Settlement APPROVED in Philadelphia Class Action Lawsuit Regarding Disclosure of Conf

[TheLom]

do they still make you sign the notice upon receipt of LTCF? The notice that used to indicate you MUST inform an officer you are carrying.

They made me do it in the beginning of November. Pretty sure it doesn't count for shit though and I have no plans to inform cops.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

NO - there is RAS of a crime. Consider:

A 6108 violation has three essential criminal elements:

1. carrying a firearm, shotgun, or rifle;
2. upon public street or property;
3. within city of first class.

Officer had observed all three - hence RAS of a crime being committed. Being a licensee is an affirmative defense and lack of same is not an essential element of the crime.

With respect, what you say is correct HOWEVER:

"The City will not require LTCF applicants or holders to disclose to law enforcement that they have an LTCF, that they are carrying a firearm or that they have a firearm in the vehicle"


The clear wording of the agreement means: The City well not require LTCF holders to disclose their LTCF. Their is no exception for if an officer thinks he sees a firearm. No exception if the officer knows he sees a firearm. He can not compel disclosure of that information without violation of this settlement.


Now: Should Pittsburgh suddenly get another 700,000 people or so, than this agreement would not apply for them. They could see an OCer and demand their LTCF...But Philly can not.

That said: Do I think a judge would try and allow philly to get away with it? Yes.

[tl_3237]

With respect, what you say is correct HOWEVER:

"The City will not require LTCF applicants or holders to disclose to law enforcement that they have an LTCF, that they are carrying a firearm or that they have a firearm in the vehicle"


The clear wording of the agreement means: The City well not require LTCF holders to disclose their LTCF. Their is no exception for if an officer thinks he sees a firearm. No exception if the officer knows he sees a firearm. He can not compel disclosure of that information without violation of this settlement.


Now: Should Pittsburgh suddenly get another 700,000 people or so, than this agreement would not apply for them. They could see an OCer and demand their LTCF...But Philly can not.

That said: Do I think a judge would try and allow philly to get away with it? Yes.

The settlement only addresses that the city would not advise when issuing LTCFs that one must make a disclosure of possession (on-person/vehicle) of a firearm during a mere encounter.

If an officer reasonably deduces, through observation of otherwise, that a firearm is present while within Phila then, as I indicated before, the three criminal elements are satisfied with sufficient reason to conclude a violation of 6108. At that time the encounter moves from mere interaction to detainment and the officer can demand display of the LTCF or exception entitlement, that being a affirmative defense, to resolve whether the 6108 violation is 'excusable'. Of course the possessor can refuse to show the LTCF or 6106(b) exception (in further violation of 6122) followed by being 'cuffed and stuffed' with the attendant free chauffeured ride to the local precinct.

[Bang]

"strongly recommended but not mandatory"....right out of Orwell's double-speak formula. Where is the "strength" in that communication? Absurd.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The settlement only addresses that the city would not advise when issuing LTCFs that one must make a disclosure of possession (on-person/vehicle) of a firearm during a mere encounter.

If an officer reasonably deduces, through observation of otherwise, that a firearm is present while within Phila then, as I indicated before, the three criminal elements are satisfied with sufficient reason to conclude a violation of 6108. At that time the encounter moves from mere interaction to detainment and the officer can demand display of the LTCF or exception entitlement, that being a affirmative defense, to resolve whether the 6108 violation is 'excusable'. Of course the possessor can refuse to show the LTCF or 6106(b) exception (in further violation of 6122) followed by being 'cuffed and stuffed' with the attendant free chauffeured ride to the local precinct.

No: The lawsuit was about the unlawful parts of issuing a LTCF. That does not mean that the agreement is limited to it. At no point in the settlement, having re-read it, does it LIMIT the agreement to the issuing of a LTCF.

The first sentence in agreement point 16, which you cited stands alone. If an Law Enforcement Officer demands a LTCF, they are in violation of this agreement and in contempt.

[tl_3237]

No: The lawsuit was about the unlawful parts of issuing a LTCF. That does not mean that the agreement is limited to it. At no point in the settlement, having re-read it, does it LIMIT the agreement to the issuing of a LTCF.

The first sentence in agreement point 16, which you cited stands alone. If an Law Enforcement Officer demands a LTCF, they are in violation of this agreement and in contempt.

#16 addresses the city's heretofore incorrect advisement to LTCF recipients of the existence of an affirmative duty to notify police of firearm possession upon field encounters - even encounters beyond the Phila borders. It was following this sort of incorrect advisement that got Shaneen Allen in trouble in NJ. The "However" sentence clearly corrects the city that there is no affirmative duty but allows them to continue with a strong exhortation to VOLUNTARILY declare firearm possession. LEO's demand for LTCF outside of Phila are beyond the reach of the agreement. Regarding LEO's demand for LTCF in Phila, I again refer to 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122 which are not attenuated by the agreement.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

#16 addresses the city's heretofore incorrect advisement to LTCF recipients of the existence of an affirmative duty to notify police of firearm possession upon field encounters - even encounters beyond the Phila borders. It was following this sort of incorrect advisement that got Shaneen Allen in trouble in NJ. The "However" sentence clearly corrects the city that there is no affirmative duty but allows them to continue with a strong exhortation to VOLUNTARILY declare firearm possession. LEO's demand for LTCF outside of Phila are beyond the reach of the agreement. Regarding LEO's demand for LTCF in Phila, I again refer to 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122 which are not attenuated by the agreement.

I agree with any LEO the outside of the city of Philly would not be bound by this agreement. Nor would State Police, Constables (not working for Philly), Game Wardens and so on be effected.

I might go so far as to say that 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122 are not weakened. An Philly PD Officer could still ask based on 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122.; and a person carrying should comply.

However, in asking, that officer is in violation of this agreement. Being in violation they (personally) and the city are now in contempt of a court sanctioned agreement.

[tl_3237]

I agree with any LEO the outside of the city of Philly would not be bound by this agreement. Nor would State Police, Constables (not working for Philly), Game Wardens and so on be effected.

I might go so far as to say that 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122 are not weakened. An Philly PD Officer could still ask based on 18 Pa CS §6108 and 6122.; and a person carrying should comply.

However, in asking, that officer is in violation of this agreement. Being in violation they (personally) and the city are now in contempt of a court sanctioned agreement.

I really don't see any logic for that statement based on the #16 clause. Could you expound/detail on how you got to that conclusion?