came home from being out all day to a note from the police dept

[dmcdonnell]

If you are gonna go, might as well change it to "Lancaster County Jail"...

im going to go as i said i was and the only thing i will say is that i want a lawyer

i guess i need to edit my location i live in lancaster county and have for a few years

[dmcdonnell]

OK.. I see that I came late to the party on this thread.. All my responses were after he went to the meeting against advice to get a lawyer.. I agree that he has potentially just opened himself up to all sorts of thing that may come of this.. I have asked in a PM for his full story, as have others and I too will keep it private.

That said, I am a supporter of LEOs and have at least 4 personal friends who are either State Troopers, Local LEOs, or retired from either one, not to mention at least 5 State Constables in addition to the others. I travel in these circles and I have trained LEOs in defensive tactics and impact weapons such as baton and PR24. That said, I too would NOT talk to any police officer without a lawyer present EVER.. Its just good advice.. To the OP, Please remember, a lawyer is YOUR advocate and counsel, his job is to defend and advocate for YOU.. The PD and LEOs have lawyers too.. for when they get sued for misconduct and wrongdoing. Would you consider signing a contract without a lawyer reading it over? would you buy a home without having a real estate lawyer at least offer advice in the deal? I understand the feeling of wanting to be helpful, but in this case and nearly all others, the police are tasked with FINDING EVIDENCE of a crime to CONVICT someone of something. They are not trying to be your friend, they are doing their job. Its more than a little naive to trust their good will and honorable intentions..

All my LEO friends have given the same advice to me as I just gave you. NEVER talk to a LEO or Prosecutor, or ADA or DA Investigator or anyone else from the Legal or LEO community without first retaining a lawyer of your own to SPEAK FOR YOU...!!

Dave

[cock&lock]

There are at least two issues to the general hypothetical, and two separate burdens of proof. Without dwelling on the current facts, and just looking at "can I lend my buddy a gun and what will happen in court if I'm charged?":

You have to prove that you fall within an exception if you just hand a firearm to a person. So the burden of proof is on you to show that he had a Pennsylvania LTCF.

Another, separate issue is that you can't provide a firearm to a person that you know to be prohibited. The DA has the burden of proving that you knew or should have known that he was prohibited. For example, you were his co-defendant when he was convicted of the prohibiting offense, or you admitted to someone that you knew he couldn't buy a gun, or he testifies that HE told you that he couldn't buy a gun and that's why he needed the loan. (Lots of people in trouble will look around for a friend they can screw over to save themselves a little grief. So as a general principle, if your buddy is facing a lot of criminal charges, the LAST thing you'd ever want to do is tell him about the crimes you've committed, just so he knows you don't judge him. Because he'll see if he can trade you for a couple of years off his sentence.)

I disagree. There is no legal reason given for shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant. Burden shifting (as it is commonly referred to) is of monumental significance in a criminal trial and only happens in very rare legally defined circumstances and for very specific reasons.

[PaBimmerGuy]

I disagree. There is no legal reason given for shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.

hmmm . . . not really. the crime was loaning the gun. you have show that you qualify for the narrow exception.

[cock&lock]

hmmm . . . not really. the crime was loaning the gun. you have show that you qualify for the narrow exception.

Your wrong son. In a criminal trial, the defendant doesn't have to prove anything unless there has been a shift in the burden of proof.

So why is there a shift in this case?

It is the prosecution that must prove that you don't fall under the exception.

[ungawa]

Your wrong son...

Which of his sons is wrong?

[cock&lock]

Which of his sons is wrong?

Any one of them that thinks you can just arbitrarily shift the burden of proof in a criminal case.

In a circumstance such as this, it becomes an element of the crime which the prosecution has to prove. It is the prosecution that must prove that the person receiving the gun was a prohibited person.

If the prosecutor & defendant were to remain silent on the issue and in closing argument the prosecutor were to make a statement such as " the defendant never proved to you that the person receiving the firearm was not a prohibited person", there would be an instant mistrial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GunLawyer001]

I disagree. There is no legal reason given for shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant. Burden shifting (as it is commonly referred to) is of monumental significance in a criminal trial and only happens in very rare legally defined circumstances and for very specific reasons.

...and this is why one has to pass the bar exam before practicing law.

Opinions are like assholes, and every asshole has an opinion. Or something like that, I'm not good with aphorisms. But the opinion coming from this one is fundamentally flawed.

Where a criminal statute says that "it's unlawful to carry a firearm in your car without a license", then the DA has the burden of proving that you carried a firearm in your car, and that you lacked a license. Because the absence of a license is an element of the offense.

Where the statute says "it's always unlawful to lend a firearm, unless you fall within an exception", then the DA merely has to prove that you lent a firearm. After that, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the defense, that he fell within the exception. Every defense is ALWAYS the burden of the defendant, especially affirmative defenses. If the DA fails to make his initial burden, then the defendant can sit quietly and still win. But after the DA proves the elements of the offense, the defendant has to establish the elements of the defense.

[legendarylorot]

I disagree. There is no legal reason given for shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant. Burden shifting (as it is commonly referred to) is of monumental significance in a criminal trial and only happens in very rare legally defined circumstances and for very specific reasons.

This is one of those rare and legally defined circumstances. The exception to the rule is, by definition, cannot be assumed. The defendant needs to prove the exception.

[cock&lock]

This is one of those rare and legally defined circumstances. The exception to the rule is, by definition, cannot be assumed. The defendant needs to prove the exception.

Wrong. The prosecution has to prove that the exception does not apply!