PPD Strikes Again - Confiscates weapon because I "refused to conceal"

[chivvalry]

"proof of ownership".... hmmm....

[ThomasJ]

So let's say they retain it, and you appeal to a judge.

If he sides with them, then what?

If he orders them to return your gun, then what?

[phillykev]

As I explained before, when everyone then jumped down my throat for not dancing in the streets over the revolutionary change you have sparked with your one complaint, is that you will not get it back without going to court. What you just wrote is exactly what I wrote several years ago, you can search the boards. The detective told me he was recommending the return, and then told me that I won't get it back anyway, because it is the unwritten policy to NEVER return a gun once in their posession except under court order. They will send you a denial letter, possibly in a year or so, with instructions on how to appeal citing non-existent statutes.

Same disclaimer as before, I applaud your efforts. But you're not providing any information that is any different than the way it's always been handled. Be prepared to go to court, they aren't changing their policies or procedures for you.

[zackattack784]

Alright. I spoke with someone at the Gun Permit unit again this afternoon, and it happened to be someone I spoke with before. He ran through the way the system works with me, and explained thusly.

I believe I already posted this information earlier in the thread, but I want to make sure you guys know I am keeping up on this.

The Gun Permit unit sends the request for return of property to the detective division that's in charge of the area where the gun was confiscated. The detective put in charge of each case then puts a packet of information together, including all the paperwork involved in the incident. After going over all of it and looking into whether or not I'm a "risk to public safety" or if I have any open criminal cases, as well as taking the circumstances of the confiscation into account, the detective makes a recommendation on whether to "retain or return." This info packet, and the recommendation, goes all the way up the chain of command to the Deputy Commissioner, and each person that touches it either approves or disapproves the recommendation. Then, it comes back down to the chief detective who makes the final decision as to whether to retain or return.

Now, the gentleman I spoke to just now told me that the reason the gun was confiscated was because I did not have my original license on me - not because I refused to conceal, which is the reason listed on the paperwork I have. Either way, they all know that I have a valid and current LTCF, and it was his opinion that, because nothing illegal took place aside from me not having my original on me (the validity of this argument aside given the statutes), he does not expect that I will be denied the return of my property. He explained that they usually operate within a 45 day window, but that's not a set timeframe, more like a recommendation. He also told me that the detective in charge of these issues reads every single request and takes them all quite seriously, and has been known in the past to overturn a "retain" decision if he sees fit.

If they retain it, I get to appeal to a judge. If they return it, I need to go to the evidence location with proof of ownership to pick it up.

I doubt there will be many more updates to this until I get that letter.

Shouldn't they have to prove that you don't own it???

[dgg9]

As I explained before, when everyone then jumped down my throat for not dancing in the streets over the revolutionary change you have sparked with your one complaint, is that you will not get it back without going to court. What you just wrote is exactly what I wrote several years ago, you can search the boards. The detective told me he was recommending the return, and then told me that I won't get it back anyway, because it is the unwritten policy to NEVER return a gun once in their posession except under court order.

It's true HIS gun will be problematic, but that's the nature of being the precedent. In the future -- if we are to believe the PPD directive -- the gun won't be confiscated to begin with, so the whole "retain or not" process doesn't even get started.

Are you saying that, despite the "OC is ok with ID and mandatory rousting" directive, the PPD will confiscate guns anyway?

[ThomasJ]

It's true HIS gun will be problematic, but that's the nature of being the precedent. In the future -- if we are to believe the PPD directive -- the gun won't be confiscated to begin with, so the whole "retain or not" process doesn't even get started.

Are you saying that, despite the "OC is ok with ID and mandatory rousting" directive, the PPD will confiscate guns anyway?

LOL. Are you saying that an organization that is corrupt to the core and constantly displays an open disregard for the law is suddenly going to change? The laws don't matter to them. Once again, if you are foolish enough to believe this allegedly new directive, you're faced with continued illegal practices...continued willful disregard for the law. Of course they're going to continue confiscating guns. What has stopped them? Where is this definitive change?

[dgg9]

foolish

Right. First of all, you don't know how the PPD operate, so your opinion is kind of meaningless. They get directives, which tell the rank and file cops how to interpret the law. The directives give street cops cover for their decisions. They're not going to fail en masse to follow an official directive, since then they get fired and are legally liable at the personal level.

If the PPD directive says "OC = check LTCF, return gun if valid," then that's what the beat cop does.

IOW, in this matter, it's not a matter of how corrupt the "organization" is. It's a question of what the foot soldiers are instructed to do. If the foot soldiers are instructed to "roust, then return gun," then they'll do that.

[phillykev]

It's true HIS gun will be problematic, but that's the nature of being the precedent. In the future -- if we are to believe the PPD directive -- the gun won't be confiscated to begin with, so the whole "retain or not" process doesn't even get started.

Are you saying that, despite the "OC is ok with ID and mandatory rousting" directive, the PPD will confiscate guns anyway?

I asked before and didn't get a response. Anyone have an example of the PPD seizing anyone's gun who is LEGALLY openly carrying it in Philly? AFAIK, they have stopped, detained, hassled, and after being presented with a valid LTCF and calling the ADA to see if they had any charges, would release the person with the gun.

Viper was NOT legally carrying his gun in Philly. As was pointed out by GunLawyer, the law says you MUST have your valid LTCF on your person while engaging in open carry in a city of the first class. Viper did not. That is why they took his gun, that is what they told him the reason was according to his post below (they put something different on the paperwork, but that isn't uncommon).

The directive would have changed only one thing about this encounter. Viper would have been ARRESTED in addition to losing his gun. All that memo did was clarify that they SHOULD, stop, detain, disarm, and investigate anyone engaged in open carry anytime they are encountered and if they cannot produce a valid LTCF they are to be arrested for violation of the UFA. As far as seizing guns of open carriers, they weren't doing that before, unless someone has an example of which I'm not aware.

[dgg9]

Viper was NOT legally carrying his gun in Philly. As was pointed out by GunLawyer, the law says you MUST have your valid LTCF on your person while engaging in open carry in a city of the first class. Viper did not. That is why they took his gun, that is what they told him the reason was according to his post below (they put something different on the paperwork, but that isn't uncommon).

I can't respond to your argument, because you're stating something on faith, and not by the evidence. You're asserting, in opposition to the evidence, that they took his gun for a reason other than the stated reason. All I can do is go by the evidence in front of me.

Didn't Viper himself suffer a similar rousting while OCing at the Art Museum area, where the local cops had no idea what the OC law was, and someone had to call a Sgt to find out?

In the Fishtown board, someone claiming to be PPD (and I have to reason to disbelieve him) was completely certain that OC was illegal, and was told to believe that by precinct brass. This directive (which he validated as being real) forces him to act differently.

There is a fair amount of misinformation about firearms laws in the rank and file PPD; this directive at least clears up the OC issue.

[ThomasJ]

Right. First of all, you don't know how the PPD operate, so your opinion is kind of meaningless. They get directives, which tell the rank and file cops how to interpret the law. The directives give street cops cover for their decisions. They're not going to fail en masse to follow an official directive, since then they get fired and are legally liable at the personal level.

If the PPD directive says "OC = check LTCF, return gun if valid," then that's what the beat cop does.

IOW, in this matter, it's not a matter of how corrupt the "organization" is. It's a question of what the foot soldiers are instructed to do. If the foot soldiers are instructed to "roust, then return gun," then they'll do that.

There is plenty of evidence on this site that is demonstrative for how the PPD operates, including "I don't care what the law says" responses. It doesn't matter if its "en masse" or not, because the orders are coming from the top. It most certainly is a matter of how corrupt the organization is. It's been shown - I can't remember in which thread - that they know the law, but willingly and blatantly do their own thing. This isn't some honest mistake thing going on. The only means of change here is a lawsuit.