Open Carry Phily Incident Charges Filed

[johnoutdoors 10]

The above quotation is not a sentence.

 

 

It is in fact a sentence with a subject and a verb. It is poor grammar to start a sentence with a preposition, but that doesn't change its meaning in this case.

[vjf915 456]

This thread was extremely entertaining.....and the Grammar Police f*cking ruined it.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

FearThisinc

 

with a name like that we SHOULD listen to him! Why is he here? To help us understand our ridiculous gun laws in this state?

[Dr. KGM 1]

How many gramatical mistakes are allowed before i get punted off the forum???

[Malsua 1,422]

No one has posted Directive 137, so here it is.

 

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

 

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS

SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

 

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED "FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED

CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS

REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE

REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE

DIRECTIVE.

 

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS

CONSIDERED AN "OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF

PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,

WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

"OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY

CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

 

"OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS

PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S

PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

 

"CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC

LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON

TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR

VEHICLE.

 

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR

ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A

FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY

FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A

VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN

LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR

CONCEALED.

 

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM

OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC

INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

 

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA

AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES

AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT

IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY

DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A

FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS

OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

 

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY

DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,

BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

 

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP

WOULD BE A "POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

 

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO

OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,

OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION

BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

 

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID

(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS

TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND

TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES

FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD

BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS

" EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE

PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

[LorenzoS 100]

Mark, thanks for posting that but I think you accidentally cut off one section:

 

5. Unless the officer does not like the law,

in which case the officer can do whatever

the fugg he wants, then claim it was

necessary in the name of his "safety."

 

A. After ignoring the law, the officer and

prosecutor will manufacture a bogus charge

against the person in order to put him

on the legal defensive.

 

So, I think that really clears up any confusion over the issue.

[mipafox 438]

Please understand what I am saying here.... and Bob and I went back and forth on this in the earlier thread. I agree with everything this guy did, except when the rubber hit the road, he acted poorly, as did the initial responding officer. After listening to the recording many times and reading his threads I just get the feeling that he always had in the back of his mind the idea of laying a trap for monetary gain. He never says it... And I have no proof. It is purely a vibe you get from reading statements he has made.

 

Are you aware that Mark has been working WITH the PPD for several months, trying to get them to educate their officers about this issue? He even got his police liason to have a new directive issued to all departments stating that OC in Philly is legal (even though the directive was not perfect).

 

If it is his intention to trap PPD for monetary gain, why is he working so hard to educate them to stay out of his trap?

[Vlad G 345]

Here is an intersting read which touches upon a lot of the themes in this thread, while focusing on terrorism.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Full of FAIL...

 

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

 

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS

SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

 

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED "FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED

CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS

REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE

REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE

DIRECTIVE.

 

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS

CONSIDERED AN "OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF

PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,

WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

"OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY

CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

 

"OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS

PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S

PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

 

"CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC

LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON

TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR

VEHICLE.

 

There is no such thing in Pennsylvania. There is only a "License To Carry a Firearm" (LTCF) which does not specifiy, or require, a particular mode of carry.

 

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR

ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A

FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY

FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A

VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN

LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR

CONCEALED.

 

Again, no such thing - must have a LTCF to carry openly or concealed in Philly

 

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM

OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC

INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

 

This is the crux of the Mark Fiorino incident. The mere carrying of a firearm - openly or otherwise - in the absence of any bad acts, does not rise to the level of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) and thus the stop would be illegal. This is tantamount to stopping every automobile to make sure the driver is licensed.

 

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA

AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES

AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT

IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY

DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A

FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS

OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

 

It is neither reasonable nor legal to stop and detain a citizen without RAS.

 

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY

DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,

BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

 

Here is an accident waiting to happen. If they don't know the laws, how can we expect them to be knowledgeable about every weapon and carry/retention system. Some LEO is going to end up shooting themselves, the detainee or an innocent bystander - last sentence notwithstanding.

 

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP

WOULD BE A "POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

 

How does one justify an illegal stop and detain? Simple, "I was just following orders." Where have we heard that before?

 

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO

OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,

OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION

BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

 

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID

(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS

TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND

TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES

FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD

BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS

" EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE

PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

 

Fishing expeditions are not allowed under the law, and that is all this amounts to.

 

It was really funny listening to Commisioner Ramsey reiterate this tripe on the Dom Giordano show yesterday. He even went so far as to say he fully backs the officer (sargent) that made the initial stop and advises all officers to follow this protocol (absent the profanity) in future encounters with OC citizens.

 

It wasn't until I thought about it that I realized Mark has them by the short hairs. For Ramsey to say anything else would be an admission of wrongdoing and an instant loss in the civil suit that Mark has brought against the city.

 

Stay tuned - this may play itself out in the MSM, but not within the firearm community.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

 

[almiz111 26]

This thread was extremely entertaining.....and the Grammar Police f*cking ruined it.

 

 

Agree 100% or +1 or whatever is kool to say.

Liten up folks. These posts are conctantly fuel of typos, bad spelling, bad grammer and more. I aint got no problem wif dat.

It is only a problem when the errors change the meaning.

Once again (I am a copy cat) from Rodney - "Can't we all just get along?"

Peace and love and lots-o-guns.

[Shane45 807]

I admit, short on time I didnt get to detail read this thread so Im not sure it was brought up already BUT one thing that really bothers me. This is the second time recently I have seen a post incident abuse of power when the Govt entity gets publicly embaressed for their actions and then decide to prosecute. To me this is a danger. This is an abuse of power and position used to effect retribution on an individual. The other case was a sport bike rider. He went up on one and an off duty decided to go commando on him blocking him in traffic, approaching without identifying himself and drawing his weapon. All caught on the bike cam. Bike guy payed his ticket etc etc all done. posted the incident on youtube complaining about excessive force. BAM wacked out trumped up prosection after the fact.

 

To me this shows the "mind" of the agencies envolved here that are willing to inflict punsihment on those that may expose wrong doing. This is the kind of mind that causes rift to expand between LE and its citizensthe furthering the us/them mentality. Its my opinion that this is part of the fundamental problem. I talk with a LOT of LE. An interesting contrast. I shoot with a lot of long time LE who seem to be on the same side of the fence as us despite what the "brass and politiciens" spoon feed them. Contrast that with new LE and its a very different mind set. About 2 weeks ago I was chatting with a new officer, 6 months on the job. He was wearing a shirt that said "a citizenry that would turn on its police doesnt deserver their protection" or some such thing. I cant remember exactly. So it was no suprise that when I was introduced as a shooter, the young lad belted out only police should have guns, there is no reason for anyone else too. So after swallowing all the blood in my mouth from biting my tongue near off, I was actually able to pull him aside and have a long chat with him. MUCH to his credit he gave a great deal of consideration to the logical arguments I presented him with. And I "THINK" that I may have swayed him considerably or at least opened his eyes to valid considerations from the other side of the fence. He actually asked for my email if he had more questions on our discussion. But this certainly shows the indoc that can take place and the mindset that follows. Its a real danger that officers can be led down this path unabated. I can absolutely bet a large sum that prior to my convo with this officer, an encounter with a gun owner would be significantly different pre and post conversation. Simply by the ream of gun law myths I dispelled during our conversation alone!

[vladtepes 1,060]

if you WORE your LTCF around your neck where it was totally visible.. would that remove any ability for LEO to harass you since it is in plain view..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

if you WORE your LTCF around your neck where it was totally visible.. would that remove any ability for LEO to harass you since it is in plain view..

They should issue you a small pin or badge which you can wear, this way it is not something that can be easily ruined and its not an eyesore. I've actually seen them before which is what makes me think about it. You could keep it pinned to your belt right next to the firearm so it's hard to miss. The question is... is it really necessary?

[SSlav 14]

They should issue you a small pin or badge which you can wear, this way it is not something that can be easily ruined and its not an eyesore. I've actually seen them before which is what makes me think about it. You could keep it pinned to your belt right next to the firearm so it's hard to miss. The question is... is it really necessary?

 

 

I got it...how about a yellow six pointed star? That should do the trick. Nothing beats an old classic.

[FearThisInc 35]

I don't think a badge would work lol.. I think that would cause more problems then solutions.. But even in plain view it will come to "Is it real?".. sort of like the guys that drive cars with paper copies of license plates.. (for those unfamiliar license plates are scanned and printed on paper and placed behind those plastic shields to make it look like a legit plate).. At least being able to inspect will assist in determining authenticity.. What should be given are i.d.'s that are similar to NJ driver's licenses that have security measures placed around them.. If open carry were to become something easily attained (not like it is now) then I would think at the very start guys would get id'd often but it would slowly come to a stop as it would be an every day occurrence.. But again.. Most guys are against the whole showing proper id's and whatnot if they are not doing anything illegal.. But once again you have to remember that no body will truly know if you are permitted to carry other then yourself.. So a stop and show id is not totally absurd to think of.. As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.. So what cop or any other person is going to know if you have proper documentation.. It should be a simple 2-3 minute ordeal.. Officer asks for id.. Person shows id.. and on their way.. And shouldn't be that big a hassle coming from a state that the only way to get a carry permit is to either have a security job or deal with large amounts of money which even then you have to go above and beyond to prove yourself...

[KpdPipes 388]

So laws don't prevent people at all from committing a crime?? How could you even say that.. Laws prevent crime everyday.. Because people know if they break the law there is a price that will be paid.. So talk all you want about how they don't prevent crime when in fact they do.. I am not saying that laws stop EVERY crime from happening.. But they do stop some.. example.. Two guys get into an argument.. One guy slept with the others wife/girl.. The guy can easily kill the second guy.. Why doesn't he?? Because the law says that if he does he will go to jail.. So he doesn't kill the guy.. While the same scenario can end differently how many times does it end with nothing happening? How many jobs where guys say they would have done this or that but because they know they will get locked up for it they chose not to.. Because they know the law says they cannot do it.. So by saying laws don't stop crime is kinda of absurd.. Glad I look like a moron for having a view on a situation.. I can feel however I want on any given situation.. You don't have to like it or agree with it.. While you may want zero control over guns I feel that some control is necessary..

 

Keep talking sport, you're making yourself look worse.. or did you PURPOSELY ignore the fact that I specifically stated 2C:39???. You seem to do that..try to derail a discussion by using a completely irrelevant scenario. Gun laws ONLY affect people who will follow the law....criminals are going to violate them no matter what. Pookie from Grafton Ave isnt going to go get his permit..or worry that 30 days hasnt passed before he buys his second gun. The Good, LAW ABIDING people YOU HAVE BEEN IMpuning here will. Son My SHOES have more time on the job than you do so just Shut....The....F*&K....UP and go somewhere where your views will be appreciated... Oh and for the record, NJ Lawman isnt the place either Those uf us in Law Enforcement who dont see Average Joe as the Enemy shut down the last asshat who started the "Citizens shouldnt have guns" nonsense there. One more last thought for you and I'm finished. Dont EVER leave the state of NJ partner..you may hyst have your nuts shrivel up and fall off if you go to a Free State where God Forbid, the Citizens are TREATED like Citizens..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

So basically every time i turn a corner and meet a new officer i have to stop and show him my paperwork... we'll see how far that goes until someone gets pissed for being stopped and harassed 5 times in one day. 2-3 mins is a joke... a routine traffic stop should only take 2-3 mins and they take 20 mins on avg.

[Wastegate 9]

So basically every time i turn a corner and meet a new officer i have to stop and show him my paperwork... we'll see how far that goes until someone gets pissed for being stopped and harassed 5 times in one day. 2-3 mins is a joke... a routine traffic stop should only take 2-3 mins and they take 20 mins on avg.

 

[Duppie 73]

Keep talking sport, you're making yourself look worse.. or did you PURPOSELY ignore the fact that I specifically stated 2C:39???. You seem to do that..try to derail a discussion by using a completely irrelevant scenario. Gun laws ONLY affect people who will follow the law....criminals are going to violate them no matter what. Pookie from Grafton Ave isnt going to go get his permit..or worry that 30 days hasnt passed before he buys his second gun. The Good, LAW ABIDING people YOU HAVE BEEN IMpuning here will. Son My SHOES have more time on the job than you do so just Shut....The....F*&K....UP and go somewhere where your views will be appreciated... Oh and for the record, NJ Lawman isnt the place either Those uf us in Law Enforcement who dont see Average Joe as the Enemy shut down the last asshat who started the "Citizens shouldnt have guns" nonsense there. One more last thought for you and I'm finished. Dont EVER leave the state of NJ partner..you may hyst have your nuts shrivel up and fall off if you go to a Free State where God Forbid, the Citizens are TREATED like Citizens..

 

Epic....

[Shane45 807]

I think some clarification is in order. In my opinion Laws do prevent crime. With that being said, the type of crimes we are talking about are generally comitted by the more hard core criminal. And in this context I think its true that they give very little consideration for the law and are generally not affected in the decision making process much by their existance. And if you dig deeper you will find that some laws are actually constructed around that fact. For example you will generally find the death penalty specifically avoided for rape. Why? The answer is that lawmakers didnt want to provide motivation for the rapist to snuff the rapee!

[Dan 177]

I don't think a badge would work lol.. I think that would cause more problems then solutions.. But even in plain view it will come to "Is it real?".. sort of like the guys that drive cars with paper copies of license plates.. (for those unfamiliar license plates are scanned and printed on paper and placed behind those plastic shields to make it look like a legit plate).. At least being able to inspect will assist in determining authenticity.. What should be given are i.d.'s that are similar to NJ driver's licenses that have security measures placed around them.. If open carry were to become something easily attained (not like it is now) then I would think at the very start guys would get id'd often but it would slowly come to a stop as it would be an every day occurrence.. But again.. Most guys are against the whole showing proper id's and whatnot if they are not doing anything illegal.. But once again you have to remember that no body will truly know if you are permitted to carry other then yourself.. So a stop and show id is not totally absurd to think of.. As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.. So what cop or any other person is going to know if you have proper documentation.. It should be a simple 2-3 minute ordeal.. Officer asks for id.. Person shows id.. and on their way.. And shouldn't be that big a hassle coming from a state that the only way to get a carry permit is to either have a security job or deal with large amounts of money which even then you have to go above and beyond to prove yourself...

 

FALSE, read the NJ firearms statutes specifically around possession exemptions.

[djg0770 481]

Papers Please!

[Malsua 1,422]

As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.

 

Completely untrue.

 

If you are within the exemptions laid out in the statutes, no paperwork is required. No ownership paperwork, no Firearms Purchaser ID. NOTHING. ZERO. 100% Legal. You're one of the asshats LEOs who probably believes you need a Firearms Purchaser ID to own a handgun.

 

-You can inherit them without paperwork

-You can bring them from a free state without paperwork

-You could have purchased them while your active duty station was in a free state

-You could have even purchased them IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY and brought them to NJ WITHOUT PAPERWORK.

-You can transport them to or from Your home or property you posses, a range, a gunsmith, a business you own and hunting WITHOUT ANY PAPERWORK.

[Duppie 73]

I don't think a badge would work lol.. I think that would cause more problems then solutions.. But even in plain view it will come to "Is it real?".. sort of like the guys that drive cars with paper copies of license plates.. (for those unfamiliar license plates are scanned and printed on paper and placed behind those plastic shields to make it look like a legit plate).. At least being able to inspect will assist in determining authenticity.. What should be given are i.d.'s that are similar to NJ driver's licenses that have security measures placed around them.. If open carry were to become something easily attained (not like it is now) then I would think at the very start guys would get id'd often but it would slowly come to a stop as it would be an every day occurrence.. But again.. Most guys are against the whole showing proper id's and whatnot if they are not doing anything illegal.. But once again you have to remember that no body will truly know if you are permitted to carry other then yourself.. So a stop and show id is not totally absurd to think of.. As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.. So what cop or any other person is going to know if you have proper documentation.. It should be a simple 2-3 minute ordeal.. Officer asks for id.. Person shows id.. and on their way.. And shouldn't be that big a hassle coming from a state that the only way to get a carry permit is to either have a security job or deal with large amounts of money which even then you have to go above and beyond to prove yourself...

 

I for one tried so hard to give you the benefit of the doubt throughout this long and heated debate but now I believe it is time for you to reassess your participation in this and perhaps future treads on this forum. Instead of learning from obviously better informed members and saying your mea culpas, you have insisted on following one erroneous statement with another and another. I would urge you to follow your brother officer's advice, if indeed you are a LEO, desist for commenting any further least I, and others who were a little more charitable to your views lose all respect not only for you but those in your profession.

You must understand that what ever you opine on from now on will probably be dismissed or even worse...Ignored and I don't believe that is what you set out to accomplish at the onset of this debate. We all don certain personas when conversing on line or in a forum... Yours unfortunately through your own fault and yours alone,in my mind is now "ASSHAT".

[Babyface Finster 45]

Wow, this guy is a piece of work. I especially love the way he defends himself by arguing points that are not in question.

 

You give respect to get respect..

 

Does this apply to the police as well? I'm not seeing how, "Yo, junior, what are you doing?" was in any way respectful.

[axeman_g 128]

Are you aware that Mark has been working WITH the PPD for several months, trying to get them to educate their officers about this issue? He even got his police liason to have a new directive issued to all departments stating that OC in Philly is legal (even though the directive was not perfect).

 

If it is his intention to trap PPD for monetary gain, why is he working so hard to educate them to stay out of his trap?

 

I saw that Mark was working with suburban PDs in Bucks County, not Philly PD directly. Please agree to disagree on this with me, I dont like how he went about his business, even though I agree with his goals. The main subject is the OC right, the infringement and petty reprisal not Mark's methods.

[axeman_g 128]

Full of FAIL...

 

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

 

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS

SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

 

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED "FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED

CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS

REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE

REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE

DIRECTIVE.

 

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS

CONSIDERED AN "OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF

PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,

WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

"OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY

CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

 

"OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS

PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S

PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

 

"CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC

LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON

TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR

VEHICLE.

 

There is no such thing in Pennsylvania. There is only a "License To Carry a Firearm" (LTCF) which does not specifiy, or require, a particular mode of carry.

 

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR

ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A

FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY

FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A

VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN

LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR

CONCEALED.

 

Again, no such thing - must have a LTCF to carry openly or concealed in Philly

 

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM

OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC

INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

 

This is the crux of the Mark Fiorino incident. The mere carrying of a firearm - openly or otherwise - in the absence of any bad acts, does not rise to the level of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) and thus the stop would be illegal. This is tantamount to stopping every automobile to make sure the driver is licensed.

 

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA

AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES

AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT

IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY

DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A

FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS

OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

 

It is neither reasonable nor legal to stop and detain a citizen without RAS.

 

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY

DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,

BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

 

Here is an accident waiting to happen. If they don't know the laws, how can we expect them to be knowledgeable about every weapon and carry/retention system. Some LEO is going to end up shooting themselves, the detainee or an innocent bystander - last sentence notwithstanding.

 

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP

WOULD BE A "POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

 

How does one justify an illegal stop and detain? Simple, "I was just following orders." Where have we heard that before?

 

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO

OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,

OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION

BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

 

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID

(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS

TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND

TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES

FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD

BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS

" EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE

PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

 

Fishing expeditions are not allowed under the law, and that is all this amounts to.

 

It was really funny listening to Commisioner Ramsey reiterate this tripe on the Dom Giordano show yesterday. He even went so far as to say he fully backs the officer (sargent) that made the initial stop and advises all officers to follow this protocol (absent the profanity) in future encounters with OC citizens.

 

It wasn't until I thought about it that I realized Mark has them by the short hairs. For Ramsey to say anything else would be an admission of wrongdoing and an instant loss in the civil suit that Mark has brought against the city.

 

Stay tuned - this may play itself out in the MSM, but not within the firearm community.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I have found myself disagreeing with Pizza Bob on this forum many times, but this post is right on target. Getting rid of all the entertainment from the reported super cop above, the basic elements of this event is the illegality of the stop in the first place. The Directive 137 shows that PA is off base here and not only is the city of Philadelphia in trouble, the state may be as well. That directive is dated 9/10... and has glaring issues in it. I see this case effecting Harrisburg as well.

 

By the way what is "...POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION"

[kenw 293]

I'm busy for a day, and this happens

 

I don't think a badge would work lol.. I think that would cause more problems then solutions.. But even in plain view it will come to "Is it real?".. sort of like the guys that drive cars with paper copies of license plates.. (for those unfamiliar license plates are scanned and printed on paper and placed behind those plastic shields to make it look like a legit plate).. At least being able to inspect will assist in determining authenticity.. What should be given are i.d.'s that are similar to NJ driver's licenses that have security measures placed around them.. If open carry were to become something easily attained (not like it is now) then I would think at the very start guys would get id'd often but it would slowly come to a stop as it would be an every day occurrence.. But again.. Most guys are against the whole showing proper id's and whatnot if they are not doing anything illegal.. But once again you have to remember that no body will truly know if you are permitted to carry other then yourself.. So a stop and show id is not totally absurd to think of.. As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.. So what cop or any other person is going to know if you have proper documentation.. It should be a simple 2-3 minute ordeal.. Officer asks for id.. Person shows id.. and on their way.. And shouldn't be that big a hassle coming from a state that the only way to get a carry permit is to either have a security job or deal with large amounts of money which even then you have to go above and beyond to prove yourself...

I've been trying to maintain my composure, and be one of the adults here, but this is over the line. It may be that I'm a Jew, and that my family has a history under Fascism, but are you Fcuking serious??? This is America, and in America, I'm not required to show anything simply on demand of authority. You're saying that if I'm quietly walking down the street, it's okay for a cop to come over and ask to see my ID without any reason whatsoever? Are you insane?

 

This is the reason the educational system frightens me more every day. This is the kind of indoctrination that our children are bombarded with when they're outside the home. "We're from the government, and we care about you. Simply comply, and all will be well". Yeah, until they start filling up the boxcars and disappearing anyone who dares resist the benevolent and loving government.

 

I don't blame you for your perspective. You're a product of your education and environment. I do, however, question you stubbornly sticking to your argument, repeating the same absurd dogma, in light of so much actual information to the contrary. Even from at least one of your very own peers, and certainly from any number of people who are obviously better versed in the actual law than you are.

 

You are a jackbooted Fascist thug, and if you are representative of the quality and caliber of people entering Law Enforcement, I fear for the future of our freedoms and of our country.

 

And additionally,

 

As we all know it is illegal in NJ to possess a firearm without proper documentation.

 

is completely wrong, and at the very least, as a LEO participating on a firearms forum, you should take the time to actually learn the friggin' laws.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

The Directive 137 shows that PA is off base here and not only is the city of Philadelphia in trouble, the state may be as well. That directive is dated 9/10... and has glaring issues in it. I see this case effecting Harrisburg as well.

 

By the way what is "...POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION"

 

 

Axe:

 

Thanks for the kind words. This is not a state problem (other than the AG should be kicking a$$ and taking names in Philly), Directive 137 is PPD generated and distributed to their officers. I believe this is the bulletin that resulted from Mark's first encounter with the PPD and their illegal confiscation of his gun. Even after it was explained to them with various cites etc, this is what they came up with - as I said, full of FAIL.

 

I am assuming that VUFA stands for "Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act", so VUFA Violation is redundant - we can't expect them to know all the laws and grammer too.....ohhhhh wait a minute.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Soju 153]

Axe:

 

Thanks for the kind words. This is not a state problem (other than the AG should be kicking a$$ and taking names in Philly), Directive 137 is PPD generated and distributed to their officers. I believe this is the bulletin that resulted from Mark's first encounter with the PPD and their illegal confiscation of his gun. Even after it was explained to them with various cites etc, this is what they came up with - as I said, full of FAIL.

 

I am assuming that VUFA stands for "Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act", so VUFA Violation is redundant - we can't expect them to know all the laws and grammer too.....ohhhhh wait a minute.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Well, I'd cut them some slack on the failure to use the proper LTCF term...as long as they know what it is referring to. I'd be more concerned with the other stuff you pointed out, particularly the fact they issued a directive that said, for all intents and purposes, that is is okay to violate the 4th amendment. But who can remember all of them right? I mean that one is number four! There are three others before it to remember! Oh wait... I think one of those before it has something to do with firearms...no, never mind. Just something about

 

 

So forget that.