Florida Trying To Pass "Open Carry"

In florida you can open carry when, or going to and from, hunting, fishing, or camping. So you can open carry all the time when you go fishing and if you get stopped your completely in your right to open carry.

 

yes i know...if i could afford a fishing license id ride OC to miami on the motorcycle but earlier i was arguing the fact even though florida has a statute against OC doesnt mean its constitutional because the Right to Bear Arms referred to the Right to carry them openly...but i do not have the funds to challenge that law....

 

Needless to say open carry is not going to happen and I'll be sure to thank Rick Scott (who I voted for) for making sure of it, Kevin will still be insulted by fellow Texans for joining the Chair Force, and the pissing match between Responsible Gun Owners and any idiot that can get their hands on one will continue. Sorry for lighting a fire under your trailer.

 

didnt rick scott promise to sign a bill that contained OC? i dont live in a trailer just a 100+year old Victorian home so please dont light any fires underneath it
Rick Scott

 

See what I mean? Just more BS spewing out of your mouth(fingers).
You have no real input. Now you result to personal attacks because you know nothing about the topic at hand. You are just against it because you have no real knowledge or personal thoughts about the topic. You have been brainwashed, probably by your parents/wife/media, and can't make informed desicions on your own.


If you dont like it you can geeeeeet out.

 

a-effin-men...

 

I know there has been a lot of recent controversy over an open carry case that has been ongoing in Philadelphia. As of today it is no longer legal to openly carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia, being a city of the first class. The ridiculous legal loophole has been amended and from this morning it is now legal to treat an open carrier as a threat and legally stop and detain that person to perform an investigation. Also that persons firearm is to be placed on a property receipt and confiscated. Haha thank god...

 

its good to hear some input from the LEOs out there. Whats the consensus from the LEOs on Open carry? Good, Bad, indifferent?

 

Ha ha it's funny how Florida is trying to allow Open Carry, when in Wyoming we just passed a law saying that you now do NOT have to have a permit for Concealed Carry. I love this great state!

And open carry is WAY more effective than concealed. When someone knows you have a gun, they don't F with you.

 

I LOL'ed so the state changed the law eh?? because Philly has absolutely no power to pass laws because PA has complete state preemption....

 

also how are you stealing a persons property who is committing no crime??

cops arent due process....the 5th amendment applies to Philly by way of the 14th amendment

 

I carried openly in Philly!!!

im disarmed at the PA state house(at the time i went National Park grounds were also off limits, but they are now legal just the building are off limits now)


here i am "Standing Trial" with my empty Serpa


I was actually carrying in this pic(just cant see it because i was seated) at Pat's Steak eating a steak wit wiz(managed to drip into my beard), which wasnt that great...the steaks i had in Norristown were way better

 

You have absolutely no clue to what you are talking about. I work in the 22nd. Guys like you give us a bad name.

 

That's one LEO you DON'T want to hear from.

 

Sir, you are 100% wrong!!!

The City of Philadelphia has not had statutory authority to pass it's own gun laws since 1995 when he Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) was signed in to law.

Pennsylvania statute regarding open carry in Philadelphia is:

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.




No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

1. such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
2. such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

ADVISORY NOTE: Like in a place of declared emergency under §6107, in a City of First Class, a license under §6109 or exception under §6106(b) is required to be able to carry openly on foot.
​

Philadelphia has tried to pass it's own gun law since the UFA was enacted. This issue was resolved in the case of Ortiz V Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See below.

Ortiz v. Commonwealth, - Pa. - 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996)
Councilman Angel Ortiz and Councilman David Cohen and Councilwoman Jannie L. Blackwell and Al Stewart, Ward Leader of 11th Ward and Candidate for City Council for the 8th District and Gregory Beau Paulmier, Ward Leader of the 12th Ward and Philadelphia Anti-Drug/Anti-Violence Network (PANN) and Consumer Education and Protective Association (CEPA) and Fathers Day Rally Committee and Thomas P. Cronin, President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) District Council 47 and Dr. Paul Fink, Associate Vice President, Albert Einstein Medical Services and Wilfredo Rojas, President Philadelphia Chapter of the National Congress of Puerto Rican Rights and Fellowship Commission and Benjamin Ramos, Democratic Candidate for the 180th State Legislative District, and City of Pittsburgh, Intervenor, Appellants,

v.​

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Honorable Thomas J. Ridge, Governor and Honorable Ernest D. Preate, Jr., and Lynne Abraham, District Attorney of Philadelphia, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued May 1, 1996.
Decided July 18, 1996.
Reargument Denied Sept. 24, 1996.​

Samuel C. Stretton, Robert M. Jaffe, Stanley Shapiro, Philadelphia, for Appellants.
Greg Teufel, Craig E. Frischman, David G. Ries, Pittsburgh,for City of Pittsburgh.
David Cohen, pro se.
Fredrick Cabeil, Jr., Calvin Koons, John G. Knorr, Office of the Attorney General, for Appellees.
Gregory Dunlap, Harrisburg, for the Governor.
Before FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE and NIGRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT ​

FLAHERTY, Justice.
The issue raised in this case is whether two home-rule municipalities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, may through the passage of ordinances regulate the ownership of so-called assault weapons when the General Assembly has passed a statute prohibiting them from doing so.
Councilman Angel Ortiz, et al. (the Philadelphia appellants) brought this action in Commonwealth Court for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Philadelphia appellants sought to enjoin the Commonwealth's preemption of Philadelphia's regulation of assault weapons and declare it in violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the home rule charter, and the Home Rule Enabling Act, 53 Pa.C.S. section 13101 et seq. The chancellor denied the Philadelphia appellants' request for preliminary injunction and held that the General Assembly preempted the city's attempt to regulate assault weapons.
Appellees (the Commonwealth) filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the Philadelphia appellants' complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Oral argument was held on the preliminary objections before Commonwealth Court en banc. Subsequent to oral argument, Pittsburgh filed a petition to intervene, which was granted. On February 14, 1995, the en banc Commonwealth Court granted the Commonwealth's preliminary objections and dismissed the request for injunctive and declaratory relief for failure to state a cause of action. This appeal followed.
Commonwealth Court's rationale was that Article 9, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides that although municipalities have the right to adopt home rule charters, their authority is limited by the Constitution and by acts of the General Assembly. The General Assembly has enacted a statute which preempts the ability of municipalities to regulate firearms, and Philadelphia's ordinance, which purports to impose such regulation, is, therefore, invalid.

Article 9, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides: Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters. Adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter shall be by referendum. The General Assembly shall provide the procedure by which a home rule charter may be framed and its adoption, amendment or repeal presented to the electors. If the General Assembly does not so provide, a home rule charter or a procedure for framing and presenting a home rule charter may be presented to the electors by initiative or by the governing body of the municipality. A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.

(Emphasis added.) On June 17, 1993, the Mayor of Philadelphia signed and approved Bill No. 508, submitted by the city council, which banned certain types of assault weapons in Philadelphia County. In November of 1993, the City of Pittsburgh passed Ordinance 30-1993, which also banned certain specified assault weapons within Pittsburgh's physical boundaries. It is undisputed that these ordinances purport to regulate the ownership, use, possession or transfer of certain firearms.



After these ordinances were enacted the General Assembly passed House Bill 185, which amended Title 18 of the Crimes Code, including the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa.C.S. sections 6101-6124. The amendment, which appears at 18 Pa.C.S. section 6101 provides:

1. General rule. No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for the purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
2. Definition. For the purposes of this section the term "firearms" has the meaning given in Section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not include "air rifles" as defined in Section 6304 (relating to sale and use of air rifles).

18 Pa.C.S. section 5515 provides: "Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

The sum of the case is that the Constitution of Pennsylvania requires that home rule municipalities may not perform any power denied by the General Assembly; the General Assembly has denied all municipalities the power to regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or possession of firearms; and the municipalities seek to regulate that which the General Assembly has said they may not regulate. The inescapable conclusion, unless there is more, is that the municipalities' attempt to ban the possession of certain types of firearms is constitutionally infirm.

The appellants, however, insist that there is more. The Philadelphia appellants argue the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act is not uniform, and the prohibition against ordinances regulating firearms, therefore, is invalid. This argument has its basis in the Home Rule Statute governing cities of the first class, namely, Philadelphia: No city shall exercise any powers or authority beyond the city limits except such as are conferred by an act of the General Assembly, and no city shall engage in any proprietary or private business except as authorized by the General Assembly. Notwithstanding the grant of powers contained in this act, no city shall exercise powers contrary to or in limitation or enlargement of, powers granted by acts of the General Assembly which are--

* * *​

(b) Applicable in every part of the Commonwealth.
(c) Applicable to all the cities of the Commonwealth.

53 Pa.C.S. section 13133. Philadelphia appellants assert that they are limited by the acts of the General Assembly only if those acts are applicable in the entire commonwealth, and the firearms statute is not. In particular, they argue that in Philadelphia County, the legislature requires that a person must be licensed to carry weapons openly and not concealed from sight, 18 Pa.C.S. section 6108, [footnote 1] whereas in all other counties of Pennsylvania, weapons may be carried openly without a license, 18 Pa.C.S. section 6106. [footnote 2]
This argument is plainly without merit. 18 Pa.C.S. section 6120, the act limiting municipal regulation of firearms and ammunition, applies in every county including Philadelphia. The fact that one section of the Uniform Firearms Act does not apply in every county is immaterial.
Next, the Philadelphia appellants, joined by the City of Pittsburgh, argue that although the General Assembly may restrict home rule power to some extent, it may not limit "the ability to perform the basic administrative functions of a municipal government and the ability to fulfill a fundamental purpose for which the City government exists." In particular, appellants assert that "the right of a city to maintain the peace on its streets through the regulation of weapons is intrinsic to the existence of the government of that city and, accordingly, an irreducible ingredient of constitutionally protected Home Rule." Appellants' Brief at 15.
In order to prevail in this argument, appellants would have to establish at a minimum that in matters concerning their "fundamental purpose," home rule municipalities may override limitations on their power set by the General Assembly, and that regulating assault weapons concerns this fundamental purpose.

This claim is frivolous. Article 9, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides: A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.

By constitutional mandate, the General Assembly may limit the functions to be performed by home rule municipalities.

Next, appellants claim that various decisions of this court require that home rule municipalities may be restricted in their powers only when the General Assembly has enacted statutes on matters of statewide concern. [footnote 3] Although we agree with appellants that the General Assembly may negate ordinances enacted by home rule municipalities only when the General Assembly's conflicting statute concerns substantive matters of statewide concern, this does not help the municipal appellants; for the matters at issue in this case are substantive matters of statewide concern. Article 1, Section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
NIX, C.J., and NEWMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
NIGRO, J., files a dissenting opinion.
NIGRO, Justice, dissenting.
I cannot agree with the Majority and therefore must respectfully dissent. In my opinion, whenever the state legislature fails to enact a statute to address a continuing problem of major concern to the citizens of the Commonwealth, a municipality should be entitled to enact its own local ordinance in order to provide for the public safety, health and welfare of its citizens.
Since Philadelphia County is besieged by a multitude of violent crimes which occur involving a variety of hand guns and automatic weapons it is fundamentally essential that the local government enact legislation to protect its citizens whenever the state legislature is unable or unwilling to do so.


FOOTNOTES

1. The Philadelphia appellants argue: Only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying any firearm, on a public street or public property, regardless of whether it is unconcealed or concealed. Throughout the rest of the Commonwealth, a license is only necessary if one is carrying a concealed firearm or is carrying one in a vehicle. 18 Pa. C.S. section 6106(a).
   Philadelphia appellants reply brief at 12.
2. Municipal appellants also argue that the regulation of firearms is not uniform because 18 Pa.C.S. section 6109(e)(2) imposes requirements for the issuance of a license to carry concealed weapons in Philadelphia not imposed in any other county. House Bill 110, which eliminates any non-uniformity in licensing, was signed into law on June 13, 1995.
3. Municipal appellants cite a number of cases in support of this proposition, among which are the following. In Lennox v. Clark, 372 Pa. 355, 93 A.2d 834 (1953), Philadelphia was permitted to regulate "matters affecting merely the personnel and administration of the offices local to Philadelphia and which are of no concern to citizens elsewhere" 372 Pa. at 379, 93 A.2d 834 (Emphasis in original). In Warren v. Philadelphia, 382 Pa. 380. 115 A.2d 218 (1955), Philadelphia was permitted to regulate landlord and tenant matters because the ordinance in question did not conflict with the Landlord Act of 1951. In re Addison, 385 Pa. 48, 55, 122 A.2d 272 (1956), held that the although the General Assembly may regulate home rule municipalities in "substantive matters of State-wide concern," "matters affecting merely the personnel and administration of the offices local to Philadelphia and which are of no concern to citizens elsewhere" may not be regulated (Emphasis in original). In Ebald v. Philadelphia, 387 Pa. 407, 128 A.2d 352 (1957), this court reaffirmed its holding in Lennox v. Clark, supra, that the General Assembly may limit the powers of home rule municipalities "in relation to substantive matters of State-wide concern." More recently, in Commonwealth v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Assn., 505 Pa. 614, 483 A.2d 448 (1984), this court held that in dealing with two instrumentalities of the state, a municipal corporation and a state agency, the court would attempt to give effect to the statutes governing both by consideration of the consequences of various interpretations of the governing statutes. Ogontz is irrelevant to the question of state wide matters of substance versus purely local matters, since it concerns conflicting powers of two state entities, not conflicts between the General Assembly and a municipality. Warren also is irrelevant, since it did not involve a conflict between state and municipal regulation. The remaining cases merely stand for the proposition that the General Assembly may negate ordinances enacted by home rule municipalities only on substantive matters of statewide concern.

​

Philadelphia has also tried to pass other gun laws. What happens is once the first person has been charged under those illegal laws, all they need to do is petition the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court then nullifes those laws since the City of Philadelphia has no authority to pass their own gun laws.

Regarding the ability to disarm an individual who is open carrying and not commtitting a crime. That has been addressed in the case of Commonwealth V Hawkins.

[J-257-1996]​

​

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL HAWKINS,
Appellant
::::::::::::::::::::
No. 50 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996
Appeal from the December 15, 1995
order of the Superior Court at No.
2955 Philadelphia 1994, affirming
the order of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, M.R.
No. 94-8421, which denied a writ of
certiorari to the Philadelphia
Municipal Court, following
imposition of defendant's judgment
of sentence, M.C. #9311-2345
November term, 1993
349 Pa.Super. 615,
503 A.2d 48 (1985)
ARGUED: December 12, 1996
OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FLAHERTY DECIDED: April 22, 1997
This case concerns whether a police radio broadcast that a man of a
particular description is carrying a gun may serve as the justification for a
search of that person and the seizure of the gun he is carrying when the
arresting officer is unable to authenticate the telephone message on which the
radio broadcast was based or provide an independent basis for the stop and
frisk.
On November 19, 1993,a Philadelphia police officer responded to a radio
call that there was a man with a gun at Sydenham and York Streets. The suspect
was described as a black male wearing a blue cap, black jeans and a gold or
brownish coat. When the officer arrived, he observed Hawkins, who fitted the
radio description. He then stopped and frisked Hawkins, finding a .22 caliber
revolver in his waistband. At the suppression hearing, the officer stated that
he did not know the source of the information contained in the radio call. No
other testimony established the source of the call or the basis for the
J-257-1996-2
information.
On May 25, 1994, Hawkins was convicted of a violation of the Uniform​

Firearms Act

​

1 and sentenced to twenty-one months probation. A writ of

certiorari in the court of common pleas was denied and Hawkins appealed to

Superior Court. On July 20, 1994, Superior Court, in a memorandum opinion,
affirmed the conviction. This court granted allocatur.
The existing law with respect to searches such as the one conducted in
this case is based on Terry v. Ohio, supra, which held that police are
authorized under the Fourth Amendment to stop and temporarily detain citizens
short of an arrest when they can point to "specific and articulable facts"
causing them to have a reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity may be
afoot." 392 U.S. at 21, 30, 88 S.Ct. at ___, ___, 20 L.Ed.2d at 905-06, 911;
Commonwealth v. Melendez, ___ Pa. ___, 676 A.2d 226, 228 (1996); Commonwealth
v. Hicks, 434 Pa. 153, 160, ___ A.2d ___, ___ (1969). If police reasonably
believe that they may be in danger, they may conduct a limited pat-down search
of the suspect's outer garments for weapons. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85,
92-93, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238, 246 (1979); accord, Commonwealth v.
Melendez, supra. Thus, before police may briefly detain a person, there must
be reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and before police may pat down for
weapons, there must be a reasonable belief that the suspect is presently armed
and dangerous.​

2 The initial question with which any analysis of this case

must begin, therefore, is whether the police officer had grounds for reasonable

suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106, 6108.
2 Commonwealth v. Melendez, ___ Pa. ___, 676 A.2d. 226, 230 (1996) makes it clear that the
requirements of Terry are also the requirements of Art. I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we
decide the present case on the basis of Art. I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
J-257-1996-3
When police receive an anonymous call alleging that a person of a
particular description is carrying a gun at a particular location and the
police broadcast this information to radio patrol cars, neither the police
dispatcher nor the officers in the cars know whether the information is
reliable. It may be a prank call. For this reason, in Commonwealth v. Queen,
536 Pa. 315, 320, 639 A.2d 443 (1994), we held that "a stop and frisk may be
supported by a police radio bulletin only if evidence is offered at the
suppression hearing establishing the articulable facts which support the
reasonable suspicion."​

3 To hold otherwise would be to sanction police

interference with citizens upon less than the reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity required by Terry.
The Superior Court reasoned that because the officer arrived within three
minutes of receiving the call, because Hawkins fitted the description of the
man on the radio broadcast, and because Hawkins allegedly had a gun, there was
"sufficient corroboration" of the phone call to give the officer reasonable
suspicion that Hawkins was "armed and dangerous." Superior Court erroneously
believed that these factors were sufficient to justify the search of appellant
and the seizure of his gun.
If the police respond to an anonymous call that a particular person at a
specified location is engaged in criminal activity, and upon arriving at the
location see a person matching the description but nothing more, they have no
certain knowledge except that the caller accurately described someone at a
particular location. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the fact that a
suspect resembles the anonymous caller's description does not corroborate
3. Although it is not part of this case, the police might also justify an investigative stop based
on a tip if they knew the identity of the person giving the tip and the basis of his knowledge. See
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (an informant's veracity,
reliability, and basis of knowledge are "highly relevant" in determining whether the informant has
provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); Commonwealth v. Queen, supra.
Additionally, if the tip is anonymous, police may reasonably rely on it if is predictive of the
suspect's behavior. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
J-257-1996-4
allegations of criminal conduct, for anyone can describe a person who is
standing in a particular location at the time of the anonymous call. Something
more is needed to corroborate the caller's allegations of criminal conduct.
The fact that the subject of the call was alleged to be carrying a gun, of
course, is merely another allegation, and it supplies no reliability where
there was none before. And since there is no gun exception to the Terry
requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in the typical
anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to
establish the requisite reasonable suspicion.
The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to
stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has
a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,​

4 it is

difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the

Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray
schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go
undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such
invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not --
such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.
Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of
conflict where none need exist.
Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full
measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them
by Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and this court's relevant
caselaw. Upon receiving unverified information that a certain person is
engaged in illegal activity, the police may always observe the suspect and
conduct their own investigation. If police surveillance produces a reasonable
suspicion of criminal conduct, the suspect may, of course, be briefly stopped
4 In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See Ortiz v.
Commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a
license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the
Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license).
J-257-1996-5
and questioned (the Terry investigative stop), and, if the officer has
reasonable fear for his safety, police may pat down the suspect's outer
garments for weapons.​

5

In this case, the police acted on an anonymous tip and had no basis for

believing that the tip was reliable. They also had no independent reason to
believe that the suspect may have been involved in criminal activity. But
Queen requires that "a stop and frisk may be supported by a police radio
bulletin only if evidence is offered at the suppression hearing establishing
the articulable facts which support the reasonable suspicion." 536 Pa. at 320,
___ A.2d at ___. Here, no facts were offered which supported the suspicion
created by the anonymous call. The judgment of sentence must, therefore, be
reversed.
5 We do not address the scenario in which the officer has an independent reason to believe that a
crime (carrying an unlicensed gun) may be in progress, inquires as to whether the gun is licensed and
the person does not answer.
J-257-1996-6
Mr. Justice Nigro concurs in the result.
Madame Justice Newman files a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice​

Castille joins.​

​

Officer, you like Sgt Dougherty, do not know the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So lets review them some more.

Pennsylvania is an “open carry” state for firearms. That means that there is a presumption that carrying a loaded handgun in an exposed holster, for instance, is legal unless specifically prohibited by statute. Open carry of handgun while on foot does not require a license unless such person is in a City of First Class (18 Pa C.S. § 6108) or in areas of declared emergency. On the other hand, concealed carry of a handgun out in public, or any carrying of a handgun in any vehicle, is generally illegal without governmental authority (such as a license to carry firearms or a police commission, see RCW 18 Pa C.S. s. 6106(b) and 6109(a) for more information on those exceptions).
​

It is a felony crime to possess or carry any firearm (concealed or in the open) by convicted felons and convicted domestic violence offenders (see 18 Pa C.S. § 6105) and minors (see 18 Pa C.S. §6110.1) In addition to that, below are the portions of the selected laws that specifically illegalize the carrying of firearms. Underlines are added for emphasis. In order to save space, several large portions of the laws were not included; therefor, officers should refer to the complete Code and be familiar with the details of each. All sections are in chapter 18 unless otherwise noted.

Unless there is an actual possibility of threat against an officer or others (something besides the open carrying), taking someone’s firearm and handling it should be taken only under dire circumstances. Due to unfamiliarity with the differing forms of actions on firearms, there is a possibility of accidental discharge.

Unless there is a direct danger or threat, the appropriate reaction to open carry in vehicles, in a declared emergency, or in a city of First Class is to ask for a carry license. Any form of felony stop procedure for open carry by itself is unwarranted. – Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997)

Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. The significance of this is borne in §5301.

§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

ADVISORY NOTE: This advisory in its entirety serves as notice that open carry is lawful in Pennsylvania, and it is a right that is protected by state law, and by Article 1, Section 21 of the state constitution. Unless there is actual illegal conduct being committed, mistreatment by law enforcement officers of those who are lawfully open carrying may be subject to second degree misdemeanor charges. If you have a personal opinion against open carry by private civilians, there is no reason to share that opinion or belief with such a person that you are making contact with, as it is unprofessional. If a person is open carrying on foot, and unless such person is known to you for certain to not be allowed to possess firearms per §6105 or §6110.1, or is violating §912/§913, there is no reason for anything other than voluntary contact with said person, and even then must exercise their judgement to make said contact. If a person is doing so in a vehicle, or another time or place that requires a license or a statutory exemption, contact may be made specifically to ascertain if such person is exempted per §6106(b) or §6109. If they are determined to be licensed or exempted, the officer must allow the person to continue without delay. See: Commonwealth v. Hawkins.
​

If you do not believe me then please contact George Zaiser in Harrisburg, since he handles all of the firearm law issues for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Senior Deputy Attorney General George Zaiser
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-3391

 

Sounds like Russia, Must be nice to live where you cats have no thugs. How do you think a club would go down at a voting poll down here.CWP & lots of guns,Thank God, Jim

 

well in PA its legal to carry to a polling location...PA is extremely liberal with their guns laws there was a case where a man carried to a polling location a few years ago and he was accosted...he ended up winning after they revoked his LTCF

 

It is also legal to carry into a bar, and consume alcohol while carrying in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Constitution is the foundation of our state government-the well from which liberty and justice spring forth. Our first Constitution was adopted in 1776 and was a framework for the U.S. Constitution, which did not take effect until 1789.

The articles and amendments of the Pennsylvania Constitution compose the fundamental law of the Commonwealth. It ensures basic rights to our citizens, outlines the structure of our government, and provides the rules by which our representatives are elected and how they conduct the business of the state.

The Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution predates and was a model for the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. It is primarily a list of "don'ts" for the General Assembly in that it prohibits the enactment of laws that would infringe on certain rights.

When it comes to the issues of the right to keep and bear arms, the wording of the Pennsylvania Constitution is much clearer than the United States Constitution.

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

We are currently working on legislation to expand the use of force, up to and including deadly force, for self-protection in the Commonwealth. This legislation will also provide civil liability protection for the when force is used against a criminal. Both the House (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2011&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=40) and the Senate (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=S&type=B&BN=0273) have introducted this legislation. The Senate version has been voted out of the Senate and the Governor has already stated that he would sign the bill when it reaches his desk, he said this last year when he was the State Attorney General, which is our State's highest law enforcement position.


Next items on our legislative agenda include, and I have already seen the draft legislation, so this is reality folks.

• Removal of the requirement to have a LTCF to open carry in Philadelphia.
• Removal of the requirement to have a LTCF to open carry in a vehicle.
• Last but not least, Constitutional Carry, which is permitless state-wide concealed carry.

One last thing.

Hey PhillyTacoma here is a link to a letter from the Philadelphia District Attorney's office stating that open carry is legal in Philadelphia with a LTCF.

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkba/archive/PhiladelphiaDALetter.pdf

You might want to print that out and share it with the rest of your coworker's who don't understand the laws of the Commonwealth.

If you don't believe the letter or what I have written, give Pat a call in the D.A.'s office, his number is in the PDF link above. He will school your ass in the law, since it is cops like you and Sgt. Dougherty who are costing the City of Philadelphia millions of dollars in civil rights lawsuits.

 

PhillyTacoma here is some more information for you.​

Last legislative session the Thune-Vitter amendment to S. 1290, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, would require all states to recognize concealed carry licenses and permits from every other state, just the same as those states now recognize a driver’s license from another state. The bill amendment required 60 votes due to a threatened fillibuster by Senator Schumer (D-NY). It came up 2 votes short, 58 to 39. ​

During the last election cycle the Senate picked up at least 8 pro-gun Senators, so this will be a cake walk though the Senate this year. So the legislation has been introduced to the House as H.R. 822 (see the text of the bill below).​

Once this has passed the House and Senate, I expect the President to sign it, just like he signed the law restoring the right to carry concealed and open firearms in National Parks.​

Once passed and signed into law, any person with a permit issues by any state can carry in any state that allows concealed carry. Currently only 2 states do not allow concealed carry. Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois is currenlty in the process of passing concealed carry. Wisconsin is also working on passing concealed carry, but already allows state-wide open carry. ​

===========================================​

H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)​

HR 822 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 822
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL


To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

• The Congress finds the following:

• • (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

• • (2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

• • (3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

• • (4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

• • (5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

• • (6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

• • (7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

• • (8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

• • (9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

• • (10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

• (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

• `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

• • `(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

• • `(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

• `(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

• `(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

• `(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.

• (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

• • `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

• (c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

• (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

Moose thanks for the post.Nice to know some in Pa.understand folks rights.Law men like Philly taco scare me. JHHO Jim