Warminster cops do it again!

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't subscribe to Robinson ruling meaning vehicle carry=RAS.

It could be found that way by another court, but until/unless it is I would say to expect that only situations where one is CC'ing, under similar circumstances as Robinson, are analagous.

care to expound on why?

how do you not see them as being legally equivalent for these purposes?

they are both illegal (and even made so by the same section of statutory law) if you do not have an LTCF, so why would they not be legally analogous?

also note, fwiw, that the MPOETC update states that vehicle carry does equal RAS--see Q&A #3.

i would say definitely expect the courts will rule vehicle carry is analogous to CCing (and, thus, robinson applies) until/unless they rule otherwise.

[Pa. Patriot]

care to expound on why?

how do you not see them as being legally equivalent for these purposes?

they are both illegal (and even made so by the same section of statutory law) if you do not have an LTCF, so why would they not be legally analogous?

also note, fwiw, that the MPOETC update states that vehicle carry does equal RAS--see Q&A #3.

i would say definitely expect the courts will rule vehicle carry is analogous to CCing (and, thus, robinson applies) until/unless they rule otherwise.

Sure. My point, whether right or wrong (because we do not have a definitive answer) was just this. That in addition to ID's post, the Robinson case, like any case law, can only be *presumed* to apply to the situation in the Robinson case. "Similar" situations may, or more importantly, may not, bring similar rulings.

As for the MPOETC update, it is not law and I disagree with the specific interpretation in it you referenced.

[LittleRedToyota]

That in addition to ID's post

his post was referencing actually disarming the person, though, not stopping them. (i'm not sure if he actually intended it to be that limited in scope, but the quote he referenced was limited only to that scope.)

i have been talking about RAS for a stop (and demand to see LTCF), not for disarming...though i probably did not make that clear.

the Robinson case, like any case law, can only be *presumed* to apply to the situation in the Robinson case. "Similar" situations may, or more importantly, may not, bring similar rulings.

ok...fair enough.

but "presumed" and "expect" are two different standards.

do you really *expect* the courts to rule that vehicle carry is not RAS for a stop and demand to see an LTCF? (if so, you have a lot more faith in the courts than i do.) would you bet your clean criminal record on it?

As for the MPOETC update, it is not law and I disagree with the specific interpretation in it you referenced.

i disagree with it, too. but i seriously highly doubt the courts would...given the state of 4th amendment jurisprudence--especially when "officer safety" is involved.

[Pa. Patriot]

but "presumed" and "expect" are two different standards.

do you really *expect* the courts to rule that vehicle carry is not RAS for a stop and demand to see an LTCF? (if so, you have a lot more faith in the courts than i do.)

I don't expect either one. Robinson, I'm sure you would agree, is a bad decision. Bad in that it improperly applies the law/constitution. I would not expect the court to rule similarly, in a "similar" case, such as carry in a vehicle, any more than I would expect the court to rule the right way. If a case involving vehicle carry, rather than CC under the circumstances of Robinson were to come up, the court could rule any way the court sees fit even despite Robinson, if the case is not about CC and the circumstances of the Robinson case (which again was my only real point) Not to assume or expect the court to rule on vehicle carry the same way a previous court ruled on CC.

would you bet your clean criminal record on it?

Not necessary nor needed. I'm not doing anything unlawful or even gray area based on my belief that LEO need RAS of a crime to stop me if carrying in a vehicle, and OC ain't it. If hassled I would abide by the law, then sue *them* Just like the last time I was hassled for legal behavior via being detained without RAS and ultimately arrested without PC.

i disagree with it, too. but i seriously highly doubt the courts would...given the state of 4th amendment jurisprudence--especially when "officer safety" is involved.

Yeah, like I said before, I'm not presuming or expecting either way. Just stating that whether either of is is right or wrong in whatever expectations we have, that I feel there is a case to be made for the court to rule the correct way. The court invented officer safety exception to the 4th -A has been applied way to broadly and should be challenged at every opportunity.

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't expect either one.

oh. i guess i misinterpreted "I would say to expect that only situations where one is CC'ing, under similar circumstances as Robinson, are analagous".

Robinson, I'm sure you would agree, is a bad decision. Bad in that it improperly applies the law/constitution.

i agree it is a horrible decision. however, i don't think it improperly applies statutory law. it does, however, imho, very improperly not apply the 4th amendment. but, it is just following a long line of case law in that regard.

then sue *them*

do you really think that would get anywhere?

Just like the last time I was hassled for legal behavior via being detained without RAS and ultimately arrested without PC.

i may have missed something in the progress of the case, but wasn't most of the case thrown out?

and, given that you did not actually need an LTCF to be OCing in OCB, your case is much more clear cut than a case based on OCing in a vehicle would be.

Yeah, like I said before, I'm not presuming or expecting either way.

i misinterpreted what you were saying then.

The court invented officer safety exception to the 4th -A has been applied way to broadly and should be challenged at every opportunity.

i agree wholeheartedly.

my only concern is that, before someone goes and gets themselves hit with a DC charge for refusing to follow police instructions during an encounter that stems from OCing in a vehicle (kinda like madamraven--even though the circumstances are different), they should understand the realities of the courts...how they have ruled in the past...and how they are likely to--or at least how they may--rule in the future.

i interpreted (er, misinterpreted) your statement as basically saying "i would say to expect the courts would rule differently from how they did in robinson regarding OCing in a vehicle". and i could see someone refusing to cooperate during a police encounter based on that. and i could see that ending very badly for them.

[Pa. Patriot]

oh. i guess i misinterpreted "I would say to expect that only situations where one is CC'ing, under similar circumstances as Robinson, are analagous".

Yes. But I don't "expect" the ruling to go either way. I'm simply countering your presentation that Robinson ruling = similar ruling with vehicle. Nothing more, nothing less.

do you really think that would get anywhere?

Depending on the situation, yes. On itself, probably not.
If someone is arrested, lets say the LEO think OC is illegal on a non-res license. Just to put a hypothetical example of how things could go bad after being stopped, at no fault of the OC'er.
The stop, if initiated because an LEO saw the OC carrier get in a vehicle could definitely be important, and if it led to more serious infringements, such as DC, would be worth pursuing.

i may have missed something in the progress of the case, but wasn't most of the case thrown out?

Not the most important part.

and, given that you did not actually need an LTCF to be OCing in OCB, your case is much more clear cut than a case based on OCing in a vehicle would be.

As above, an example, particularly if the case involved more serious infringements due to the unlawful stop.

...my only concern is that, before someone goes and gets themselves hit with a DC charge for refusing to follow police instructions during an encounter that stems from OCing in a vehicle (kinda like madamraven--even though the circumstances are different), they should understand the realities of the courts...how they have ruled in the past...and how they are likely to--or at least how they may--rule in the future.

i interpreted (er, misinterpreted) your statement as basically saying "i would say to expect the courts would rule differently from how they did in robinson regarding OCing in a vehicle". and i could see someone refusing to cooperate during a police encounter based on that. and i could see that ending very badly for them.

I never suggested in any way not cooperating with police.

I said I don't "expect" them to rule the same as Robinson in a non-Robinson case. I said I do not believe OC + Vehicle = RAS, even despite Robinson or MPOETC. If I were to be jammed up over a stop for OC+vehicle, (like in the example above) I would be sure to use the lack of RAS as part of the suit.
That's pretty much it.

[VTLO910]

I'd like to point something out to you and to some of the others that has been overlooked, and had the police used a little common sense Know that the charge of waving the gun been very difficult if not impossible act. The guy was on a MOTORCYCLE. Most Motorcycles I've been on or seen have the throttle on the right hand side, because 90% of the human populace is RIGHT Handed. He is also OCIng, using the assumption he's right handed, that puts the gun on his RIGHT HIP (most people carry strong side). Now even if he were to use his left hand to unholser, that would be a difficult task while keeping the vehicle traveling. Now yes there are assumptions made here, but assumptions based on facts and logic, and that logic says unholstering from a moving bi-wheeled mode of transportation is not easy, nor reasonable.

Great Point... I learned something new. But as a non-rider, it is not something that would have jumped out at me. Previous to your post, I had no actual clue as to the function of a Motorcyle...

Thanks!

[JayG23]

carrying concealed on foot and OCing in (or on) a vehicle are legally equivalent for the purposes relevant to this issue.

Rather than try to tie two seemingly-opposing issues into one category, such as trying to force a special instance of OC (in a vehicle) together with CC, and the method of travel On Foot together with On Wheels... Why not try to shift the description so that it ends up being one simple rule?

Way I see it, the problem comes from when folks mistakenly believe that the holster they are using determines what sort of carrying they are doing. We all recognize that a pocket holster stuffed down the leg of a pair of spandex biking shorts does not count as concealment. In just that way, a level 4 retention OWB holster does not mean someone is OCing, they could be concealing with a jacket or floor-length trenchcoat or a mad scientist lab coat or they could be carrying around a 4 foot tall roman shield or any other form of concealing visual barrier. A drop-leg holster also doesn't mean OC - there could be a kilt involved and celtic fest is coming up, now THAT would be a new method of going commando! But when someone puts on their Safariland with the extra switch and the anti-grab hood they define themselves in their head as "Everyone Can See My Sidearm". And then they go and conceal it with several inches of rolling detroit steel and cushioned paneling and bucket seats and glass and plastic. And yet they still think their holster is defining their status as OC.

So, how about instead of describing it as OC in a vehicle, we call it carrying concealed by a vehicle. It makes more consistent sense to describe the need for a LTCF as anytime the weapon is concealed from view of a random passerby, whether by clothing or the sides of a vehicle.

Of course, the use of a motorcycle in this instance clouds the issue since the law reads as needing while in a vehicle, but a simple rule of thumb that covers 99% of normal times is still way better than trying to say "OC is legal all the time except when it isn't."

I'm sure the new folks that come on here asking noob questions will gain understanding more quickly with a simple "Need LTCF if you conceal with clothes or car doors" also. And if it helps them catch a clue more quickly, then they may be more likely to carry themselves. And that's not a bad thing.

[IronSight]

Rather than try to tie two seemingly-opposing issues into one category, such as trying to force a special instance of OC (in a vehicle) together with CC, and the method of travel On Foot together with On Wheels... Why not try to shift the description so that it ends up being one simple rule?

Way I see it, the problem comes from when folks mistakenly believe that the holster they are using determines what sort of carrying they are doing. We all recognize that a pocket holster stuffed down the leg of a pair of spandex biking shorts does not count as concealment. In just that way, a level 4 retention OWB holster does not mean someone is OCing, they could be concealing with a jacket or floor-length trenchcoat or a mad scientist lab coat or they could be carrying around a 4 foot tall roman shield or any other form of concealing visual barrier. A drop-leg holster also doesn't mean OC - there could be a kilt involved and celtic fest is coming up, now THAT would be a new method of going commando! But when someone puts on their Safariland with the extra switch and the anti-grab hood they define themselves in their head as "Everyone Can See My Sidearm". And then they go and conceal it with several inches of rolling detroit steel and cushioned paneling and bucket seats and glass and plastic. And yet they still think their holster is defining their status as OC.

So, how about instead of describing it as OC in a vehicle, we call it carrying concealed by a vehicle. It makes more consistent sense to describe the need for a LTCF as anytime the weapon is concealed from view of a random passerby, whether by clothing or the sides of a vehicle.

Of course, the use of a motorcycle in this instance clouds the issue since the law reads as needing while in a vehicle, but a simple rule of thumb that covers 99% of normal times is still way better than trying to say "OC is legal all the time except when it isn't."

I'm sure the new folks that come on here asking noob questions will gain understanding more quickly with a simple "Need LTCF if you conceal with clothes or car doors" also. And if it helps them catch a clue more quickly, then they may be more likely to carry themselves. And that's not a bad thing.

There's a big issue with that though, in some states, although not PA, you can lawfully OC in a car without a license. Remember, if you're in a traffic stop, anything the cop can see through the windows is essentially in plain view. Having a loaded firearm in your car is not the same as concealing one on your person.

[JayG23]

There's a big issue with that though, in some states, although not PA, you can lawfully OC in a car without a license. Remember, if you're in a traffic stop, anything the cop can see through the windows is essentially in plain view. Having a loaded firearm in your car is not the same as concealing one on your person.

Then let those other states describe their OC/CC/LTCF/CCP/CCW/CCH/Whatever laws how they want. I'm only looking at how we describe our laws and explain things in a way that seems ass-backwards sometimes. And a traffic stop isn't a normal scenario, because the cop isn't a normal passerby in that situation.