Concealed carry on a college campus in PA...

[Mosinshooter762]

while i would agree with you that the actual wording of terry should require more than just suspicion of carrying a concealed gun, i would not count on the courts ruling that way.

you do need an LTCF in PA to carry concealed. most people in PA do not have an LTCF. thus, the courts very well might rule that suspicion of a concealed gun does provide RAS that the individual is carrying concealed without an LTCF (and that carrying a concealed firearm without an LTCF automatically makes one dangerours, so there is also RAS that the person poses a threat).

i don't like it. i think it is BS. but our courts have been known to spew BS.

Didn't Hawkins at least touch on the edges of this issue in the "man with a gun call?" While it was noted that they were not considering violations of 6106 or 6108, they seem to note that suspicion of carrying a gun by itself was not constitutionally enough to detain, and frisk someone. Since the only way to compulsorily find out that they are carrying, or that they have a LTCF is to initiate a detention, they are on weak constitutional ground absent evidence of something illegal. With that said, the courts do some weird things.

[LittleRedToyota]

Didn't Hawkins at least touch on the edges of this issue in the "man with a gun call?"

i don't think so...though i know this can start a debate:

hawkins was talking about an *anonymous* "man with a gun call", not a police officer developing RAS on his own. that is the crux of hawkins. an anonymous call cannot, by itself, constitute RAS of anything. i do not read that case the way some people on this forum do (i would like to, but i can't as i don't think it says what they say it says).

a police officer developing RAS of someone having a gun on his own is a different story from an anonymous man with a gun call. there are other cases (e.g., commonwealth v. stevenson) where terry stops/searches (which led to arrests) have been upheld because the totality of the circumstances, but the primary reason was that the officer suspected the person was carrying a concealed gun.

now, there was a bit more to it in the stevenson case...but not really a whole lot. the officer articulated that he suspected stevenson was carrying a concealed gun illegally because it was in his jacket pocket and most people who carry for their job or legitimately with an LTCF do not just throw their guns in their pockets. also, the officer articulated that stevenson seemed to get nervous when he saw the police.

here is a link to the stevenson case:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../a31028_05.pdf

[imperialism2024]

I'd also bring up the issue that campus police need not abide by "legal" restrictions on searches and seizures, so to speak. When one enrolls in a college as a student, one may forfeit some privacy rights. Once again, I don't know if any colleges are doing this, but it's a possibility. Then you would either have to consent to a search for whatever reason, or risk expulsion for refusing to allow a search.

But at the end of the day, it's legal to carry on a college campus. Just don't tell anyone, and I'd go so far as to not even talk to anyone about shooting as a hobby. I'd also tone down on support of the right to effective self-defense in classroom discussions.

[Mtbkski]

This really is a tough decision that anyone attending College must consider and give some thought.

Most colleges tell you that you are not allowed to carry a firearm on the college grounds. If your caught, you will probably be expelled.

Now if your footing the bill, you can make that decision about if you should carry or not. But, if your parents are paying for you to attend, maybe this is something you should discuss with them first. I mean, I'ld be P.O.ed if my kid caught kicked out of scholol after a couple years of me forking out some big bucks.

But then, I'm not sure I would want my kid roaming the campus grounds unarmed anymore either.

If my kids go to college, here is what I would strive to do. Keep her at home, and send her from here daily. If she didn't stay in the dorms, I for one would highly encourage my kids to carry daily while attending class.

But, if they were staying on campus, now they have to hide if from roommates, and lets face it. Sooner or later they will see it. And then what if they turn you in.

If your paying the bill yourself. You can decide. I would carry. I would be very discreet about it. I would tell absolutely no one. Not even the girl I was dating while I was there.

A smart carry holster with a subcompact or snubbie should never be found by anyone.

My two cents.

[Mosinshooter762]

i don't think so...though i know this can start a debate:

hawkins was talking about an *anonymous* "man with a gun call", not a police officer developing RAS on his own. that is the crux of hawkins. an anonymous call cannot, by itself, constitute RAS of anything. i do not read that case the way some people on this forum do (i would like to, but i can't as i don't think it says what they say it says).

a police officer developing RAS of someone having a gun on his own is a different story from an anonymous man with a gun call. there are other cases (e.g., commonwealth v. stevenson) where terry stops/searches (which led to arrests) have been upheld because the totality of the circumstances, but the primary reason was that the officer suspected the person was carrying a concealed gun.


now, there was a bit more to it in the stevenson case...but not really a whole lot. the officer articulated that he suspected stevenson was carrying a concealed gun illegally because it was in his jacket pocket and most people who carry for their job or legitimately with an LTCF do not just throw their guns in their pockets. also, the officer articulated that stevenson seemed to get nervous when he saw the police.

here is a link to the stevenson case:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../a31028_05.pdf

Thanks for the research, and the link. I appreciate it.

It still doesn't upset the view that (concealed) carrying a gun in Pa, by itself, is not grounds for a lawful police stop. In fact, I see it as reaffirming that view. In this case, the guy acted as if he didn't normally carry guns. This officer saw this persons carrying as consistent with someone who illegal carries. I agree with you that the case contains some bugs, and in the fact that this case isn't exactly a 100% victory for undisrupted concealed carry in Pennsylvania. I guess its what we can expect out of the courts. The big problem is are the cops going to follow the law, if they want to interfere with your carrying?

[panther76]

while i would agree with you that the actual wording of terry should require more than just suspicion of carrying a concealed gun, i would not count on the courts ruling that way.

you do need an LTCF in PA to carry concealed. most people in PA do not have an LTCF. thus, the courts very well might rule that suspicion of a concealed gun does provide RAS that the individual is carrying concealed without an LTCF (and that carrying a concealed firearm without an LTCF automatically makes one dangerours, so there is also RAS that the person poses a threat).

i don't like it. i think it is BS. but our courts have been known to spew BS.

Actually I was basing what I said on my understanding of the case law in PA. I might be wrong but that's why I had a disclaimer. I think you're right that how the law is ENFORCED is always a roll of the dice. I guess my point is that personally I'd prefer to take the chance of getting kicked out of school. Which, as a matter of fact, is what I did in college. I carried a .45acp Glock the whole time.

[LittleRedToyota]

Thanks for the research, and the link. I appreciate it.

It still doesn't upset the view that (concealed) carrying a gun in Pa, by itself, is not grounds for a lawful police stop. In fact, I see it as reaffirming that view. In this case, the guy acted as if he didn't normally carry guns. This officer saw this persons carrying as consistent with someone who illegal carries. I agree with you that the case contains some bugs, and in the fact that this case isn't exactly a 100% victory for undisrupted concealed carry in Pennsylvania. I guess its what we can expect out of the courts. The big problem is are the cops going to follow the law, if they want to interfere with your carrying?

i think the reality is that it will likely never be settled whether or not just CCing, in and of itself, constitutes RAS because, if you are just CCing as us everyday law abiding CCers do, 99% of the time a random LEO will never even know you have a gun.

further, if an LEO does somehow notice you have a gun and somehow it (whatever "it" is) all ends up in court, he will most likely articulate some qualitative--unprovable, but also not disprovable--totality of circumstances that will be considered to have given him RAS for the stop.

really, the only way i can see for this to actually get resolved in court is for someone who does not have an LTCF to CC; for an LEO to notice the CCing without any other accompanying suspicious circumstances; the LEO to ask to see the persons LTCF, the person not produce an LTCF (as he does not have one), the officer to charge the guy with a UFA violation, the guy to plead not guilty and go to court, and for the officer to testify that he had no RAS other than simply noticing that the guy was CCing.

i just don't really see that ever happening.

(note that it won't work if the person actually does have an LTCF...because when he gets to court and show that he does have an LTCF, that's it...case dismissed.)

[CZ40P]

The main flaw in this discussion is that the cops don't always follow the "rules".

If a police officer stops and searches you with out RAS, by the time you get to the station you will have a laundry list of charges attached. Especially if the realize the original charge is bullshit.

You will be charged with Resisting Arrest, Risking a Catastrophe, Assault or any other fantasy to flesh out the report.

After putting your ass through the wringer for what seems like an eternity, the nice police officer will offer to do you a favor and drop all of the other charges if you plead guilty to this little misdemeanor.

Nine times out of ten , John Q. Citizen will take the deal for expediency or financial reasons.

The nice police officer, emboldened by his success at stopping crime, will practice this maneuver many times throughout his career. He will then retire after twenty years ,get to carry in all fifty states because of LEOSA. He may even get a new job as head of campus security.

John Q. Citizen on the other hand , will never carry again legally, because he is now a prohibited person.

Nice country, this America

[Rudiger]

I'd check the schools handbook. I currently go to Millersville and was able to dig this up in a couple minutes.



"This prohibition against deadly and offensive weapons on a property owned or controlled by Millersville University applies equally to those persons who have a government issued license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. Any University employee or student having such a license and wishing to carry their weapon on University property for compelling reasons related to their personal safety must request an exception to this policy by contacting the University Chief of Police. Such requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

"Persons who possess deadly or offensive weapons in violation of this policy shall be asked to remove themselves and/or the weapons from University property. In addition, those persons directly violating the laws of the Commonwealth by such possession shall be subject to immediate arrest. Failure to abide by a request for compliance to the campus policy shall subject the violator to prosecution under all appropriate sections of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Student violations of this policy may also result in disciplinary action as defined in the Student Code of Conduct, up to, and including expulsion from the University. Employee violations of this policy may also result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal."

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Here is what Temple University has to say...

Students found in possession of a firearm anywhere on campus will be IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED FROM TEMPLE UNIVERSITY pending the outcome of their University Disciplinary Committee (UDC) hearing. This University policy applies to all students – even if they are otherwise permitted by law to carry a firearm.

http://www.temple.edu/studentaffairs...dards08-09.doc

Glad I only have a couple semesters left there...