All LEO's Please read

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

For me personally, part of it was because it was never addressed and any misconceptions were never corrected. Mainly, it was because I'd never seen it done. If it was legal, then why wouldn't many more people carry this way? As I said before, I knew OC existed in other states, but I thought it was an outdated law that never got repealed or amended. I really didn't think it was practiced anywhere. I knew many other states were much more restrictive than PA regarding ownership/permits, etc. Back then I didn't have any feelings for or against OC, because I never thought it was an issue, therefore, I didn't go looking for clarification.

Hope that answers your question.

I can understand that!!! What would have to be done for LEO training in PA to be amended to clearly educate officers on what the UFA says and does not say? This should be part of the academy, the UFA is STATE law, that means ANY LEO in PA should be well versed in what it says.

[Bruce]

The officer is going to be cautious in the discussion because the subject is armed and dangerous. I just don't see how this is a problem if you choose to OC...

Why would a cop consider me dangerous? Because I am armed? That's preposterous.

I am far more *dangerous* when I am unarmed.

Let me preface this with: I will never commit a crime! That said:

When I am armed (especially visibly armed) any crime that I might commit will now be considered *worse* (by judges, newspapers, juries, et cetera). Therefore, I would, naturally, be *extra* law-abiding when armed. To try and put it more clearly, unless I am 'under attack', I will likely practice much more self-control whenever I am armed.

A cop (in fact, anyone) should consider me far more *dangerous* when I am unarmed/disarmed.

Robert A. Heinlein (repeated by Charlton Heston) put it best when he said: "An armed society is a polite society."

As for the "Open Carry *statute*" - I think you've been hammered enough on that one. It does not exist; which is why it is perfectly legal.
.

[Philadelphia]

I just don't see how this is a problem if you choose to OC then know the statute that says you can and quote it to the officer, he or she will check it and then you will be on your way.

Welcome to America. I hope you enjoy your stay here. In America, a free country, you don't need a statute to tell you what you can do. The gov't (in your example the cop) needs a crimes code section he can provide you to before he can tell you what you can't do.

I've seen a lot of chest beating by a lot of various law enforcement types, but I have yet to see any provide a specific crimes code section they could actually arrest and charge someone with for OC.

I've also seen a lot of complaints by LEOs that it's impossible to know all the laws. They should try to think like an ordinary citizen and imagine how hard it would be not only to just know them all, but also comply with them all or risk getting arrested. In other words, a LEO who doesn't know the law is another name for a civil rights case defendant. If I can get arrested for not knowing every single law that might apply to me, they can well get sued for not knowing it.

[rmarkob]

If they don't want you, maybe you don't want them. Can you avoid same as Jersey? Seems their carry laws are about the same as far as people from PA goes.

I will avoid it as a destination. But I can at least carry through SC, loaded with hollow points, as long as it's in my glovebox or center console. I just can't carry on my person while out in public. Way less restrictive than NJ, where I have family and am SOL when visiting.

Of the 7 states that only honor licenses/permits for residents of the issuing state, 5 offer reciprocity/recognition of the PA LTCF (MI, CO, FL, NH, WV). Only 2 do not: KS and SC. I have no business or personal connections with KS and I can live with SC's restrictions if I'm just driving through.

[Sigchaser]

Why would a cop consider me dangerous? Because I am armed? That's preposterous.

I am far more *dangerous* when I am unarmed.

Let me preface this with: I will never commit a crime! That said:

When I am armed (especially visibly armed) any crime that I might commit will now be considered *worse* (by judges, newspapers, juries, et cetera). Therefore, I would, naturally, be *extra* law-abiding when armed. To try and put it more clearly, unless I am 'under attack', I will likely practice much more self-control whenever I am armed.

A cop (in fact, anyone) should consider me far more *dangerous* when I am unarmed/disarmed.

Robert A. Heinlein (repeated by Charlton Heston) put it best when he said: "An armed society is a polite society."

As for the "Open Carry *statute*" - I think you've been hammered enough on that one. It does not exist; which is why it is perfectly legal.
.

Guess what if you have a weapon then you are armed and dangerous, until proven otherwise. Lets face it the gun is a dangerous weapon and it is visible on your person, if I am approaching you then I am going to beleive you are a threat until you prove you aren't. It is that type of thinking that is going to get me home at night.

[Philadelphia]

Guess what if you have a weapon then you are armed and dangerous, until proven otherwise. Lets face it the gun is a dangerous weapon and it is visible on your person, if I am approaching you then I am going to beleive you are a threat until you prove you aren't. It is that type of thinking that is going to get me home at night.

That makes sense. Until the moment you detain the man with gun who is doing nothing but minding his own business. At that point, you have violated his 4th and 14th amendment rights. Just FYI.

I'd also note that most convenience store clerks working in bad neighborhoods want to return home safe every day too. I rarely hear them say so though.

For me, I usually just want to walk home safe, especially if it's getting late.

[Bruce]

Guess what if you have a weapon then you are armed and dangerous, until proven otherwise. Lets face it the gun is a dangerous weapon and it is visible on your person, if I am approaching you then I am going to beleive you are a threat until you prove you aren't. It is that type of thinking that is going to get me home at night.

Are you stating that you will automatically assume that I am "guilty until proven innocent"?

If I am *unarmed* and minding my own business do I also have to *prove* that I am not going to rip your head off with my bare hands? Or should I *prove* that I am not going to grab a sharp stick off the ground and stab you to death with it?

If you usually believe that everyone is (without any evidence) already *guilty* then routinely expect people to *prove their innocence*, that is a pretty darn un-American way to think right there.

Are you from another country?
.

[PropCop]

An OC'd firearm is no more dangerous than an OC'd knife, and how many people are there with knives on their belt?

Granted, a knife is generally an arms length device, but it can be deployed effectively within 21 feet before a condition red mindset can react. The reaction time of most people is much less than that.

Personally, I would rather encounter OC's, since I know where the firearm is, and only the "good guys' would have the guts to do this.

I don't worry about either one.

[jofreder]

LEO's are hired to enforce the laws so they damned well better know the laws; if the LEO doesn't know the law they should be looking for new employment.

I think it would probably be next to impossible for one person to know every law and all of there exceptions and details.

[ThomasJ]

Guess what if you have a weapon then you are armed and dangerous, until proven otherwise. Lets face it the gun is a dangerous weapon and it is visible on your person, if I am approaching you then I am going to beleive you are a threat until you prove you aren't. It is that type of thinking that is going to get me home at night.

You are exhibiting a very dangerous mindset as well as a complete disregard for the constitution. I believe you are a threat, and your words prove you are.