Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PA open carry activists file suits against Dickson City police
The New Gun Week ^ | 1 July, 2008 | David Workman

Posted on 07/11/2008 3:00:00 PM PDT by marktwain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: School of Rational Thought

You say it well. Open carry is “permitted” in most states. Here in the Republik of North Carolina we have a real cool law. You can be charged with “brandishing a weapon to the terror of the people”.This make open carriers subject to arrest that would cost tens of thousands of dollar to fight and win.


21 posted on 07/11/2008 4:03:27 PM PDT by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kingu
And if the property owner wanted them off the property for wearing tri-cornered hats, I would support the property owner.

/johnny

22 posted on 07/11/2008 4:04:23 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rsobin
"Brandishing" used to have a definition.

/johnny

23 posted on 07/11/2008 4:05:24 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Gun Week earlier spoke to Stadnitski, who said this was the first incident in his 37 years in law enforcement that involved private citizens openly carrying a firearm, other than while hunting. He also maintained that his officers erred on the side of caution when responding to a 911 call from a restaurant patron that complained about people "brandishing guns."

He believes the incident began because another patron in the restaurant was "unhappy and uncomfortable that someone had a firearm in a holster on their hip" and called the police. He does not know who placed the initial 911 call.

This sounds like a lie to me. The caller called 911. The 911 system knows who is calling on land lines. I'm sure the 911 system can log a cell phone. If not, the phone company can tell them.

We should know what the caller said to the police. Saying people are brandishing weapons seems odd to me. This is a term more likely used by the few familiar with law or obligations of carrying arms. The ordinary caller is not going to say brandish. Brandish does not apply to holstered side arms. It means more to wave or display weapons aggressively as to threaten.

Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.

24 posted on 07/11/2008 4:24:12 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
“Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.”

Virtually all 911 calls are recorded. The plantiffs will soon find out who called and what was said. It will make a big difference in the case.

The officers have a duty to determine if their is probable cause for an arrest. If they are negligent in their determination, they are liable, it seems to me.

25 posted on 07/11/2008 4:27:32 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

“Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.”


If the caller made false statements to the police, they can be criminally charged and liable for damages as well.


26 posted on 07/11/2008 4:30:43 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“The officers ordered Judy Banks to stop recording “under threat of being arrested for violation of the federal wiretap law,”

If cops can do this (They can, they have and it sticks) then they can take your guns and or otherwise do as they damn well please.

A wire tap invades a discrete circuit. A citizen recording a public servant in a public place is tapping NOTHING save the ether.

These guys strapped on guns they apparently had no intention of using—so what was their point? To force a legal precedent? Good luck with that. As long as they put themselves into the hands of the very corrupt system that ignores the Constitution as it damn well pleases (as this incident clearly demonstrates) they will accomplish NOTHING. If you put on a gun use it. If you can’t——THEN DON’T PUT IT ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

George Washington would have opened fire (if he were there in the first place)


27 posted on 07/11/2008 4:39:23 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
An eating establishment has always been seen as public property for the purpose of many laws, but in any event, they had no personal expectation of privacy in the eating establishment. The police were there for the express purpose of responding to a citizen call alledging a crime took place, something you're very carefully dancing around. In the course of the investigation, they asked for identification.

If this was a case of cops just walking in for dinner, seeing patrons and demanding ID, then I would agree with you. That wasn't the case.

28 posted on 07/11/2008 4:40:35 PM PDT by kingu (Party for rent - conservative opinions not required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought
"No law requires a permit to open carry."

The present state of the law in Kaleefornia is that you must have a permit for carrying a concealed firearm. You will be arrested for violating the CCW law. However, if you choose to openly carry a loaded firearm, you will still be arrested.

Per Penal Code 12031:

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

29 posted on 07/11/2008 4:44:04 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let all Democrats have a half vote. They deserve it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kingu
a citizen call alledging a crime took place, something you're very carefully dancing around. In the course of the investigation, they asked for identification.

I'm not dancing around it. I'm saying it doesn't apply to requiring identification. They can ask all they want. There is no requirement to cooperate under the 5th amendment. Just don't lie.

And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.

/johnny

30 posted on 07/11/2008 4:49:24 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kingu
An eating establishment has always been seen as public property for the purpose of many laws,

And that's just NOT true.

/johnny

31 posted on 07/11/2008 4:51:47 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
“And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.”

Exactly. They have a legal duty to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest. They should have talked to the complainant first, it they were available.

If the person that complained was not available, then they have to start from ground zero.

32 posted on 07/11/2008 4:53:48 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gunnedah
Does one need a permit to carry a bible or movie newspaper.

Does one need a permit to put his bible,koran, newspaper in brief case, book bag or under his coat concealing it.

Guns are to the 2nd that books,newspapers and movies are to the frist.

33 posted on 07/11/2008 4:54:53 PM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
His "permit" is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Driving a car is a privilege - not a RIGHT!

I don't think the Founders would have agreed with that. They recognized a right of free and unimpeded travel; many rights of way have changed over the years so as to preclude their use by any means other than a motorized vehicle.

34 posted on 07/11/2008 4:55:23 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
“12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.”

Notice even constitutionally retarded California danced around this, in that it only prohibits *loaded* open carry in certain places.
35 posted on 07/11/2008 4:55:57 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

All 911 lines have caller ID but if the caller blocks it they can not tell who is calling


36 posted on 07/11/2008 4:57:30 PM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.

Jack-booted thugs... It was a criminal investigation, it has always been common practice to identify those the police speak with, and failure to produce identification is cause for detention until identification is established. Personal identification has never successfully been argued as a protected right under the 5th, and I believe it goes completely against the intentions of the 5th to even lay that claim. Is there a case where this has been established?

37 posted on 07/11/2008 4:58:30 PM PDT by kingu (Party for rent - conservative opinions not required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kingu
In Texas, some years ago, adjudicated by the feds. I'm still looking for the cite. I can't remember the name of the case and I don't want to call my lawyer to get it because he's REALLY expensive on the weekends.

Bottom line, there are very limited places and circumstances when you are required to show ID.

/johnny

38 posted on 07/11/2008 5:02:28 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kingu
As I assume that PA has laws against fellons possessing firearms, the identification check seems like a valid procedure in any case.

What percentage of people of whom the cops check ID will be felons? Does it seem like they're limiting their actions to cases with anything even remotely resembling probable cause?

That having been said, what if the cop were to discretely ask the waiter to replace the suspect's water glass while being careful to only touch the rim, and then to later retrieve that water glass (again only touching the rim)? The cop could then suggest to the suspect that, if he prefers, the cop could run his prints. See what the reaction to that would be.

39 posted on 07/11/2008 5:03:50 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I believe it goes completely against the intentions of the 5th to even lay that claim.

The Federal court case that said that felons filling out a BATF firearms questionnaire can use the 5th pretty much abrogates your assumptions. And that decision is much more famous that the black guy jogging in Houston.

You don't have to cooperate. At all. Period. Just don't lie.

/johnny

40 posted on 07/11/2008 5:06:59 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson