Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint

it is exactly their type of case...it involves the 4th amendment...the guy just happened to be exercising his 2nd and 1st(act of open carry as a statement)
iirc they represented a guy in colorado over something similar a few years ago

 

Actually you might want to read these links:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/

http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff

http://www.guns.com/south-dakota-ac...tes-questions-about-immigrant-gun-rights.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=6111

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4095

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=16&issue=020

 

This is what is required in Texas if property owners don't want folks carrying on their property. I saw them everywhere in Dallas from coffee shops and restaurants to shopping malls and grocery stores. IMHO, property owners should not be required to post this -- in most cases, it should be assumed private property is off limits. You want to carry on someone else's property, you need to ask permission from the owner or their agent.

 

We have the 30.06 signs here but I rarely see them. Even if a store has it up, I'll ignore it. Concealed is concealed after all. If I was ever made in one of these establishments, all they can do is ask me to leave.
That being said, I try not to spend any of my money at said stores.

 

When the SHTF like in the tragic Giffords incident, I will not look to you for assistance.

Speaking of which, just a week or two before that tragedy, I was in the Great State of Arizona and chose to conceal carry most of the time I was there. After a few days of wheeling we went to a grocery store in Tucson and my sweetheart asked me if I really needed to carry in the grocery store. I said no and locked my handgun in the truck. After that incident, I know she would not even ask me again - she is the one that pointed out to me that she should have not asked me.

Now you my friend, would have been the guy that would have chosen to remain unidentified after stopping that pencil-dicked Loughner before that incident got started... but you had no reason to be there that day.

 

WOW!!! That's not the ACLU I knew! Thanks for posting! It's actually downright scary to think that I would tend to support them if they kept those actions up!

 

do you ask the owners permission before you talk about politics? or church or read a newspaper?

 

also from what ive read most of the cases are brought by state ACLU's not the national organization but its still good to see them protecting the peoples rights...

 

Haha, I don't know about that but I surely like to be prepared.

 

The 2nd Amendment is not any more absolute than the rest. Can I go into a restaurant and discuss politics and religion with the people at the table? Absolutely. Can I stand on a chair and loudly quote the bible or denounce the government in the same restaurant? Absolutely not. The owner will ask you to leave and given it's his property, you really have no choice.

If an owner doesn't want guns on their property, its their right to ban them.

As for the Giffords case, no one who was cc or oc did anything to take down the shooter. All the bravado about oc and cc carriers saving the day in those situations is just that. It rarely if ever happens. My guess is that if they were present, they quickly realized the target wasn't paper and it wasn't a movie.

 

That's not it at all. It was a group of liberals - OF Course they weren't armed. They think life is just another professors lecture... or if I used your reference point, a movie or a paper!

 

What the owner doesn't know won't hurt him but you had better be willing to pay the consequences if you pull your piece.

 

the one guy who was there at the scene of the giffords shooting wasnt out there at the rally he came running when he heard the shots...but the shooter was restrained so there was no need to use it because the threat had been eliminated...

as for the speaking loudly in the mall or restaurant you do those things until youre asked to leave...i agree that they can control their property and would leave if asked but i dont ask permission to exercise any civil right

 

Lawsuit filed in this case over 3 incidents....

 

good!

 

this is how a good cop handles the same situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4

 

he was still forcibly detained for a legal activity...while the officer was still not the person carrying openly should have been free to go.../\

 

City of Philadelphia Sued for Retaliating Against Gun Rights Advocate
[FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]
EMBARGOED UNTIL February 14, 2012

Contact: Sara Mullen, ACLU of Pennsylvania, 215-592-1513 x122, smullen@aclupa.org

PHILADELPHIA – The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the law firm of McCausland Keen & Buckman filed a federal lawsuit today against the city of Philadelphia on behalf of Mark Fiorino, a gun rights advocate who legally carries an unconcealed weapon in public. The suit alleges that the Philadelphia Police Department filed retaliatory charges against Fiorino after it learned that there was a YouTube recording of Philadelphia police officers threatening to shoot and screaming profanities at an unresisting Fiorino in February 2011. Fiorino was cleared of all charges in October 2011.

"This was a vindictive prosecution of Mr. Fiorino motivated solely by the fact that he publicly embarrassed the Philadelphia Police Department and threatened to sue them for their misbehavior," said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "Citizens have the right to hold police accountable without fear that they will be harassed or prosecuted for doing so."

Fiorino, a resident of Lansdale, Pa. (Montgomery County), is an avid gun rights supporter and carries his weapon openly holstered on his hip for protection. Despite having the proper license under Pennsylvania law to carry an unconcealed weapon in the city of Philadelphia, Fiorino has been repeatedly harassed by Philadelphia police officers who erroneously believed it is illegal to openly carry a weapon within the city limits. In one instance, despite the fact that Fiorino had broken no law, police confiscated Fiorino’s gun for five months before returning it. Because of these problems, Fiorino routinely audiotapes his interactions with law enforcement.

In September 2010, after an internal affairs investigation of two of Fiorino’s encounters with the police, the Philadelphia Police Department issued a revised policy, Directive 137, which states that holders of a License to Carry Firearms (LCTF) can legally carry an unconcealed weapon. However, according to the lawsuit, the Police Department failed to train its police officers about the revised policy.

On the afternoon of February 13, 2011, nearly five months after the new policy was in place, Fiorino was walking to an auto parts store on Frankford Avenue with his gun in a retention holster on his hip when he heard a voice behind him yell, "Yo, junior, what are you doing?" Fiorino turned around to find Sgt. Michael Dougherty pointing his service weapon at his chest. Fiorino’s offer to provide the officer with his LTCF was ignored. Instead, Sgt. Dougherty ordered Fiorino to get on his knees or else "I am gonna shoot ya." Sgt. Dougherty was joined by several other officers, who continued to verbally abuse and humiliate Fiorino. Several times, Fiorino advised police officers that he was legally allowed to carry a weapon and referred them to Directive 137. After a forty-five minute ordeal, some of it spent handcuffed and face-down on the sidewalk, Fiorino was released with no charges. Fiorino audiotaped most of the incident.

A month and a half later, the Police Department received a tip that Fiorino’s audio recordings of his encounters with police were posted on YouTube and, according to Department spokesman Lt. Ray Evers, Commissioner Charles Ramsey then ordered a new investigation into Fiorino’s conduct. Fiorino had also posted on the Internet that he was considering filing a civil rights lawsuit against the police and was

seeking donations to fund his suit. The investigation resulted in charges against Fiorino for disorderly conduct and recklessly endangering another person. Fiorino learned there was a warrant for his arrest after five Media officers came to his place of work in Delaware County while he was away. He turned himself in and spent sixteen hours in jail before being released on bail. He was arrested again a week later because the Police Department failed to clear the warrant for his arrest. On October 27, 2011, Fiorino was cleared of all charges.

"A person who hasn’t committed a crime shouldn’t be repeatedly harassed and retaliated against by the police," said Fiorino. "If the Philadelphia Police Department trained its officers properly so that they actually knew the law, this wouldn't have happened to me. My goal is to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else who, like me, is merely exercising their legal rights."

The lawsuit charges that several Philadelphia police officers violated Fiorino’s rights by repeatedly detaining him far longer than necessary to make sure that he had a valid license to carry, confiscating his legally carried weapon and refusing to return it for five months, using excessive force, initiating false and retaliatory charges against him and subjecting him to a second arrest. The city of Philadelphia and Commissioner Ramsey are alleged to be responsible for the actions of the individual officers through their failure to train police officers in the law and Commissioner Ramsey’s instigation of the retaliatory charges. The suit seeks damages for Fiorino’s monetary losses, the violation of his rights, and additional harm.

"This case is about public officials who retaliate against citizens who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights," said Benjamin Picker of the law firm of McCausland Keen & Buckman, one of the attorneys representing Fiorino. "Moreover, this case very clearly exemplifies why the police must know the laws they enforce, because when they don’t, the inexcusable result is the violation of the constitutional rights of those same citizens."

Fiorino is represented by Picker and Glenn Gitomer of McCausland Keen & Buckman and Mary Catherine Roper and Chris Markos of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. The case is Fiorino v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

More information about the case, including a copy of the complaint, can be found at:

[link to come]

A copy of the audio recording on YouTube is available at:
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]
###

A link to the Federal Complaint:

http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Fiorino-Complaint.pdf

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

Philly police settling.....25k

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-1...-end-offer-judgment-reached-philadelphia.html

http://www.whptv.com/news/state/sto...ty-over-gun-stops/kcHK_IlJpUeVoqkwdzlhAA.cspx