F--K themselves.

Or quote our State Constitution "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and add "So, um, why are you questioning me?". Oh and while you may have the right to tell an LEO to go F him/herself, its not a very good idea.

[Skuggi]

I can think of one reason, and why I am considering it. I live in a somewhat bad neighborhood. I just applied for my permit on tuesday and with what I'm told it will likely take 40 days to get the bloody thing. I am considering open carry when I walk to my bank and such.

I think with open carry and plain civillians, they are going to actually back away and think twice if someone is carrying in the open. Even when concealing in my neighborhood if you dont look like a potential threat, then you are prey.

[God's Country]

Open carry is not for me. But I must admit it's because I don’t want the hassle.
I would like to live in a state and country where you could open carry without fear of retribution. Personally I have never seen it outside someone’s home or business.
Those who choose to open carry I applaude you.