Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's apparently what you don't understand yet.Glenn Dee said:Standing Wolf... Most probably no Licensed open carriers have been found out to be criminals. But the Police dont know that until they check. Right? And the police do have the right to check... dont they?
NO -- they do NOT have the "right" to accost people engaging in lawful behavior unless there is (in the words of the SCOTUS) "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed."
Also incorrect. Police officers are naturally concerned about their safety, but that does NOT grant them any "right" to violate any person's inherent civil rights.Glenn Dee said:Be realistic. Police Officers have every right, and responsibility to consider their own safety before anything else.
See above.Glenn Dee said:Aguila Blanca... It seem's you've missed the tenor of my post. I'm not at all suggesting that open carry isnt legal in Philadelphia. Correct me if I'm wrong... but I believe one must posses a license to carry a firearm in order to open carry correct? How would a police officer know if an individual is properly licensed if he dont inquire? OK... when the officer inquires about the license the possibility exists that the open carrier dont have a license... right? But the officer wont know this until he checks... right?
I have not missed the the sense of your posts. But, with all due respect, your position is wrong, and is not supported by the Supreme Court. As I have mentioned previously, a license is also required to operate a motor vehicle, in every state in the U.S. Are you going to argue that a police officer has a "right" to stop any vehicle at random just to inquire if the driver has a license? The guidelines laid down by the SCOTUS, in Terry and reinforced by Hiibel, set out a "bright line" that the police can't (legally) cross. They may NOT conduct an investigatory stop based on a mere hunch. And where open carry is legal, even if it requires a license to be legal, there has to be something more than just seeing the gun before they have legal grounds to initiate contact. There must be some "clearly articulable facts" on which the officer can rely to form a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed.
Since you seem to be supporting Sgt. Dougherty on this one, please lay out for us exactly what "clearly articulable facts" existed to indicate that the open carrier was breaking the law (or was about to do so).
Last edited: