Police officer discretion

[Carson]

I grant you that, but*

Federal prohibition prevents anyone from possessing a firearm if they have a medical marijuana card. That person is deprived of their right to carry or (or even possess) without due process.

The same can be said for someone who has a 302 in PA. Federal courts determined the lack of due process prevents PA 302 from prohibiting firearm rights at the federal level. Somehow PA just ignores this ruling. I*ve heard of people having to spend upwards of $20,000 in court and lawyer fees.

Then there*s also the concept of red flag laws and confiscation of firearms from people before due process

Could you give your opinion on those three?

1. The Federal Laws have to change regarding marijuana. Otherwise there will always be a gray area and some people (gun owners) are going to get stuck in the middle. I
personally don't use pot and I think it being legalized will have a great deal of unintended consequences. But at this point I don't care if they just legalize it Federally to stop all
of the BS. Until that occurs we will have to enforce whatever current laws are in effect. And one has the option to choose between pot or guns.

2. In my opinion concrete 302 prohibitions for life are wrong. How the mental health system is used and/or abused is wrong. But I don't see anyone sticking their neck out too far
to correct this because of liability. In the mean time, while costly, one can still fight for their rights.

3. I have less of a problem with Red Flag Laws as long as they are not abused or weaponized, there is an extremely exigent circumstance and due process (a hearing) is promptly
held and weapons returned in a timely manner and/or an alternative method of safeguarding the weapons during the process. Prompt prosecution of anyone who weaponizes
the law for personal gain or attack of another.

We have seen numerous times where an individual should not have had access to firearms and caused injury and death because of their mental state. But that doesn't mean
that someone who is going through a tough time and needs some mental health should be punished for life.

[Carson]

What day? That's a myth from the 1930's. A friend of mine's Father got arrested back in the late 1960's and went to jail for drunk driving. The car was towed and he had to pay to get it released. I remember it because he was coming from the old Brandywine Horse track. Friend's Mom let him sit in jail overnight because he told her he wasn't going to the track anymore and she was fuming. It was in 1980 or 81 that the new MADD laws were enacted and there was no driving you home and dropping off no matter where you live.

You are totally wrong Jen. There may be some officers who have zero tolerance for DUI and other who are hypocrites, but just because your friend's father got arrested doesn't mean everyone is. Attitude and circumstances can make a big difference.

[Carson]

Don't be a whack job or piss people off.

This is a good way to live a pleasant and uneventful life.

[Carson]

1. being a decent human being

2. not having people celebrate when a crackhead gets a lucky shot around your vest

I can be a decent human being by giving someone a nudge to correct their errors. Continually getting breaks usually doesn't change behavior.

If one celebrates a random cop getting killed because of what others do, they are simply a piece of shit.

[Carson]

Your story is changing. You can follow the COTUS and respect the basic human right to self defense. Or PA crime code

How is my story changing? In my first post I answer the OP's question about who I would give a break to, basically someone who made an honest mistake and is not out to cause mayhem. In my post to you after you state that I am an Oathbreaker, I explain how I am required to enforce PA LAW and how most of those I arrested for weapons violations were up to no good and were committing other crimes. And then I asked if they would have infringed upon their own rights (being prohibited) by the illegal acts they were committing.

So does WILL NOT BE INFRINGED mean that anyone, including criminals committing illegal acts, can bear arms with impunity?

[JohnSmith33]

1. The Federal Laws have to change regarding marijuana. Otherwise there will always be a gray area and some people (gun owners) are going to get stuck in the middle. I
personally don't use pot and I think it being legalized will have a great deal of unintended consequences. But at this point I don't care if they just legalize it Federally to stop all
of the BS. Until that occurs we will have to enforce whatever current laws are in effect. And one has the option to choose between pot or guns.

2. In my opinion concrete 302 prohibitions for life are wrong. How the mental health system is used and/or abused is wrong. But I don't see anyone sticking their neck out too far
to correct this because of liability. In the mean time, while costly, one can still fight for their rights.

3. I have less of a problem with Red Flag Laws as long as they are not abused or weaponized, there is an extremely exigent circumstance and due process (a hearing) is promptly
held and weapons returned in a timely manner and/or an alternative method of safeguarding the weapons during the process. Prompt prosecution of anyone who weaponizes
the law for personal gain or attack of another.

We have seen numerous times where an individual should not have had access to firearms and caused injury and death because of their mental state. But that doesn't mean
that someone who is going through a tough time and needs some mental health should be punished for life.

Thank you for your response

[ImminentDanger]

The oath that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" is translated in real life by 95% of those who take it as "I will support and defend all the laws and commands that have not been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a supreme court, either state or federal."

Those 95% operate on the basis of giving to others (the supreme courts) the task of determining what IS and IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. They apply the laws on the books, without evaluating or caring to make a determination of Constitutionality and certainly irrelevant of the opinion of Constitutionality as expressed by the supposed-perpetrator of the crime at hand.

THE PEOPLE should be working to breakdown the political corruption that puts UN-CONSTITUTIONAL laws on the books, from which those enforcers operate.

You cannot expect these enforcers to make Constitutional decisions during confrontations with those the law defines as criminals. You might want to see that from them, but it is an unreasonable expectation, considering their perception of their duties. I suspect such a policy or working perspective would be much more chaotic and destructive of society than the current approach, even when that approach is prone to errors.

You SHOULD expect YOUR representative at all levels of government to value the Constitution above all else, in considering what laws to support or oppose.

It's been shown time and time again, that the enforcers, despite their taking the aforementioned oath, are, like the military's low level participants, to follow orders no matter what their opinion of those orders might be.

Many, many, many woes that we confront are a direct result of the failure of THE PEOPLE to properly DEMAND & CONDUCT a proper Republic, through a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Reducing the number of laws, that apply to every nitty gritty aspect of life, would keep the government away from treating everyone as though they are the most despicable low-lifes. But that would also require a judiciary that properly punishes the remaining major crimes left on the books.

There are some of the other 5% who have taken the oath, who are 'A Law Unto Themselves', with either extreme application of their own justice, selective deferential treatment of a violator or just doing a friend a favor.

Almost all of them (the 95% plus the 5%) perceive they are upholding their oath of office, as appropriate to the existing circumstances.

Understanding the above should help one determine their approach to both law enforcer and law maker.

Ignore these facts at your own peril. What you choose to do personally is probably best kept to yourself.
(Anything you say, can & WILL, be used against you in a court of law!)

...

[free]

Maybe true. Or dead.


Hard to know how it might actually have turned out. I don't know if NJ officers get/got PA LTCF info when they run tags/DLs. Then there is the question - is the officer fearful, biased (in several possible dimensions), and/or interested in fishing for something bigger than a traffic stop and will start asking questions? Do you then fail to answer or lie?

Regardless, immediate announcement of possession is law in some states, preached by most LE agencies and, I strongly suppose then and now, by the Philly GPU.

So it was the result of a likely "intricacies of the gun-world ignorant", but otherwise well-intentioned series of choices. BTW, have you heard how many folks seem to show up at TSA checkpoints with guns with them ...

FWIW, I met Shaneen on several occasions in that era and interacted on more. She is a smart lady who was just trying to protect herself and her family, but certainly not "people of the gun" then.

We "enthusiasts" seem to forget that most law-abiding gun owners don't make it a thing and aren't really aware that the legal system is an especially hazardous minefield for well-intention gun owners.
How may threads are there on here about the ignorance or willful disregard of the actors in the legal system (LEOs/(A)DAs/Judges/Attorneys) WRT the application of gun laws?
How may threads by generally knowledgeable folks (at least aware enough to know that they need to ask) on how to thread some particular needle without falling afoul of some arcane combination of restrictions? It sucks. It is stupid. And the "system" is quite content with having it that way.

I would not call my self a gun "enthusiast". I have a few. I don't collect. They are tools. I made sure I know how to use them. I tried to learn the circumstances under which I can and should use them. I don't think it is a particularly high bar.

[free]

You are totally wrong Jen. There may be some officers who have zero tolerance for DUI and other who are hypocrites, but just because your friend's father got arrested doesn't mean everyone is. Attitude and circumstances can make a big difference.

I have to say...and I'm not disagreeing with you....but if I were a cop, I would have zero tolerance for DUI. Fuck you, you're going to jail and I will make it as expensive as I possibly can for you. A lot of other shit, I may be willing to cut slack on, but not DUI.

1. The Federal Laws have to change regarding marijuana. Otherwise there will always be a gray area and some people (gun owners) are going to get stuck in the middle.

There is no gray area. It is clearly illegal under federal law and it is clear that federal law trumps state law. There is no ambiguity here. The only real question is whether you can get away with your illegal (under federal law) activity. Zero fucks given for people who take their chances.

But even if one believes it is a "gray" area, it is a simple matter to decide to avoid the gray area and ensure you are firmly in the white. Put the herb down and walk away from it. I mean...duh!!

Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized, and with no prescription required. Until that happens, I'll try to avoid that shit.

[JAKIII]

I made sure I know how to use them.

As a former Airman, you realize your credibility (marksmanship) is suspect, right?