I finally had a bad OC experience.

[Gunsnwater]

Should have performed a citizen’s arrest .

I’m really shocked Pilly cops broke the law on a constitutionally protected right, or any law.

No really I’m shocked. They have such a sterling reputation and a long history of self governing.

I hope this doesn’t taint the one or two actual honest philly cops.

[PGRNPA]

At the moment, you are actually required to have a LTCF for any mode of carry on any public property in the entire state. Is it your argument that the SOE would supercede the SC ruling too?

The Court, in dismissing the Commonwealth’s position, declared that to permit investigative detention solely to determine whether someone is properly licensed is “ultimately untenable, because it would allow a manifestly unacceptable range of ordinary activity to, by itself, justify Terry stops.”

The Court then went on to declare; 'Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity. (emphasis added)'


This is from Joshua Prince, the firearms attorney who argued the case and posted the decision on his blog which is also posted on this forum under "open carry" section. As you can see and by my reading of this, scenarios do not matter. It clearly states the mere presence of a firearm in and of itself is not RAS.

PA requires a LTCF to carry a concealed firearm in PA. A city of the first class requires a LTCF for any mode of carry. The current SOE requires a LTCF for any mode of carry. How do any of these set aside the Court's ruling?

[mbinpa]

I took a criminal justice class last summer and they had a local PD officer come in to chat and answer questions. I asked about OC interactions and he acknowledged it was legal and he didn't have a problem with it. But he also said that the police are always free to ask questions - such as do I have a LTCF, etc. - asking questions is not by itself anything other then making conversation. He indicated that there are many times that the a person is simply not required to answer the questions or otherwise engage in the conversation. Unfortunately not answering the question often escalates the situation, leading to reasonable suspicion, thereby requiring the individual to produce their LTCF.

CC is so much easier....

[PGRNPA]

I took a criminal justice class last summer and they had a local PD officer come in to chat and answer questions. I asked about OC interactions and he acknowledged it was legal and he didn't have a problem with it. But he also said that the police are always free to ask questions - such as do I have a LTCF, etc. - asking questions is not by itself anything other then making conversation. He indicated that there are many times that the a person is simply not required to answer the questions or otherwise engage in the conversation. Unfortunately not answering the question often escalates the situation, leading to reasonable suspicion, thereby requiring the individual to produce their LTCF.

CC is so much easier....

Agree. There are 3 types of encounters: a mere encounter, investigatory detainment and arrest. A mere encounter is what the officer in your class referenced. They are engaging you in a dialogue but you are not detained and are free to go. Unfortunately they feel free to escalate based on silence which is unfortunate. What is the first sentence of the Miranda? You have the RIGHT to remain silent. CC does not alleviate you of these unpleasantries if you print and are seen but yes overall I get your point.

[DOC1500]

Always show respect, they have a tough enough job as it is. Cooperate and everybody's happy. Causing suspicion is not what you want.

[raxar]

Always show respect, they have a tough enough job as it is. Cooperate and everybody's happy. Causing suspicion is not what you want.

Your post is very suspicious and I demand you provide proof you aren't committing a crime.

[DOC1500]

Attitude is everything you give law enforcement an attitude you're going to get one back. treat him with respect and he'll treat you with respect, that doesn't say there aren't some ugly cops out there that are just angry all the time

[fallenleader]

But you see, the police can't possibly know of all the laws and court decisions. At least, not the way that you and I are supposed to know and abide by them all.

ah but in philthy and with the SoE still active, they have two reasons for "papers, please"
doesn't sound like a bad encounter, just an annoyance.
they didn't seize his weapon or ID and refuse to return them, he wasn't locked up or killed. just stripped of his due process and rights by infringing on his 2nd and assuming he is guilty of not posessing his permission slips.
this is an issue not with the officers but those fart huffing morons in the capitol. if i lived nearby, i'd take up a habit of having lunch with my AR at various random locations around the capitol.

[DOC1500]

you're not going to change the laws on the street. go to the capital and see about changing things.

[GunLawyer001]

That doesn't matter. The PASC just recently ruled that carrying a gun (open OR concealed), on it's own, is NOT enough to justify a stop/license request.

The court held that his possession of a concealed gun was not enough to slap cuffs on him and pull him from his car and search him.

However, nowhere in the opinion do they even mention this:

§ 6122. Proof of license and exception.

(a) General rule.--When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection. Failure to produce such license either at the time of arrest or at the preliminary hearing shall create a rebuttable presumption of nonlicensure.

So, there's a gap. Cops can't cuff you and search you based only on you having a gun, but if a cop makes a "lawful demand" while you're carrying or transporting, then you have to show your LTCF. There's a question about the penalty for not showing the LTCF upon lawful demand, whether it's the default M1 for all ungraded violations of the UFA, or whether the "penalty" is that you have to produce it in court later to overcome the negative presumption (which I think is the better argument).

Read the whole decision; what counts as a "lawful demand" under § 6122? The court doesn't say.

It's true that any statute which violates the Constitution is void (see the Game Code's requirement to produce ID in 34 Pa.C.S. § 904, and COMMONWEALTH v. ICKES striking that down in 2005), but the court didn't say that was the case in Hicks. So it would be a stretch to say that we can ignore § 6122 now, based on Hicks. If a cop initiates a "mere encounter", does §6122 impose a duty on you to produce your LTCF, or is the officer's demand "unlawful"?