Legally Armed Jogger Defends His Right to Carry Gun in Front of Phila Police.

[Mitch10mm]

It doesn't work that way... once the coppers start to know who you are, things start to change. Word gets out through discussion. Unless you are a tool... then they change for the worse for you. It's like any other service related business.

Oh... and the idea that you can't change the law so why try. That's crap. the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If one isn't even willing to try then one shouldn't bother complaining... one has accepted their fate.

It's reality. It's nice to think we can accomplish anything. How many gun laws off the top of your head have been struck down?

[Deleted]

It's reality. It's nice to think we can accomplish anything. How many gun laws off the top of your head have been struck down?

Well... first there was Heller, then there was McDonald. Moore v. madigan... Peruta v. County of San Diego.. There are quite a few.

[Mitch10mm]

Touché I guess. I look at and hear about the restrictions of other states, the arrest and the encounters and even with a victory like Mark had and it all starts up again to some degree. Even the victories get twisted and used against the gun owning public. I'm not saying not to continue to fight just that I'm not optimistic for the the future of 50 or even 25 years from now

[Deleted]

Touché I guess. I look at and hear about the restrictions of other states, the arrest and the encounters and even with a victory like Mark had and it all starts up again to some degree. Even the victories get twisted and used against the gun owning public. I'm not saying not to continue to fight just that I'm not optimistic for the the future of 50 or even 25 years from now

You can't look at the other states though.. You gotta look here. States rights are a double edge sword.. They give us huge freedoms but they also let states restrict and SCOTUS acknowledges that. We are lucky to live where we do.

Marks victory wasn't a legal one in the sense that no law was changed. Mark drew attention to poor education. He was the squeaky wheel that was heard loudly in Philly but resonated to a degree state wide.

I thing the future holds great things.. more people will get into shooting and into their rights as well. That said, we can't keep burying our heads in the mental illness / killing pairing without risking much.

[donotknowme]

Like all the other things that are illegal unless you have a license.

[sgmwatkins]

So it was an interesting encounter. I have always none the law and how Philly is different. Not sure why he wanted to push the issue as the law it clear. Not a big deal he is just standing up for his 2A rights.....I get it.

After all these years and litigation Philly PD still don't understand UFA........based on the one officer's comment having to conceal the firearm.
I guess I should not be surprised.....??

So I here is the text of this document I found a while back and sure most of you all are familiar with the PPD Directive #137.

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFETY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATELY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE, BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED, OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID (I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE UFA VIOLATION AND TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS “ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE PREPARDED ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE UFA ARREST.

Not saying I agree w/it, but the PPD did follow the law as best that I saw on the video.....although I skipped through most of it.

Thanks,

SGM

[philadelphia patriot]

It would have been nice if he came on PAFOA before OCing. His stop would have been smoother.

[Pilot321]

The law is wrong. The law is un-Constitutional, but for now it is still the LAW. The jogger is a MORON. Show the LTCF, and be on your way.

[Mitch10mm]

The law is wrong. The law is un-Constitutional, but for now it is still the LAW. The jogger is a MORON. Show the LTCF, and be on your way.

See? Not picking on you Pilot. I think the guy was challenging that they could stop him without cause. That once stopped he is required to show his LTCF but only if they have cause in the first place. Is he mistaken? Most judges would say so.

Mark open carried recently in an elementary school to vote. Most people think the law is quite clear. Yet guys here gave him kudos and praise for doing it. Which is good. I just wish we would be as supportive of other gun owners standing up.

Also a lot of gun owners aren't members here and have the experience of repeated discussions about these laws like we have.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The dumbest part of this whole incident is the guy refusing to show proof of requirement(1) as he have one himself.

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

Refusing to identify himself is his right, refusing to show proof of requirement to legally do something is a whole different story.
My two cents.

No. They did not have justification for a terry stop, let alone this unlawful detention & arrest. You have to have insurance for your car, but you can not be stopped if you are driving "just to check". Same way with a driver license. Required, but you can't be detained so it can be checked. The law is illegal and everyone knows it, just like the law that says you must help & be truthful to a game warden - ht that was on the book decades because the fine was cheaper than the lawyer.

The man clearly knows the law, and I think he plans to go to court.


The law requires you to have a LTCF in a city of the first class.
The law requires you to produce a LTCF upon lawful demand.
The law does not require you to carry your LTCF or any other ID on you, at any time.
Courts have ruled that having an ID is an undue burden on civil privileges such as voting.
Licenses are not something normally carried upon a person, but kept in a secure location. (No one carries their physician license, their marriage license).
Their is a burden for stopping someone, & q higher burden for arresting someone. This burden was not met & this video (even cut short) shows proof that philly is again in violation of court orders.



****at this point I would have the entire city council in jail for contempt & the whole police force sacked. It worked in Boston.