Man arrested for bringing flare gun to Allegheny County Courthouse

[HiredGoon]

Man arrested bringing flare gun to Allegheny County Courthouse

By Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Monday, January 3, 2011
Last updated: 3:17 pm

Allegheny County sheriff's deputies today arrested a Garfield man who they say tried to pass through courthouse security with a flare gun strapped to his ankle.

Gene Fenderson, 47, set off one of the metal detectors at the Grant Street entrance to the Allegheny County Courthouse about 10 a.m., said Sheriff Bill Mullen.

Deputies also found a set of handcuffs on Fenderson, who said he was at the courthouse to talk to a deputy about the sheriff's sale of properties that was held this morning, Mullen said. Three other people attempted to sneak firearms into the courthouse in the past four years, but deputies also arrested several people for trying to get knives and Tasers past the metal detectors, he said.

Fenderson is charged with misdemeanor possession of a firearm or other weapon in a court facility.

[ungawa]

WTF, Over?

[Rosco the Iroc]

Hey I carry one!


I never know when a someone will fire a heat seeking missle at me.

[streaker69]

Hey I carry one!


I never know when a someone will fire a heat seeking missle at me.

I carry one too, just in case my car gets washed out to sea.

[Finch00]

i have a 26.5mm "flare launcher"

its loads of fun in the summer at the outer banks

[Mosinshooter762]

With all the talk here, if there is a sign up that would ban flare guns at the court house, where is the Defiant Trespass charge?

Why don't court houses put up No-Firearms or No-Weapons signs on the entrances, and just rely on the Defiant Trespass charge, instead of Section 913 of the Crimes Code? There is no case, or statute that explicitly says that this can't be done.

I understand that Judge's might get annoyed by gum chewing in the court house. Why not also prohibit chewing gum by sign, and rely on the Defiant Trespass charge?

If you are invited by a Judge to enter the Judge's chambers, but have chewing gum on you, you could be committing Burglary according to some people here, as it is not open to the public, and maybe the Judge even lives there at times.

[streaker69]

With all the talk here, if there is a sign up that would ban flare guns at the court house, where is the Defiant Trespass charge?

Why don't court houses put up No-Firearms signs, and just rely on the Defiant Trespass charge? There is no case, or statute that explicitly says that this can't be done.

I understand that Judge's might get annoyed by chewing gum in the court house. Why not also prohibit chewing gum by sign, and rely on the Defiant Trespass charge?

If you are invited by a Judge to enter the Judges chambers, but have chewing gum on you, you could be committing Burglary according to some people here, as it is not open to the public, and maybe the Judge even lives there at times.

I believe the point is that he was supposed to check the "firearm" BEFORE going through the metal detectors. If he passed through without declaring it, then that's probably what pissed them off.

[Mosinshooter762]

I believe the point is that he was supposed to check the "firearm" BEFORE going through the metal detectors. If he passed through without declaring it, then that's probably what pissed them off.

Assuming a flare gun is prohibited by Section 913 (assuming also, that all the other requirements by 913 are met) some would say he may be Defiantly Trespassing too, as he allegedly walked through metal detectors with it. What if the court house puts up a sign on the entrance prohibiting an item, such as a No-Weapons Sign?

This opens up a lot of possibilities with the use of the Defiant Trespass charge. We have been discussing this here http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...relatives.html .

It is all a matter of interpretation. When we come down to it, whether it is legal or not, the charge is 'only' a Summary Offense, and just like with other property no-item signs, who is going to challenge it? That at least is the argument of some here when it comes to the no-item signs.

[streaker69]

Anytime I go to the courthouse, when I'm immediatley next to pass through the metal detector I inform the deputy I have a firearm before stepping forward through the metal detector. Unless others have a different approach?

The courthouse in Lancaster has a table that you can drop your items into before you pass through, and there you can check your firearm with the deputy.

[MDJschool]

Every time I see 'courthouse arrest' threads I wonder what kind of douchebag it takes to arrest someone for possessing something at or about the place where a person would either be denied or allowed to locker something, when there is no duty in statute to do anything pursuant to lockering the object and no process outlining it. These arrests occur most often when A) the person who was in possession is now no longer in possession of the object because it's in the scanner or the sheriffs/security have it, or B) sheriffs/security has asked the person, who has set off the scanner, to take a few steps forwards for a wanding, making the enocunter sheriff-elicited. It's even more annoying when one hears sheriffs deputies gloating or getting huffy-puffy about these types of arrests (yes, I've actually heard deputies talk this way about prior arrests) and even more when the sheriffs themselves are heralding these acts and talking about the great service they're doing to the people in the courthouse or the community or whatever. The truth is that they're doing a great disservice. I wonder if maybe part of Act 2 training should be an intensive course on § 913 and a comprehensive test on its intracacies, since courthouse security is such an important part of the sheriff's duties.

Let's first remember that § 913 was not intended to be some criminal dragnet. Here is the preface the General Assembly put at the top of the bill which brought § 913 to life:
"The General Assembly hereby declares that the purpose of this act is to provide support to law enforcement in the area of crime prevention and control, that it is not the purpose of this act to place any undue or unnecessary restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, transfer, transportation or use of firearms, rifles or shotguns for personal protection, hunting, target shooting, employment or any other lawful activity, and that this act is not intended to discourage or restrict the private ownership and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or to provide for the imposition by rules or regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this act. The General Assembly hereby recognizes and declares its support of the fundamental constitutional right of Commonwealth citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and this Commonwealth."
1995, June 13, P.L. 1024, No. 17 (Spec. Sess. No. 1), § 1, effective in 120 days.
Now, ignoring the audacity of the legislature for having put that they respect Pa. Const. art. I, § 21 on the top of a bill passing or unfavorably amending several unconstitutional gun control statutes...

When I read through § 913, I cannot find any permission given by the legislature to the county, sheriff, or court to erect security arrays or to otherwise force prior restraint upon individuals entering a 'court facility'. These magnetometers and scanners have just shown up. Maybe counties have appropriated monies for the machines, but I bet it is rare that there has been a declaration in law to place these things. Unfortunately, the allowance for both the machines and the prior restraint has been provided by the courts through Minich v. County of Jefferson, 919 A. 2d 356 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007). However, Minich is difficult to believe in light of such cases as Com. v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277 (1987), which notes that "Pursuant to its police powers the state may, by substantially complying with the guidelines set forth in this opinion, conduct systematic roadblocks . . . [h]owever, it is for the legislature to determine whether or not to exercise the full allowable scope of its powers in that regard." Tarbert, at 297 (emphasis added).

In the Minich v. Jefferson cases, of which there are two (here is the other: Minich v. County of Jefferson, 869 A. 2d 1141 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005)), there's also a question as to whether the county has the ability to regulate the possession and carry of firearms at all, and whether they could at all have the power to command searches. While the Minich cases did consider 18 Pa.C.S. 6120 and the regulation of the lawful possession, carry, and transportation of firearms, the court did not consider 53 Pa.C.S. 2962. § 2962 includes the following:
(c) Prohibited powers.--A municipality shall not: (2) Exercise powers contrary to, or in limitation or enlargement of, powers granted by statutes which are applicable in every part of this Commonwealth.
(e) Statutes of general application.--Statutes that are uniform and applicable in every part of this Commonwealth shall remain in effect and shall not be changed or modified by this subpart. Statutes shall supersede any municipal ordinance or resolution on the same subject.
(g) Regulation of firearms.--A municipality shall not enact any ordinance or take any other action dealing with the regulation of the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession of firearms.
I cannot find a definition of "municipality" in Title 53. Title 53, "MUNICIPALITIES GENERALLY", includes subparts about 'home rule' and 'optional plan', of the same substance as we find under Pa. Const. art. IX. Art. IX, § 2 states that "Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters.". § 3 states that "Municipalities shall have the right and power to adopt optional forms of government as provided by law." Finally, § 14 states that "As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: "Municipality" means a county, city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which shall hereafter be created by the General Assembly." (emphasis added) Because the General Assembly has legislated regarding possession of firearms in courthouses and did not provide for securities arrays, I question whether Jefferson is at all allowed to pass an ordinance to, not unlike a roadblock, subject persons entering the courthouse to searches, in the enlargement of the power to appropriate lockers, or for sheriffs to operate these machines and enact prior restraint, in enlargement of their power to arrest for violations of § 913.

I believe the point is that he was supposed to check the "firearm" BEFORE going through the metal detectors. If he passed through without declaring it, then that's probably what pissed them off.

Anytime I go to the courthouse, when I'm next to pass through the metal detector I inform the deputy I have a firearm before stepping forward. Unless others have a different approach?

There is no duty in § 913 to 'declare' or 'check' one's firearm in the manner through which it has ultimately sprung up among several buildings containing court facilities. This is no surprise given that there is no statutory authority for the detection eqipment or the enforcement of prior restraint in the first place. Given this lack of authority, and the subsequent description of a mandated procedure, I don't see why people would expect to be treated any different as their weapons are discovered in the course of detection through the scanner or magnetometer. The instruments are not poor in their capabilities and their operators are trained. The only way to 'sneak' firearms into the court facility is through lax operation of the equipment or to avoid those mechanisms altogether. Since people simply shouldn't and don't know what to expect, there's no reason not to expect them to have their implements detected first, and upon that recognition, lockered.

To arrest people immediately on the other side of the array is an absurdity, especially when persons are evoked to do so by enforcement personnel in the course of the illegal roadblock. If they are performing a wanding after the magnetometer goes off and are elicited to step forward by the sheriff's deputy, I can't think of any other word but 'entrapment', since as we can see above they are abusing the shitshow created by § 913 to gather evidence in an area where a person wouldn't feel liable for the criminal conduct, and then go on to arrest them based on it (as seen in the above story.) That can really mean only one thing: that to 'check' a firearm or other dangerous weapon, a person has to break the law by entering a court facility to even contemplate it, and is criminally liable for possession, for which a person could be arrested even at the earliest opportunity to 'declare' the weapon, and for which there will be a 2 year limitaiton for prosecution. So, it's only by the grace of the sheriffs that those who want to check weapons as is their statutory right are not arrested?

Three other people attempted to sneak firearms into the courthouse in the past four years, but deputies also arrested several people for trying to get knives and Tasers past the metal detectors, he said.

(emphasis added)
That may be quite a fuckup on the sheriff's part, becuase knives (in their entirety) are not weapons banned from court facilities. The definition of "Dangerous weapon." (§913(f)) is "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." That means that "[a] dagger, [or a] knife (the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism or otherwise)" "that are not otherwise prohibited by law" (§913(e)) shall be lockered. That leaves the rest of the knives that are an "other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose". Not surprisingly, we see that phrase as the end of the definition for "Offensive weapons." under 18 Pa.C.S. 908(c). Reviewing cases regarding knives and that phrase, the following bladed things should probably be possessable in a court facility if this phrase is pari materia:
a "Cobra" knife, having sharp metal spikes emanating from the knives' handles (maybe), 449 Pa.Super. 378
a folding knife with a seven inch blade, purchased the knife at a sporting goods store (maybe), 275 Pa.Super. 127
a kitchen knife (maybe), 482 Pa. 6
butcher knife, 13 inches in length with an 8 inch blade, 273 Pa.Super. 381
knife, ten inches long, with a blade 4.5 inches long and a lock that secured the blade, open or closed; to open the knife, the lock had to be released -- once the lock was released, the blade could be exposed by a flick of the wrist (maybe), 263 Pa.Super. 100
a "Wyoming Knife", 485 Pa. 8
knives, swords, and machete (maybe); sword with ivory handle, 36 inches long in metal scabbard, and a folding pocketknife, overall length of 10 3/4 inches with 4 3/4 inch blade (maybe), 246 Pa.Super. 42 and 8 Pa. D. & C.3d 317
[I thought there was a dispositive case on a sword, but can't fine it. The "(maybe)" notation signifies that the court didn't dispositively identify the object as not a "other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose", instead saying that the commmonwealth just didn't meet its burden. You can try punching the citations into http://scholar.google.com to read the cases.)

With all the talk here, if there is a sign up that would ban flare guns at the court house, where is the Defiant Trespass charge? Why don't court houses put up No-Firearms or No-Weapons signs on the entrances, and just rely on the Defiant Trespass charge, instead of Section 913 of the Crimes Code? There is no case, or statute that explicitly says that this can't be done.

I think it's the converse in the case of the government; what power would they have to put up such a sign that would create a trespass liability when there is no statute to afford it? Wouldn't attempting to create trespass liability create unconstitutional conditions (i.e. the possession of weapons under Pa. Const. art. I, § 1, or bearing of arms under § 21, either being restricted to receive the right to a public trial under § 9, the right or benefit of accessing public records in the courthouse, for example). The specific signage required until § 913 is only notice of and pursuant to the requirements to 913, not the prohibition on entry itself.