city hall court house in Philadelphia...

**tl_3237** · August 27th, 2010, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

Is OC spray considered a "dangerous weapon"?

18 Pa CSA 913(f)
"Dangerous weapon." A bomb, grenade, blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife (the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism or otherwise) or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

Guess they don't have many people asking to check things that serve no legal purpose.

"OC" is not a dangerous weapon.

**dgg9** · August 27th, 2010, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by tl_3237

"OC" is not a dangerous weapon.

Keep in mind that state pre-emption only applies to firearms, not other weapons. That's why Philly can ban knives.

I'll try to dredge up the relevant city ordinance page, but IIRC, knives and stun guns are banned by the city. OC is ok. The language was unclear to me wrt ASPs. Essentially, only guns and OC are on solid ground in the city.

ETA: here it is:

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d..._Chapter10-800

§ 10-820. Cutting Weapons in Public Places. 189

(1) Definition.

Cutting Weapon. Any knife or other cutting instrument which can be used as a weapon that has a cutting edge similar to that of a knife. No tool or instrument commonly or ordinarily used in a trade, profession or calling shall be considered a cutting weapon while actually being used in the active exercise of that trade, profession or calling.

(2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use or possess any cutting weapon upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time.

(3) Penalty. The penalty for violation of this Section shall be a fine of not less than three hundred (300) dollars and imprisonment of not less than ninety days.
§ 10-821. Reserved. 190

**ExCopInPhilly** · August 27th, 2010, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Just don't try to check a knife. Since they're not legal in Philly, they're not required to check them for you, and I have heard first-hand accounts of confiscation.

Whether they have lockboxes or not, take a copy of the law and require them to either comply in some fashion, or explain to the court why you were unable to appear as a witness.

Depending on why his presence was requested at the court, whether or not they provide the lockers, if he is unable to appear, he may be putting himself in a world of trouble by following this advice. If he were to follow this, and the judge held him in contempt, then so be it. If he is compelled to appear before the court, then his personal views, decisions, needs to feel safe, are not the issue of the court, nor must they be taken into consideration. However, his appearance is an issue for the court, and his failure to do so, because of his choice to not secure his weapon in his car or leave it at home, because of their failure to comply with the law are separate issues.

**gnbrotz** · August 27th, 2010, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by ExCopInPhilly

Depending on why his presence was requested at the court, whether or not they provide the lockers, if he is unable to appear, he may be putting himself in a world of trouble by following this advice. If he were to follow this, and the judge held him in contempt, then so be it. If he is compelled to appear before the court, then his personal views, decisions, needs to feel safe, are not the issue of the court, nor must they be taken into consideration. However, his appearance is an issue for the court, and his failure to do so, because of his choice to not secure his weapon in his car or leave it at home, because of their failure to comply with the law are separate issues.

I disagree. If storage is not provided, and he is not permitted to pass the security checkpoint, it is up to the person that barred entry to explain their actions. Should someone be held in contempt if they showed up and the doors were locked? Same situation: entry (as required) was attempted, but denied by some other force. Personally, I wouldn't leave the courthouse, I would remain at the security checkpoint for an extended time (at least an hour or two) in case any questions arose, or the party expecting my appearance passed by.

There is absolutely no basis to charge someone with contempt because they failed to waive their rights in deference to the court. If that were the case, the 5th Amendment would be useless. It's no different that prohibiting entry to someone wearing a blue shirt, and then charging them with contempt because they refused to change into a white shirt so entry would be permitted.

**Pa. Patriot** · August 27th, 2010, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by ExCopInPhilly

Depending on why his presence was requested at the court, whether or not they provide the lockers, if he is unable to appear, he may be putting himself in a world of trouble by following this advice. If he were to follow this, and the judge held him in contempt, then so be it. If he is compelled to appear before the court, then his personal views, decisions, needs to feel safe, are not the issue of the court, nor must they be taken into consideration. However, his appearance is an issue for the court, and his failure to do so, because of his choice to not secure his weapon in his car or leave it at home, because of their failure to comply with the law are separate issues.

I would agree with this if not for the the fact that the courthouse itself barred entry of the witness.

If witness gets stuck in traffic, an accident, abducted by aliens, yes, the court will find him in contempt.

But if he goes to court and court refuses his lawful entry (by refusing their own lawful duty) how can he be held in contempt. He's there.

**Pa. Patriot** · August 27th, 2010, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by dgg9

Good catch. In that case, whoever is running the gun check area (PPD?) is simply doing this as long as they can get away with it, much like the ongoing anti-open-carry jihad in the city.

The lawless PPD modus operandi...