Updated Directive 137 - one page, take this with you to Philly

[Robert Kayland]

Having this directive in hand, rather than merely the usual informational pamphlet, couldn't hurt when confronted by LEOs in Philly and making them verbally aware of said directive, with proof in hand.

That said, I hate how the directive:

a) Starts right out with this confusing statement: 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:

If an LEO merely reads that, the first words out of his mouth are going to be "SEE! OPEN CARRY STATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILADELPHIA!!!" And then you'll have to convince him to read further.

So that's Fail One of the writers.

b) Constantly refers to LTCF as "concealed carry license"... Fail Two.

c) Says OC'ing is cause for the LEO to initiate a confrontation and disarm OCer and unload the gun "for officer safety" until validity of LTCF is established...

Fail Three - the safest gun is the one that isn't touched, officer.

[Curmudgeon]

For me, the biggest issue with the appearance of the validity of this document is that it looks exactly like some kid banged it out on his mommy's home computer. It is even worded just as poorly.

There are no names, there are no signatures, there is no letterhead, there are no seals.

This is the lamest excuse for an official document I have ever seen, and I myself question it's authenticity. There is no way I would show this to an officer on the street.

A "Word" document? Seriously? Wow. .

.

PS... Viper, nothing against you, I believe you are just passing on information you have been given. I just can't see how I would ever use something like this.

.

[IronSight]

For me, the biggest issue with the appearance of the validity of this document is that it looks exactly like some kid banged it out on his mommy's home computer. It is even worded just as poorly.

There are no names, there are no signatures, there is no letterhead, there are no seals.

This is the lamest excuse for an official document I have ever seen, and I myself question it's authenticity. There is no way I would show this to an officer on the street.

A "Word" document? Seriously? Wow. .

.

PS... Viper, nothing against you, I believe you are just passing on information you have been given. I just can't see how I would ever use something like this.

.

I have a right-to-know request pending for this, which will give us an official form of the document once approved. Viper once I get it I will give you a link to it, or I can send you the pdf so that you can update your OP.

[1iarrowking]

I can't believe how screwed up the wording of that directive is. The sad part is this was written by someone at the top of the chain of command. If the people at the top are that illiterate you know the requirements for an average street cop must be about the same as a sanitation worker or less.

[QUOTE Officer safety is a bullet proof vest, and training as far as I am concerned. And, before anyone cracks on me for not liking cops, my brother is a LEO.[/QUOTE]

I love this but my brother is not an LEO and I don't like cops and I don't care who doesn't like that fact.

[P7hk9]

I think the actual directive is attached to this post as a PDF.

Like I said, I think it's a fax copy of the real deal. How much that will help you of you get stopped OCing in Philly...I don't know.

[zackattack784]

Agreed. But since it is clear that the average Philly cop is not a Rhodes Scholar, if they stop calling it a license to carry concealed, maybe they won't get stuck on the word 'concealed' and recognize that it is a license to carry a firearm, which allows one to carry it in a vehicle or in a city of the first class.

And it doesn' require concealment.

True, but the directive even establishes the fact that a "CCP" allows one to lawfully carry openly in Philly. See here:

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.

I believe the blatant Fourth Amendment violations are far more disconcerting than what they call a LTCF.

In fact, they themselves even admit that simply carrying a firearm openly does not equal probable cause:

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 VUFAVIOLATION 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 PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

They're basically saying there is no probable cause until they unlawfully discover a UFA violation. Absolutely disgusting.

[Robert Kayland]

For me, the biggest issue with the appearance of the validity of this document is that it looks exactly like some kid banged it out on his mommy's home computer. It is even worded just as poorly.

There are no names, there are no signatures, there is no letterhead, there are no seals.

This is the lamest excuse for an official document I have ever seen, and I myself question it's authenticity. There is no way I would show this to an officer on the street.

A "Word" document? Seriously? Wow. .

.

PS... Viper, nothing against you, I believe you are just passing on information you have been given. I just can't see how I would ever use something like this.

.

Totally agree, and there should be some follow-up as to the exact person who endorsed or issued this directive... I'm assuming there's a centralized authority of the Philly cops from whence directives are issued.

And of course, merely handing something like this to an officer will probably get you laughed at... the point is, you verbally state that they've been issued a directive, the date and number and wording of which is here, and which they can immediately call and verify if the appearance of the paper is not convincing.

Hopefully a more official-looking and signed version of said directive will be forthcoming in the near future.

For those without Word, here is the exact directive:

Police directive sent to all districts regarding open carry in Philadelphia, PA Sept 22, 2010 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 SAFTEY 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 REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY 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 VUFAVIOLATION 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
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

[Connal]

I love this but my brother is not an LEO and I don't like cops and I don't care who doesn't like that fact.

That is fine, you don't have to like anyone for that matter. I just think the idea of officer safety, is almost ironic. An officer by defenition is supposed to go after all these "big bad criminals".

That is exactly why they wear vests, and have a good deal of training.

My brother knows he could be shot next week, next month, next year. My family knows it too. We hope it won't happen, but that is one of the risks of the job. My dad worked in a steel mill. He knew there was a chance he could get burned. Each job has risks. Some much less than others.

If an officer is afraid of a citizen with a gun, then all citizens should be disarmed. As a LEO, they need to be aware that a sidearm is a tool. Much like a hammer it can be used the right way, and the wrong way. They are no safer disarming a lawful OCer, than they would be letting someone drive on the road they pull someone over on. How many officers were shot by people lawfully OCing compared to how many were struck by vehicles while doing routine traffic stops?

[gf45acp]

That directive is so full of FAIL!

[Emptymag]

The person who typed that should be fired.

There is absolutely no excuse for such a poorly worded document.