Joshua West for Philadelphia Sheriff

[Joshua_West]

As you said oc is legal in Pa. As sheriff how would you gt the point across to Philly pd?

It is my understanding that a magistrates office is also included as a court facility. I do not know how many magistrates Philly has. But I can think of three different magistrates within 20 miles of my house. Not to mention several court annexes around the area.

These also need lockers.

As I said before, the Sheriff has no direct control over the PPD. What I will have is a voice with the DA and the Commissioner. Again, my directive to my deputies (which will be a written policy) will be in accordance with the UFA and the guidance that has been provided by the MPOETC – specifically, OC is legal in PA and merely that someone is open carrying isn’t, in and of its self, sufficient cause to stop.

Philadelphia doesn’t have Magisterial District Courts. Instead we have Municipal Court and the Philadelphia Traffic Court.

[Joshua_West]

On another issue, I intend to make the Philadelphia Sheriff’s website the one-stop-shop for Philadelphia crime data. In particular I will have a searchable database of all active arrest warrants in Philadelphia and I intend to have a truly accurate, interactive, crime map with up to date information.

The PPD already have an interactive map on their website, but it’s intentionally designed to mislead the viewer. It does this in three ways. 1) It’s crime categories are too few and specific, 2) It doesn’t allow you to pick multiple categories at one time & 3) It’s intentionally missing key information needed to truly observe trends.

1) It only has categories for major crimes (homicide, rape, etc.). It doesn’t have categories for such other crimes as vagrancy, vandalism, arson, prostitution, (most importantly) drug dealing, etc.. This can give the observer the impression that crime in a particular area is low when in fact it can be high.

2) By not allowing you to pick multiple categories, it doesn’t allow you to see a true picture of the total number of offenses committed in an area. With this simple ability a casual citizen could truly see the crime trends in their neighborhoods.

3) The website only lists those reported offenses that have an identifiable victim – i.e. the police show up and find someone with a gunshot wound on the ground. It doesn’t reflect reported offenses where no victim was found – i.e. a call comes into 911 of gun shots at a particular corner, but no victim or offender is found when the Police arrive. By not including this data, the website only reflects a small percentage of the offenses committed.

These three things together – most importantly the missing data on reported offenses without a known offender or victim – intentionally creates a situation where, to the casual observer, it appears crime is dropping in Philadelphia.

We can’t truly begin to fight crime unless we know about it & our citizens have the RIGHT to know the true picture and scope of crime in our city.


PPD crime map http://citymaps.phila.gov/CrimeMap/StepByStep.aspx

[Joshua_West]

This is a little off firearms topic, but - In addition to the crime map above, I will also have an interactive map showing all properties currently being sold by the Sheriff (categorized by foreclosure, tax delinquent, etc.). This simple tool will allow the bidder to see (graphically) the location of a property as well as give city residence the ability to see trends within the city.

[ChamberedRound]

I don't wish to belabor the point, but:

Next, “at” does not mean within. The very fact the statute states “…at or within the building…” means the two terms “at” & “within” have different definitions.

While IANAL, I'm well aware of this, and agree with it.

For instance: is the parking lot or hotel across the street from the airport terminal “at” the airport? I think most people would say yes; would the trailer parked in front of City Hall no longer be “at” City Hall if I took the wheels off of it thus making it no longer mobile?

You're splitting hairs here. The trailer would still be "at" City Hall if you took the wheels off it. However, when a storage facility is in another building that has its own address, that conducts it's own business, etc. I have a hard time considering that other building to be "at" City Hall.

The whole purpose of being able to check a firearm "at or within" a prohibited place is precisely so one doesn't have to walk unarmed on city streets, or other places where the building security is supposed to substitute for one's personal choice to defend themselves with a firearm.

You will also find that quite a few counties have their secure storage in a separate building in the immediate vicinity of the court house - Delaware County for instance has theirs with the Park Police across the street.

And I would believe those facilities to not be in keeping with the spirit of the law as well.

I'll agree to disagree; it seems the only way I'll see my interpretation come to light is if the "at or" phrase is removed from the law.

[acosenza2]

Joshua,
While I am not one of those that can vote for you (Berks County resident) I do like what you have planned and because of your support of gun rights and your commitment to making sure those under you respect my rights, I hope you do get the position. You seem to be an ally to us. If you could get the DA and commissioners to bring the PPD in line, my wife and I would spend our time and money in Philly. Currently I do not go into Philly because I do not want to be harassed by the police for being armed, and being unarmed is not an option. Faced with both of those I have decided not to visit Philadelphia and its many attractions, much to my wife's dismay. Currently we use a considerable amount of disposable income on leisure activities (hey we are young and married for only 2 years and still like each other lol) but unfortunately none of that is done in Philadelphia.

Good luck and I have high hopes.

[Joshua_West]

I don't wish to belabor the point, but:



While IANAL, I'm well aware of this, and agree with it.



You're splitting hairs here. The trailer would still be "at" City Hall if you took the wheels off it. However, when a storage facility is in another building that has its own address, that conducts it's own business, etc. I have a hard time considering that other building to be "at" City Hall.

The whole purpose of being able to check a firearm "at or within" a prohibited place is precisely so one doesn't have to walk unarmed on city streets, or other places where the building security is supposed to substitute for one's personal choice to defend themselves with a firearm.



And I would believe those facilities to not be in keeping with the spirit of the law as well.

I'll agree to disagree; it seems the only way I'll see my interpretation come to light is if the "at or" phrase is removed from the law.

Well, you’re splitting hairs too. I appreciate the debate though.

I purposely used the trailer example because a trailer without wheels is generally considered a fixed structure for tax and address purposes.

The phrasing of §913e has been amended since 1995 and for good reason. The original text made no mention of where the secure storage was supposed to be; only that they had to have it and the signs had to tell where it was. This meant that an anti-gun Sheriff could put the storage site on the other side of the county and be in compliance with the law. Perhaps the text of §913e should read something like “..within the building near the main entrance…”.

Like I said, if I have the money I’ll put one in City hall.

[Joshua_West]

Joshua,
While I am not one of those that can vote for you (Berks County resident) I do like what you have planned and because of your support of gun rights and your commitment to making sure those under you respect my rights, I hope you do get the position. You seem to be an ally to us. If you could get the DA and commissioners to bring the PPD in line, my wife and I would spend our time and money in Philly. Currently I do not go into Philly because I do not want to be harassed by the police for being armed, and being unarmed is not an option. Faced with both of those I have decided not to visit Philadelphia and its many attractions, much to my wife's dismay. Currently we use a considerable amount of disposable income on leisure activities (hey we are young and married for only 2 years and still like each other lol) but unfortunately none of that is done in Philadelphia.

Good luck and I have high hopes.

Your comment actually brings us to another issue.

Arguably Philadelphia’s greatest tourist attraction is Independence Hall and National Park. Thanks to the Coburn Amendment you can technically carry in a national park in Pennsylvania; however, because of the Federal Building loophole in the law people with LTCF can’t carry in any of the historical buildings (Independence Hall, Liberty Bell pavilion, etc.) and there is no option there to check your firearm. This forces people to either leave it at home, in their car, their hotel or just not go.

I intend to work with and encourage the National Park Service to create a secure storage location in the park so people choosing to exercise their Constitutional rights aren’t prohibited from seeing where it was created.

[chivalrouscarry]

We've taken Mr. West to task for various quibbles, but I think that (for Philadelphia voters, anyway) it is good to have a look at the alternatives. Mr. West is running unopposed in the Republican primaries, but here are his Democratic competitors.

In short:

• John Kromer wants to eliminate the Sheriff's office entirely.
• Jacque Whaumbus points out that the Sheriff is the highest elected law enforcement, could arrest the mayor if necessary, and makes some vague statements about being concerned about corruption and wanting to upgrade computer systems.
• Jewell Williams points out that there is a potential conflict of interest in a Sheriff working for the mayor due to mayoral benefit from tax lien sales, and states his desire to hire a CPA for the office.

Mr. West's profile points out that elected officials are preferable to appointed bureaucrats, and can make morally correct but politically unpopular decisions. Additionally, he points out that current Sheriff's duties are still essential, and will be executed regardless of which department does them, thus there would be no cost savings in eliminating the Sheriff. Additionally, there is more of what he's stated upthread about running the department as a retail service.

There is nothing in that profile about gun rights, but to be fair, this is probably for the best: being obviously pro-firearm could well make him unelectable.

I think it's also worth pointing out that Mr. West is the youngest candidate by far, being nearly 20 years junior to Mr Williams and Mr. Whaumbush, and nearly 30 years younger than Mr. Kromer. Of course, you likely knew that already by dint of the fact that Mr. West is posting on the Internet as a form of campaigning.

-cc

Edit: It is worth pointing out that Joshua West did indeed show up at the rally.

[IronSight]

Joshua West is FOAC endorsed.

[ruggerio]

from the bio,

In 2005 Josh returned to Active Duty as an Operations Officer in Pennsylvania's Joint Emergency Operations Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. He was responsible for leading a team of Soldiers & Airmen who monitored, in real time, emergency situations reported by public safety agencies across the state; determining the most serious situations and reporting them directly to the Governor and Adjutant General; coordinating with the Federal & Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agencies and planning military support for Civil Authorities.

will the real mr fife please stand up?

i wish it could be we had a barney fife to elect sheriff. although i like some of what he is putting out its kind of scary to consider the position related to this dudes exp.

i might prefer some politicaly connected, incompetent cronie to someone so well versed in the implementation and exercise of martial law.