Open Carry in Philadelphia

[gunman41mag]

It does, doesn't it? I swear there's an echo here---sooner or later, someone will bring up how the public doesn't like OC and how it reminds everyone of the Wild West---and it's interesting to note that those who engage in the "Wild West" example show their true ignorance of history.

I'm surprised INGO hasn't collapsed under the weight of the "OC is baaaaaaaaaaaad" posts.

What ever happened with MARK oc'ing in PHILLY

 

[Indy317]

And folks did not want people of certain races or creeds in their neighborhoods. What does it matter what people want? Does bigotry trump civil rights?

As you well know, it all depends on how a few folks wearing robs rule. In some cases, a person's rights are tossed out the window so that others rights may be respected. If a business owner didn't want to sell to Jews, they couldn't do that. It is their business though, opened with their money. However, current law would prevent the owner from turning customers away based on certain criteria. The business owners individual rights in this case are being violated. Such is the way things are, some folks win, some folks lose. Not taking a side, just stating that nine people who wear robs in DC eventually decide which rights get trumped and which don't. So far, they have only ruled, narrowly, that a person has the right to own a firearm. I don't recall them ruling on the carrying of handguns, yet.

Is there some study that I am unfamiliar with?

Not that I know of, but what is a "study?" I just look at the last presidential election. I find it hard to believe that a good % of those who voted for Obama would be supporters of open carry. Maybe they are, but for some reason voted for a politician who tends to support gun control. I also look at how laws are passed. If so many folks supported OC, why is OC illegal on K-12 property in Indiana? Even CC is illegal on K-12 property, and Indiana usually leans towards support gun owners. With regards to the new take your gun to work law, some work places got an exemption from the law.

Can I have the name of one state, just one state, which has gone from open or concealed carry to concealed only?

I don't know of any. I also know I can't name 50 states where OC is legal though. If there was such strong public support for OC, wouldn't it be legal in all 50 states?

All the more reason to openly carry so people become acclimated to it.

Do you feel that more people OCing handguns, or people OCing their ARs, AKs, etc., could possibly cause a negative backlash against OC? California has some OC law that lets one OC, but only if the gun is empty. They tried to pass a bill to outright ban OC, but it failed. Not really sure I would call that a victory to the OC movement, since the guns have to be unloaded anyways.

I understand where those who choose to OC are coming from. I also see that OC is causing issues, mostly based on ignorance and fear. However, ignorance and fear have a way of creating laws.

Could a state ban the open carrying of a handgun? I just go back to these written words: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

People can discuss civil rights all they want, but what exactly are "civil rights?" To me, they seem to be what nine people who wear robs in DC say they are at any given time.

...someone will bring up how the public doesn't like OC and how it reminds everyone of the Wild West---and it's interesting to note that those who engage in the "Wild West" example show their true ignorance of history.

I like using what I read on INGO vs some "study" or "survey." I see OC issue after OC issue reported in the carry section. Obviously, some % of the general public thinks OC is bad, for whatever reason(s). As far as the wild west, I have no idea what really went on there. Most folks base their views on the old west from movies/TV, so all they see are a bunch of OCing guys walking around shooting the town up!!

 

[Hooker]

None of it would have been necessary if the cop would have known the law in the first place. Getting a gun in my face because the cop is ignorant would certainly tick me off. The other female officer had no clue either.

Looks like now I have to start carrying IN gun laws around in my pocket too so I'm not detained on the side of the road while these guys figure it out.

 

[CarmelHP]

As you well know, it all depends on how a few folks wearing robs rule. In some cases, a person's rights are tossed out the window so that others rights may be respected. ....
....
I like using what I read on INGO vs some "study" or "survey." I see OC issue after OC issue reported in the carry section. Obviously, some % of the general public thinks OC is bad, for whatever reason(s). As far as the wild west, I have no idea what really went on there. Most folks base their views on the old west from movies/TV, so all they see are a bunch of OCing guys walking around shooting the town up!!

Let me get this straight, so you're saying, "to hell with the law, if some people don't like it, it's the same as being illegal?" Because that sure sounds like that's what you're saying. If he has a license, open carry is legal in Philadelphia, regardless of what the police or anyone else think.

I just listened to the recording, idiot Philadelphia cops.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indy317, so, the heckler's veto trumps my right?

 

[BBSparkle]

None of it would have been necessary if the cop would have known the law in the first place.

This. Carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion in PA, he shouldn't have been detained at any time. Later in the tapes you can hear the arresting officer trying to come up with other things Mark did that he could get him on. He kept saying he was 'arguing' and 'resisting' and wouldn't take his hands out of his pockets. [I think that was probably as he was setting his phone to record.]

Then the cops got all buttmad about whether or not he was doing this intentionally to spark some kind of scene. I get that, sure, and it's very possible that Mark was doing that. But as a professional, come on, you don't turn and yell at the guy about that. The attitude of the officers there, along with their complete ignorance of the law [at least 4 officers] is astounding.

 

[gunman41mag]

This. Carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion in PA, he shouldn't have been detained at any time. Later in the tapes you can hear the arresting officer trying to come up with other things Mark did that he could get him on. He kept saying he was 'arguing' and 'resisting' and wouldn't take his hands out of his pockets. [I think that was probably as he was setting his phone to record.]

Then the cops got all buttmad about whether or not he was doing this intentionally to spark some kind of scene. I get that, sure, and it's very possible that Mark was doing that. But as a professional, come on, you don't turn and yell at the guy about that. The attitude of the officers there, along with their complete ignorance of the law [at least 4 officers] is astounding.

Come on, cops are N E V E R wrong

 

[BBSparkle]

I heard a cowboy in the recording, but it wasn't Mark.

Yeah it was interesting in the second tape, when the arresting officer went over to talk to Mark, who was presumably in the paddy wagon, about what happened. At this point he seemed to realize he may not be able to bring Mark in on anything, and he begins to lecture him and asks him if he thinks what he did was wrong. This is completely ridiculous, a power trip if I've ever heard one. Not to mention going on with "You don't have the RIGHT to challenge me". Completely the wrong attitude for an officer of the law to have, and he is likely the type giving a bad name to those who serve honorably. [Especially seeing as how he's apparently never heard of the 4th amendment] I'm just glad that the cops I know are some of the nicest, level headed fellas I've ever met.

 

[bassplayrguy]

Hey OC is legal here and if you don't like to see it, don't look. That's how I approach it. I don't carry for public opinion so therefore I don't care what their opinion is. I am not breaking any laws so it is none of their business.

 

[gunman41mag]

Hey OC is legal here and if you don't like to see it, don't look. That's how I approach it. I don't carry for public opinion so therefore I don't care what their opinion is. I am not breaking any laws so it is none of their business.

Mark was thinking like you, but he ended in the back seat of a police car

 

[bassplayrguy]

If open carry is legal in PA then it doesn't matter at all why he is doing it. There is no reason to even ask him. Using that logic it should be ok to stop someone for ANY legal act they are doing and read them the riot act and stick a gun in their face. These cops are doing the very thing they are supposed to be protecting the public from. They are criminals according to the law and should be punished accordingly.

 

[bassplayrguy]

If Mark plays his cards right, he may have a check and his gun back.

 

[gunman41mag]

If Mark plays his cards right, he may have a check and his gun back.

We can only hope, he makes a little $$$ for all his pain & discomfort

 

[bassplayrguy]

It's the least the city could do for him.

 

[gunman41mag]

It's the least the city could do for him.

The city of PHILLY, should pay for what those KEYSTONE COPS did to MARK

 

[BBSparkle]

Anyone know if it's legal to record police encounters in IN?

LOL, yeah, on-duty police officers have NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY. You don't need consent, and you don't need to inform them of your recording, if you don't want to.

 

[Wwwildthing]

Can I have the name of one state, just one state, which has gone from open or concealed carry to concealed only?

Texas.

 

[Indy317]

Let me get this straight, so you're saying, "to hell with the law, if some people don't like it, it's the same as being illegal?"

What I'm saying is that as more people OC, especially in more anti-gun/urban areas, we will see more of these incidents. If the vast majority of the citizens of this country support OC, then many people will likely end up with small settlements and eventually the cops will get it via training/lawsuits/discipline actions. However, as OC starts to make it to the forefront of the gun debate, if a majority doesn't support OC, then I see the possibility for some states to adopt laws against OCing. If enough people don't like something, it can usually be made illegal in some form or fashion. Example: CA--You can OC, so long as the gun is not loaded.

Indy317, so, the heckler's veto trumps my right?

Depends on how various judges rule.

Carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion in PA, he shouldn't have been detained at any time.

Do you have a cite for this statement?

I am not breaking any laws so it is none of their business.

You know you aren't breaking any laws. The thing is, us license holders don't have bar code tattoos to show others we aren't breaking the law. This is where officer interactions occur, because in some states, carrying a handgun w/o a license is a crime. Until we get a rock solid court ruling on a national scale, that based on states with laws like Indiana, the mere possession of a handgun isn't reasonable suspicion to stop and detain someone, these incidents will continue as more and more people OC their handgun, or OC AR-15s, AK-47s, etc.. Hell, OCing long guns isn't even illegal in Indiana, but OC an AK in downtown Indy and I'm pretty sure one will be stopped by the cops.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

And folks did not want people of certain races or creeds in their neighborhoods. What does it matter what people want? Does bigotry trump civil rights?



Is there some study that I am unfamiliar with?

Upon statehood a majority of Indiana made carrying concealed illegal. In many states open carry is legal but carrying concealed requires a license.

In fact in Indiana some cities were so uncomfortable with concealed carry (the mark of a ruffian) that those cities banned carrying concealed, e.g. Speedway.

Some ranges used to ban only concealed carry, but open carry was permissible. Please cite for me the cities and ranges where open carry is banned but concealed carry is not.



Can I have the name of one state, just one state, which has gone from open or concealed carry to concealed only?

TEXAS. Even printing is illegal there. And then at the opposite end of the spectrum, Wisconsin allows open carry and doesn't allow concealed or even offer a permit.

Recording police illegal? http://gizmodo.com/#!5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

 

[BBSparkle]

Do you have a cite for this statement?

I spent some time looking for the actual parameters of search and seizure laws in PA, but was coming up empty, Google Fu weak this morning is.

But here is an interesting link:
Gun cases tossed out, suspects walk out - Page 2 - Philly.com

And some highlights:

"While certain activity may seem generally suspicious or 'fishy,' it does not necessarily equate to 'reasonable suspicion' for purposes of search-and-seizure law," the judge said in two opinions, quoting a 2001 state appellate court ruling.

And if the police lack good cause to approach a suspect, she concluded, any guns suspects dump while fleeing cannot be used as evidence against them. "Abandonment is coerced by unlawful police action," she wrote.

"police and prosecutors toil in a hostile Pennsylvania legal environment in which key appellate rulings restrict searches on the street."

Philadelphia police stopped 250,000 pedestrians last year, but that only 8 percent of the frisks led to arrests."I have represented hundreds of persons who have been stopped, frisked, and humiliated by officers who had no cause to do so," Rudovsky has written.



Now, some of these guys were obviously up to no good, sure. And I'm sure some of the arresting officers were blown away by these rulings. But the Judge has a point in that having a gun/mask on your face/other 'suspicious' behavior is not illegal, and will not be ruled as reasonable suspicion.

It seems like she's gone to an extreme here, but not really, the law is the law and it has to start and end somewhere.