A WORTHY CAUSE!!

[Sgt.K]

It is already understood that the police cannot simply detain you simply because you are carrying a firearm.

You're new here, aren't you?

Look, you're obviously fairly articulate*, thoughtful, and well read about this case. But this sentence I quoted suggests a lack of understanding about reality. Spend some time reading through the forums here. Off the top of my head look up experiences by Pa. Patriot and ViperGTS19801 (give yourself lots of time), and my own link above. Some (small?) improvements have been made, but only by addressing the issues when they pop up - as this brief is attempting to do.


* Suggestion - smaller paragraphs make for easier forum reading.

[Williamsmith]

You're new here, aren't you?

Look, you're obviously fairly articulate*, thoughtful, and well read about this case. But this sentence I quoted suggests a lack of understanding about reality. Spend some time reading through the forums here. Off the top of my head look up experiences by Pa. Patriot and ViperGTS19801 (give yourself lots of time), and my own link above. Some (small?) improvements have been made, but only by addressing the issues when they pop up - as this brief is attempting to do.


* Suggestion - smaller paragraphs make for easier forum reading.

I’m relatively new here but not to forums in general. Regarding “reality” I fully support your assertion that certain injustices have been and are continuing to be leveled against law abiding Pennsylvanians who are exercising their 2A Rights.

It is fact, however, that each situation rises and falls on the specific facts as articulated in court....not necessarily exactly what happened. And so I can also relate to the poor legal defenses sometimes rendered by county public defenders with tiny budgets and little resources. This often results in unnecessary convictions, harsh sentences and real injustice.

I support attorneys who do the hard work necessary to right these wrongs. In this case, I just have a different perspective. Police are held to the totality of circumstances when deciding infringements of the Constitution in Pennsylvania. There is currently no firearm exception to that rule. It seems to suffice as is...but is certainly not without its issues. You won’t find these types of problems often in rural counties where the populace does not have a phobia of guns.

[truecrimson]

Reminds me of McKown.

A defendant the august membership of this forum won't deign to support.

A case that is going to go forward and result in a ruling of some kind no matter what, if for no other reason than the guy involved needs to defend himself.

A ruling that may be positive, negative, or neutral, and we can affect that outcome.

Another missed opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons. Another example of "our side" snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[TangoBravo605]

And then there is this: Commonwealth v. Mackey, 2017 PA Super 403 - Pa: Superior Court 2017

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superi...t/1883431.html

[bill gray]

I read the Press Release and wondered, if the stop and arrest are upheld what more could it lead to? Could any and every male be stopped and investigated on suspicion of rape? After all, they are equipped for it. If that flies, could any and every female be stopped for suspicion of prostitution? After all....

[MedicCop]

This is a very unique case, but I think that the decision is going to go in favor of the Commonwealth, for the following reasons:

1. There was a credible complainant, who remained on scene and gave his information to the Police. This is in stark contrast to the "anonymous caller reporting a man with a gun" which we all know is not sufficient on it's own to rely on for reasonable suspicion.

2. The courts are required to view the circumstances as a reasonable officer would at the scene, knowing only the facts that officer knew at the time (ie without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight). In this situation, the officers were responding to a report of a person armed with a handgun, who had brandished it. Yes, I know there is no 'brandishing' law in Pennsylvania, but pointing a firearm at another person IS simple assault. In this rapidly evolving scenario, the officers were given information which did not turn out to be 100% accurate (the defendant 'displayed' the firearm, and didn't point it at anyone). However, it is reasonable for the responding officers to assume that criminal activity is (or might be) afoot. When a person points a firearm at another person, the intent is clear. It is no different than a person raising a baseball bat or a tire iron in a threatening manner. If that had been the scenario, I would hazard to guess that this case wouldn't have even been noticed.

3. It is a long-standing tenet that 'freezing the scene and maintaining the status quo' while a brief investigation is conducted is the definition of an investigative detention. There need not be probable cause for the police to temporarily restrict someone's freedom in order to discern if a crime has occurred and if there is probable cause for arrest. For the purposes of this case, reasonable suspicion was all that was required for the police to temporarily detain the defendant.

4. The simple carrying of a firearm is not the activity that gave rise to the reasonable suspicion for the defendant's detention.

I think some are so wrapped around the axle that because there was a firearm involved that we need to rally around this defendant and show are support for the second amendment, when by doing so we fail to see the forest through the trees. This is not a case of a person stranding on the corner carrying a firearm either openly or concealed. There is far more to this scenario that contributes to the police having the requisite reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain the defendant while an investigation is conducted. Just because the investigation determined that probable cause did not exist for an arrest, does not mean that reasonable suspicion didn't exist for the stop.

It will be interesting either way to see which direction the court goes.

[Williamsmith]

For all the reasons mentioned above by MedicCop, I concur and reiterate my skepticism that this effort will be rewarded by a measurable step forward for Pennsylvania firearms owners carrying either openly or concealed.

I applaud Attorney Joshua Prince for his contributions and recent success with the agregious application of federal nics disqualification of Pennsylvania residents based on the assumption that an involuntary 302 commitment in PA satisfies the due process and judicial review requirements that should be a protection against revocation of 2A Rights for life.

I hope Attorney Prince will be able to give medical marijuana disqualifications some of his expertise as I think this has more potential for harm in the future. Especially given governments attitude toward opiods and the promise medical marijuana has for pain management for a wide range of sufferers. Sufferers who obey the law in all other aspects of life and have important contributions to society. That we could make criminals out of some of our most valued members of the Commonwealth seems ridiculous. But I digress.