What are your thoughts on the following?

[cmanzi]

Hey folks,

Just a few tales from the court house for your entertainment and discussion.

I was down at the courthouse on 55th and Pine for a burglary I dealt with this past summer, but that's a story for another time. While I was there I saw two very interesting cases unfold (preliminary hearings)

#1

An older gentleman was arrested by the Philadelphia Police Department for concealing a firearm on his person while driving a vehicle in Philadelphia - while in possession of a valid license from Bucks County. Why was he arrested? He had a minor drug conviction from 1975 (1973? 1977? don't remember the exact date) so the Philadelphia Police Officer (he thought he was the last boyscout) decided to take the law into his own hands and determined that the Bucks County Sheriff effed up.

Either way, here is this man, standing here with a valid LTCF, and the police officer was bold enough to say he didn't have access to the "system" to see if the license was valid (correct me if I'm wrong, it's a 1-800 number?) Either way, the judge admitted she wasn't sure, and gave the DA the opportunity to submit a brief outlining the specific laws that says that this man should have been arrested. I'm curious to see how this unfolds, but unfortunately I don't have any of the necessary information. Either way, viewing the [limited] facts I've presented: what do you think?

#2 A man was brought in for a few different charges after he harassed another man about taking "his" parking spot (during the snow storm.) (Don't worry, the judge was smart enough to say "you aren't trying to tell me that parking spots represent ownership and personal property rights, right? it was a pretty funny line) Either way, he came up, banged on this man's door, yelled at him, then left, went to his girlfriend's house (2 doors down) retrieved a firearm, went back to the victim's door and pounded on the door again now holding the firearm - DA attempted to prosecute based on the fact the man didn't have an LTCF. Defense Attorney argues that the man was walking to his vehicle from his girlfriends house, so it doesn't apply, and the DA didn't know the law all too well, and let it slide on that and didn't try to push it. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think they should have pursued this charge further?

Please note: when I say DA I'm not referring to THE DA, merely attorneys with the DA's office.

[lexnaturalis]

Hey folks,
Either way, viewing the [limited] facts I've presented: what do you think?

I think it's not uncommon for cops to take the law into their own hands and it's not uncommon for judges to lack knowledge of the law.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it's not uncommon for DA's to lack knowledge of the law.

[jshwak]

I do not posess an extensive knowledge of the PA gun law either.. I'm interested in knowing if case #2 would constitute a brandishing charge?

[t1m0thy]

the first case should be tossed out if the older gentleman has an attorney with any competence. The second case is just someone with very poor judgment. Whether he broke the law would depend on how he was carrying the gun and the language he was using while holding it and if he refused to leave if the homeowner asked him to.

[cmanzi]

the first case should be tossed out if the older gentleman has an attorney with any competence. The second case is just someone with very poor judgment. Whether he broke the law would depend on how he was carrying the gun and the language he was using while holding it and if he refused to leave if the homeowner asked him to.

#2 did not have an LTCF. I feel like he wouldn't be able to carry it to the neighbors house period.

[HiredGoon]

I do not posess an extensive knowledge of the PA gun law either.. I'm interested in knowing if case #2 would constitute a brandishing charge?

#2... There is no "brandishing" law on the PA books, but the guy could be charged with disorderly conduct or making threats depending on what he was doing with the gun while he was holding it.

It's never a good idea to hold a gun in your hand in public unless you're in a self defense situation.

[gnbrotz]

#1 - Even if the LTCF was issued in error, statutorily, the issuing authority is the only one empowered to revoke it. LEOs are not granted the authority to not recognize a validly issued licensed that has not been revoked. Charges should be dismissed.

#2 - If in Philly, an individual must be licensed to carry a firearm (even for OC on foot) on public property. Validity of the charge should be based on whether or not the charged individual was ever on public property. If not, charges should be dismissed.

IANAL (or a judge)

[gooseSA40]

Either way, viewing the [limited] facts I've presented: what do you think?

Well, I see Philly hasn't stop training their gestapo. Anyway, the oldman's lawyer needs to wrap his brain around some gun laws. After the outcome, I hope the guy files a complaint at the least.

[NotThatOne]

#1 - Even if the LTCF was issued in error, statutorily, the issuing authority is the only one empowered to revoke it. LEOs are not granted the authority to not recognize a validly issued licensed that has not been revoked. Charges should be dismissed.

#2 - If in Philly, an individual must be licensed to carry a firearm (even for OC on foot) on public property. Validity of the charge should be based on whether or not the charged individual was ever on public property. If not, charges should be dismissed.

IANAL (or a judge)

Agreed, IANAL...just kidding, I agree with both of your points with some additional insight..

#1 If I am pulled over for speeding and produce a license from a state that doesn't require proof of citizenship the LEO cannot arrest me for being an illegal alien. Case dismissed. The DA's office will have to go after the Sheriff and deny this old man on renewal.

#2 Unless this guy somehow managed to jump from front porch to front porch to go 2 doors down, the chances are near 100% that he was on public property. As soon as your foot hits the sidewalk you are "illegal" without your LTCF...in a first class city.

[gnbrotz]

#2 Unless this guy somehow managed to jump from front porch to front porch to go 2 doors down, the chances are near 100% that he was on public property. As soon as your foot hits the sidewalk you are "illegal" without your LTCF...in a first class city.

Often property boundaries go to the center of the street/road, with a defined width being a "public right-of-way". IMO, a "public right-of-way" is not "public property", so research into the true ownership of the location in question would be paramount to the defense.