Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Obviously, we all know that this happened:
"We find no justification for the notion that a police officer may infer criminal activity merely from an individual’s possession of a concealed firearm in public,” the state high court said. “Absent some other circumstances giving rise to a suspicion of criminality, a seizure upon that basis alone is unreasonable.”
Some people are barred from gun ownership, and a license is required for a concealed firearm, the court said. But “there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance.”"
TL;DR: cops can't stop you just for seeing that you are carrying a weapon.
But, we've been stuck in an SoE for what feels like forever, prohibiting firearm carry for all unlicensed or exempted individuals.
Does the SoE in any way provide law enforcement with an end-run around the Supreme Court's ruling, enabling them to stop and detain (or more) individuals who are visibly carrying firearms?
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ViperGTS19801
Obviously, we all know that this happened:
"We find no justification for the notion that a police officer may infer criminal activity merely from an individual’s possession of a concealed firearm in public,” the state high court said. “Absent some other circumstances giving rise to a suspicion of criminality, a seizure upon that basis alone is unreasonable.”
Some people are barred from gun ownership, and a license is required for a concealed firearm, the court said. But “there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance.”"
We've been stuck in an SoE for what feels like forever, prohibiting firearm carry for all unlicensed or exempted individuals.
Does the SoE in any way provide law enforcement with an end-run around the Supreme Court's ruling?
I would not want to be the officer trying to defend against such a clear statement.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Arrest anyone you see possessing a firearm, and let the judge sort it out... in 12-18 months of course.
That's how it'll play.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PAMedic=F|A=
I would not want to be the officer trying to defend against such a clear statement.
Why? How does it affect the officer?
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
streaker69
Why? How does it affect the officer?
In a just world, where judges sit an impartial observers, the officer would be held in contempt.
Unlikely, I know.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PAMedic=F|A=
I would not want to be the officer trying to defend against such a clear statement.
There's no remedy for that situation. It's called qualified immunity or cover up. The SOE that's been in effect by Wolf and his cronies is nothing more than a feeble attempt at Martial Law without declaring Martial Law.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JenniferG
There's no remedy for that situation. It's called qualified immunity or cover up. The SOE that's been in effect by Wolf and his cronies is nothing more than a feeble attempt at Martial Law without declaring Martial Law.
Nono. They have qualified immunity when thee hurt the public.
This would be ignoring a judge.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ViperGTS19801
We've been stuck in an SoE for what feels like forever, prohibiting firearm carry for all unlicensed or exempted individuals.
Does the SoE in any way provide law enforcement with an end-run around the Supreme Court's ruling?
Not sure where you got this, since you didn't post a link.
If the state Supreme Court actually stated this, then the Court rewrote § 6107. Prohibited conduct during emergency. (a) (2),
which states;
Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).
in which police officers are in the clear.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gun
Not sure where you got this, since you didn't post a link.
If the state Supreme Court actually stated this, then the Court rewrote § 6107. Prohibited conduct during emergency. (a) (2),
which states;
Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).
in which police officers are in the clear.
Not sure what information you're trying to convey.
Re: Carrying, the State of Emergency, and the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PAMedic=F|A=
Not sure what information you're trying to convey.
I am confused myself now. Was the OP questioning whether police officers without a LTCF, can carry a firearm during this SOE. Or is he asking whether the police can stop someone seen carrying a firearm during the SOE ?