sigcurious
New member
"Scuzzbag" or not, wantonly committing 4th amendment violations is a bad idea.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Philly cops harass man for open carry
- Thread starter stealintv
- Start date
"Scuzzbag" or not, wantonly committing 4th amendment violations is a bad idea.
Warrior1256
New member
Bottom line is if you are not free to leave you are being detained.
In order to stop and frisk a police officer has to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime.
Do not ever resist an officer of the law. But you can verbally state that you are not consenting to searches and then see an attorney if you feel that your rights have been violated.
In order to stop and frisk a police officer has to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime.
Do not ever resist an officer of the law. But you can verbally state that you are not consenting to searches and then see an attorney if you feel that your rights have been violated.
Pond James Pond
New member
As an outsider to OC culture watching that video a few things occurred to me:
Firstly, I don't think OC would be for me, were it available, but that is just a personal choice.
It seems to me that the police a) did not know the law, b) were pretty in that guy's face: they weren't aggressive, but did start to play the authority card when the video'er raised a point they could not answer.
Bottom line is that the video'er knew the law, and the police did not. There were also the fallacies relied upon by the police: the logic that someone who lacks the appropriate licences/permits would openly carry a firearm for all to see in the first place.
At the end of the day, it seems that whilst it is law that OC is possible, the police have not been appropriately trained in how to manage it. After all, they've been previously trained to only expect a visible gun on a authorised person (LEO, Security, Military) or in a fire-fight.
They have seemingly not transitioned to OC thinking.
I think the video'er's remark about whether they would stop every car hit the mark: the police officer answered "no" unless there was a violation: precisely the opposite that was happening with the OC guy: no evident violation, but being effectively stopped all the same....
I think both sides of the OC fence need to be thoroughly educated as to what it means and represents.
Firstly, I don't think OC would be for me, were it available, but that is just a personal choice.
It seems to me that the police a) did not know the law, b) were pretty in that guy's face: they weren't aggressive, but did start to play the authority card when the video'er raised a point they could not answer.
Bottom line is that the video'er knew the law, and the police did not. There were also the fallacies relied upon by the police: the logic that someone who lacks the appropriate licences/permits would openly carry a firearm for all to see in the first place.
At the end of the day, it seems that whilst it is law that OC is possible, the police have not been appropriately trained in how to manage it. After all, they've been previously trained to only expect a visible gun on a authorised person (LEO, Security, Military) or in a fire-fight.
They have seemingly not transitioned to OC thinking.
I think the video'er's remark about whether they would stop every car hit the mark: the police officer answered "no" unless there was a violation: precisely the opposite that was happening with the OC guy: no evident violation, but being effectively stopped all the same....
I think both sides of the OC fence need to be thoroughly educated as to what it means and represents.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's the crux of the issue. The police in Philadelphia can't get it through their heads that the mere fact of carrying a GUN! is not a violation. It seems even our friendly local moderator/legal eagle Frank Ettin has fallen into the trap of seeing open carry as a prima facie criminal act, which must be investigated, and the license to carry provides only an affirmative defense. Very simply, that is not the case. What the Philadelphia police can't bring themselves to acknowledge is that, for someone who has a license to carry firearms (LTCF), open carry IS legal. It is no more a violation for me to carry a handgun openly in Philadelphia than it is for me to drive a motor vehicle on the streets of Philadelphia. I have both licenses. Yet the Philadelphia police acknowledge that they can't stop a car and check the license of the driver unless there is evidence of some other violation, yet they do NOT like to acknowledge that they can't stop an open carrier to check for the LTCF unless they have specific, "clearly articulable" (in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court) facts suggesting that the subject does NOT have a LTCF and is therefore engaging in an unlawful activity.Pond said:I think the video'er's remark about whether they would stop every car hit the mark: the police officer answered "no" unless there was a violation: precisely the opposite that was happening with the OC guy: no evident violation, but being effectively stopped all the same....
It is no more a violation for me to carry a handgun openly in Philadelphia than it is for me to drive a motor vehicle on the streets of Philadelphia. I have both licenses.
Actually, you should have more right to carry openly in Philadelphia than you have a right to drive through it. Carrying a gun on you (openly or concealed) is a constitutional right that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't require a license. Having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
Frank Ettin will probably respond to this line of thought with an argument based on case law, vs theoretical Constitutionality. With all due respect to Frank (and make no mistake, I respect and like Frank, and generally agree with him across the board), I have to tweak him a little.
Actually, I'll let Charles Dickens tweak him for me from Oliver Twist:
Mr. Bumble is informed that
Actually, I'll let Charles Dickens tweak him for me from Oliver Twist:
Mr. Bumble is informed that
"the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction". Mr. Bumble replies "If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass—a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."