Scolded by officer at the courthouse

[Kypt]

Ditto.

The advice given to just ignore your being embarrassed, given incorrect info and otherwise harassed is terrible advice.

Definitely follow up.

Was it even a deputy? Some CH's hire security guards (Luzerne)

I assumed he was a deputy. I remember the guys working the door having Chester County Sheriff patches on their shoulders.

[Ramtuff]

Was he wearing a light blue uniform or a dark blue uniform?

[Kypt]

Was he wearing a light blue uniform or a dark blue uniform?

It was a dark color.

[Ramtuff]

I'd have to say that was a Deputy then. The Deputies wear dark blue uniforms, and unless they've changed uniforms in the last year, the security guards wear light blue.

[str8shooter]

str8shooter, any opinions on carrying (openly or concealed) at a township/borough council meeting?

I carry at mine, and I don't care who knows it.

As for the courthouse, the deputy manning the checkpoint should be reamed for his inappropriate behaviour. It's our right to carry up to the checkpoint for whatever reason, and it's their responsibility to have appropriate storage facilities.

As the deputies manning the checkpoint at the Indiana County Courthouse stated to me, "No problem. It's no big deal."

It's been made abundantly clear that my opinion doesn't matter, not that I see what your question directed at me has to do with the OP. All I did was offer my opinion, and admitted up front it differed than the majority, yet those who don't agree with me flat out say I'm wrong. I didn't say do this, do that, I said I think the OP should let it go. I also agreed, contrary to my original statement, that the recommendation of a more diplomatic approach sounded like a good idea. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but to tell me what I would do is wrong because you disagree is just plain arrogant.

Fine, this is a fight many of you feel worth fighting. Some feel this indignation demands immediate disciplinary action because we must defend our right to carry a gun even though this has nothing to do with infringement on any rights, some think action should be taken if we are not treated with the utmost courtesy under any circumstance regardless of any possible negative repercusions, others think that because they know a particular section of the law better than some LEOs the entire Sheriff's department needs training, and yet others not even residing in the county doubt that the ChesCo Court House even has deputies at the door, which would make calling the Sheriff pointless.

In another thread some stated a policeman's bullying of a teenager may have been justified because he dealt with assholes on a daily basis and finally snapped. Can we not give this person, whether a deputy, rent-a-cop or doorman the same benefit of the doubt? He didn't threaten the OP, didn't touch him, didn't take his gun. He told him very rudely the proper entrance and procedure for entering the court house with a gun, and yelled at him to not do it again. In the other thread, a 250+ pound cop dragged a buck thirty kid to the ground and threatened him. In this incident someone was scolded and told not to do something which I think we all agree is well within his legal rights to do.

In this thread I'm told I'm wrong and that there's no legal basis for rescinding the OPs LTCF in one post, yet another says they're tired of LEOs acting outside the law. If you're certain Sheriff Welsh will not pull the OPs LTCF, then you're privvy to information not yet disclosed in this thread and I for one would appreciate what it is that provides this sense of security. I know the Sheriff and I know some of the deputies, yes deputies, that man the metal detector when I go in with a gun, but I am not certain of what her reaction would be if someone suggested her department needs an education in manners and the PaUFA. Maybe she'd appreciate the constructive criticism, maybe not. The obvious upside for all who say he should make a stink about it is that you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. However, my opinion, and since it is just my opinion so no matter how uneducated or misinformed it may be, it cannot be called wrong, is that IF Sheriff Welsh agrees that someone reporting to jury duty has no business bringing a gun to a court house knowing that the law prohibits it, and remember, we signed a statement saying we know the law when we applied for a LTCF, than the OP runs the risk of invoking her wrath and losing his LTCF if not approached with the proper diplomacy.

I am an admitted pacifist, and do not puff out my chest out to save my honor, dignity, pride or whatever every time my feelings get hurt. Nor will I escalate an unpleasant encounter with a power monger into a battle just to prove I'm right if there's little to gain by winning, but a high price to pay if I lose. I have even gone as far as stating in previous posts that I will open the door for anyone hell bent on taking my possessions if it means no one gets hurt.

However, if me, my family, friends or a complete stranger are in imminent physical danger and I am armed and can stop the impending threat, I will shoot to kill, not wound or frighten. And I do not sit idly by when lawmakers threaten our right to bear arms nor do I consider my membership to the NRA and GOA any guarentee that my interests are being protected by men and women of unquestionable honor. I keep up with my district and state representatives votes and sponsored bills and let my voice be heard when I feel it's appropriate to speak up.

[Statkowski]

...someone reporting to jury duty has no business bringing a gun to a court house knowing that the law prohibits it...

So, you would have our Original Poster (OP) be at the mercy of adverse elements even when he's not at the court house, but en route to it?

The law does not prohibit anyone from bringing a gun to a court house, but only bringing a gun into a court facility. And, to emphasize that point, the law requires the court facility to have storage facilities for such firearms. If it was illegal to bring a firearm to a court facility, then storage for such firearms would not be required.

Your logic, or lack thereof, confuses me.

[str8shooter]

Quote:
...someone reporting to jury duty has no business bringing a gun to a court house knowing that the law prohibits it...

So, you would have our Original Poster (OP) be at the mercy of adverse elements even when he's not at the court house, but en route to it?

The law does not prohibit anyone from bringing a gun to a court house, but only bringing a gun into a court facility. And, to emphasize that point, the law requires the court facility to have storage facilities for such firearms. If it was illegal to bring a firearm to a court facility, then storage for such firearms would not be required.

Your logic, or lack thereof, confuses me.

Well if you read only half of each sentence I can see how you'd be confused. This isn't the New York Post and you just don't snip the part that's convenient to twist the context of the entire statement. Quote the whole sentence and if you're still confused I'll try to simplify it in single syllable words.

Never have I implied the OP did anything wrong. To the contrary, I agreed he was well within his rights to carry his gun to the point where he was stopped. My only point is that should he make an issue out of it with the Sheriff, and the Sheriff sides with her deputy, RIGHT OR WRONG, he might face unpleasant consequences of which one could be the loss of his LTCF. If the majority thinks he should push the issue and then he does in fact have his LTCF revoked, are we going to start yet another fund raiser to cover his legal costs to get it back? You keep spouting the law, and yet we see time and time again on this forum that we are the only authorities on the law and all LEOs are idiots. Therefore, I take the stance that we not provoke the idiots and let bygones be bygones.

gnbrotz stated in this thread he's going to do the exact same thing this year that got his LTCF revoked the last time just to prove a point. Fine, and what if it gets taken away again? Did the guy lose his job over it? Apparently not because he said he expects to see him again this year. It can be a game of harassment for the Sheriff to take away a LTCF if purposely provoked. Their legal representation comes from our tax dollars, and our legal defence comes out of pocket. I'm sure they can play the game much longer than us.

But don't worry, you disagree so by default my opinion is wrong.

[Pa. Patriot]

...All I did was offer my opinion, and admitted up front it differed than the majority, yet those who don't agree with me flat out say I'm wrong.

You seem to have made a critical error in confusing opinion with fact.
I saw no one say your opinion was "wrong". Several people, myself included, did not agree with your opinion of what the OP should do.

Several people did point out that your statements about what was allowed and what the sheriff could legally do were incorrect (wrong), because they were, and provably so.

I also agreed, contrary to my original statement, that the recommendation of a more diplomatic approach sounded like a good idea. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but to tell me what I would do is wrong because you disagree is just plain arrogant.

I did not see one single person recommend or suggest anything other than a diplomatic or civilly made complaint.

Since no one said a diplomatic complaint was "wrong" your accusation of arrogance is misplaced.

...and yet others not even residing in the county doubt that the ChesCo Court House even has deputies at the door, which would make calling the Sheriff pointless.

The question was asked if the door was manned by deputies or guards, since a LOCAL informed that both have been witnessed doing this duty.
Obliviously, the sheriff would be the person to contact if the offending person was a deputy and if it was a hired guard it would be made to the hiring authority (which is probably the sheriff).

In another thread some stated a policeman's bullying of a teenager may have been justified because he dealt with assholes on a daily basis and finally snapped. Can we not give this person, whether a deputy, rent-a-cop or doorman the same benefit of the doubt?

For the life of me I can't see what what someone in another threads opinion has to do with this deputy (or guards) behavior.

In this thread I'm told I'm wrong and that there's no legal basis for rescinding the OPs LTCF in one post,

Because it clearly is wrong. There is no provision in the UFA for a sheriff to revoke a LTCF for making a complaint about a deputy (or guard) not obliging a citizens request for storage facilities that the courthouse is obligated to provide by law (18 Pa.C.S. 913)

So yes, you are 100% wrong about the sheriff having that discretion. SS6109 of the UFA gives no such discretion.

yet another says they're tired of LEOs acting outside the law. If you're certain Sheriff Welsh will not pull the OPs LTCF, then you're privvy to information not yet disclosed in this thread and I for one would appreciate what it is that provides this sense of security.

This is plain silly.
This is akin to claiming that you want proof that the sheriff will not revoke the OP's license for spitting on the sidewalk.
The sheriff COULD revoke for anything that was not revokeable under the law (PACS 61 A ss6109) but the revocation would be illegal. If your worried about unlawful revocation you would be best served by staying home and never leaving your house

I know the Sheriff and I know some of the deputies, yes deputies, that man the metal detector when I go in with a gun, but I am not certain of what her reaction would be if someone suggested her department needs an education in manners and the PaUFA.

Who cares what her opinion is? If a deputy suggested something counter to the actual LAW, as this one was reported to have done, then a complaint should be made.

is that IF Sheriff Welsh agrees that someone reporting to jury duty has no business bringing a gun to a court house knowing that the law prohibits it, .

STOP
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong.

The LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CARRYING A GUN TO THE COURT HOUSE.
And 18 Pa.C.S. 913 mandates the court house provide storage facilities FOR EXACTLY THIS REASON!

[str8shooter]

This all happened at the Chester County courthouse.

So I showed up for my last day of jury duty today with my concealed XD45. I informed the officer at the metal detector that I had a pistol on me and needed to check it in so I could go into the courthouse.

He then told me that I shouldn't have brought it there because I'm serving as a juror (I had my sticker on identifying me as a juror). Then he told me I needed to go around to the other entrance to where the sheriff's office is to get a locker. As I collected my coat off the radar machine he told me not to "bring that here" again (refering to my gun). He said it a few times, and was not at all nice about it. I opened the door to leave that area and he yelled, for the whole line of people going into the courthouse, "You have a permit for that, right?", to which I said "yes, of course I do".

His attitude totally pissed me off. He was a real dick. He made me feel llike an ass in front of a few people I was serving with. I was going to ask to speak to the sheriff, but I left around lunchtime, so nobody was down there. Should I even bother trying to talk to her?

I'd love to know his reasoning for me not bringing it simply because I'm a juror. I can't think of one good reason why that matters. I didn't argue with him because I knew it would get me absolutely nowhere.

So, did ya get your answer yet?

[sgt7546]

This all happened at the Chester County courthouse.

He then told me that I shouldn't have brought it there because I'm serving as a juror (I had my sticker on identifying me as a juror). Then he told me I needed to go around to the other entrance to where the sheriff's office is to get a locker. As I collected my coat off the radar machine he told me not to "bring that here" again (referring to my gun). He said it a few times, and was not at all nice about it. I opened the door to leave that area and he yelled, for the whole line of people going into the courthouse, "You have a permit for that, right?", to which I said "yes, of course I do".

Even thought it sounds like gate keeper was rather rude, is there any chance when he was saying "don't bring that here again" he was actually referring to that particular entrance, as he finished by telling you which entrance to use?