|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > Wilkes Barre spokeswoman erroneously claim PA police have access to "weapon ownership info&
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > Wilkes Barre spokeswoman erroneously claim PA police have access to "weapon ownership info&
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Wow - talk about an Orwellian response by the City of Wilkes Barre! The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says that the State Police handgun transfer database is a "non-ownership registry," Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. Rendell, 580 Pa. 149, 860 A.2d 10, 22, n.7 (Pa. 2004). So to Wilkes Barre, that means the database contains "weapon ownership information." -- http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19763651&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=571464&rfi=6 ‘Open carry’ issue occurs in city 06/11/2008 [url=javascript: openEmailWindow();] A simmering issue over the right to openly bear arms in public made its way to Wilkes-Barre this weekend. Police stopped a New Jersey man with a gun in a holster on his hip around 9:30 p.m. Saturday at Sherman and South streets. Upon questioning the man, police seized his gun and took it to headquarters. He was then free to go and wasn’t charged. Officers took the gun because initial reports were the man had the gun in his hand and “proper ownership of the weapon could not be established,” the city said in a press release Tuesday. The gun will remain in police custody until ownership is established, the release said. A dozen members of a gun rights group brought this “open carry” issue to the forefront last month by openly carrying their guns into dinner at a Dickson City restaurant. The group is criticizing Wilkes-Barre police’s actions. “They had no lawful right to seize his property. There is no more reason to establish ownership of a handgun than it is for your cell phone,” said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. “We now have two instances in the same region of Pennsylvania in which police think they could confiscate guns under this color of proving ownership.” Pennsylvania does not have a gun registry. A Philadelphia lawmaker last year introduced a bill to create one, but it failed badly. In the aftermath of the Dickson City case, Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola said, in general, people have a right to openly carry a weapon without having to show identification or a permit. “Police can ask, but if they don’t want to give it, they don’t have to,” he said. “It’s going to be surprising to the public, but that’s the current state of law.” Police officials and attorneys at the time noted police could not confiscate someone’s gun to check ownership without reasonable suspicion. Wilkes-Barre police say they were called to investigate the incident on Saturday when neighbors made a complaint of a man standing at East Northampton and Sherman streets with a gun in his hand. That was not reasonable suspicion of any crime, said Stollenwerk. Stollenwerk is not sure how exactly the man will “establish ownership.” Some gun owners do not have any paper documentation, he said. “I have nothing, except that it’s on my hip or in my gun safe,” he said. City spokeswoman Bridget Giunta said the person was stopped because “officers responded to a complaint of a man with a gun in his hand.” She said weapon ownership information is maintained by the state police and stolen status can also be ascertained by running the serial number through a database. The “open carry” movement is apparently gaining popularity nationwide. The Los Angeles Times last week published a comprehensive story about the growing movement, noting it is legal, but often frowned upon by police. The story was called, “Packing in public: Gun owners tired of hiding their weapons embrace ‘open carry.’” |
|||||||||
|
possumboy Regular Member 
|
I do not know if I can convey this thought correctly: Wilkes-Barre police is now on record stating they are using the State Police handgun transfer database in a way contrary to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling. That cannot be good for them. Sounds like they are trying to cover up one mistake with something that might sound good, but is a against current case law. Last edited on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 01:10 pm by possumboy |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member 
|
Wow, talk about abuse of authority. I would also be interested in hearing the 911 tapes (which we know from another thread can be hidden, er kept, from the public) to find out if the "man with a gun in his hand" is even true. The police could be just lying through their teeth about that considering that they can withhold the 911 tapes and never have to prove that part of their story. And this is how it works. First they violated a PA supreme court ruling and state law and then anything they have done becomes suspect and people wonder how many other illegal or unethical things they have done. LEOs are often their own worst enemy in the public relations battle. |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher 
|
Tomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
If anyone from out here in the west plans to attend, I'd like to tag along in any potential carpools. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Tomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session Good thinking! But as our man "AJ" in New Jersey has not really surfaced in this matter, I do not think the time is yet ripe to go to the City Council and speak - we need more details and more time for the police to do the right thing and maybe contact AJ and rush his gun to him thru a PA FFL to a NJ FFL. AJ should not have to pay $4+ per gallon to drive to PA to get his gun back! |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member 
|
It is ironic that PSP justified maintaining this "database" as a tool for returning a recovered firearm to its rightful owner. How this tool is actually being used seems quite different indeed. |
|||||||||
|
Rogue9er Activist Member 
|
Mike wrote: Pa. Patriot wrote:Tomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session As I understand it PA Patriot is working with him to make something happen. Many of the experienced guys and some attorneys are on the ball for this. So far they've advised him to keep quiet for the moment. I've been watching this over on pafoa. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member 
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Tomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session  Gotta love those city council meetings... Actually, I might be heading up to Scranton tomorrow night to pick up a friend later in the evening... |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Pa. Patriot wrote:Oh yeah ... a "wink wink nudge nudge" friend or a "grab a six pack, rebuild the truck tranny, clean the guns and watch the game" friend? Just being noseyTomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session  |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Tomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular sessionNever mind. I was looking at the 2007 schedule. Last edited on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 09:54 pm by gnbrotz |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member 
|
Wilkes-Barre City Council meeting - regular session 6:00 PM, Thursday, July 10, 2008 Located in City Council Chambers on the 4th floor of City Hall - 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
For those who can make it, don't forget to OC! |
|||||||||
|
massltca Regular Member 
|
ne1 wrote: It is ironic that PSP justified maintaining this "database" as a tool for returning a recovered firearm to its rightful owner. How this tool is actually being used seems quite different indeed. That's a crock, they seem more interested in relieving lawful gun owners of their property than returning it.  |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
Posted by Pa. Patriot over on PAFOA:Due to numerous circumstances we have decided next month session will be a better choice. Will start a separate thread at the appropriate time.Looks like things will be delayed until next month. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Looks like things will be delayed until next month. Agreed, especially since this month's meeting was yesterday. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
ThStatkowski wrote: That was only a "work session". Tomorrow is their "regular session"....the page could certainly be formatted better!Looks like things will be delayed until next month. |
|||||||||
|
VApatriot Regular Member 
|
Can anyone speak on the claim that the OCer was holding his gun in his hand? Was he brandishing; did the 911 caller make a false statement, or is the article just wrong? |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
VApatriot wrote: Can anyone speak on the claim that the OCer was holding his gun in his hand? Was he brandishing; did the 911 caller make a false statement, or is the article just wrong? Nobody can speak to this - 911 calls are not FOIAable, the victim is not talking, etc. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
deepdiver wrote: imperialism2024 wrote:Pa. Patriot wrote:Oh yeah ... a "wink wink nudge nudge" friend or a "grab a six pack, rebuild the truck tranny, clean the guns and watch the game" friend? Just being noseyTomorrow is WB city council's monthly regular session Well, um...  Anyhow, I guess I'll pencil in next month's city council meeting... |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member 
|
massltca wrote: ne1 wrote:It is ironic that PSP justified maintaining this "database" as a tool for returning a recovered firearm to its rightful owner. How this tool is actually being used seems quite different indeed. I was kicking around an idea in the Virginia forum. What would happen if you placed electrical tape over the serial number of your hand gun? IANAL, but it does not appear to violate either federal or Virginia State law. The PA code is foreign to me. What does it say about obscuring serial numbers? Assuming that the electrical tape is legal in PA, then how, short of a warrant, could the police legally remove the tape and discover your firearms serial number? No more Habeas Arma! Habeas Arma Incognetus Numero |
|||||||||
|
possumboy Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: I was kicking around an idea in the Virginia forum. What would happen if you placed electrical tape over the serial number of your hand gun? IANAL, but it does not appear to violate either federal or Virginia State law. The PA code is foreign to me. What does it say about obscuring serial numbers? The way I see it, they need a warrant to remove my firearm from my holster if I am not doing anything illegal. If they are willing to do that, removing a piece of tape is not even a thought. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
possumboy wrote: Thundar wrote:I was kicking around an idea in the Virginia forum. What would happen if you placed electrical tape over the serial number of your hand gun? IANAL, but it does not appear to violate either federal or Virginia State law. The PA code is foreign to me. What does it say about obscuring serial numbers? I share your sentiment, but unfortunately there is the Terry v. Ohio ruling. There during a detention based on RAS, not PC, the police officer can disarm you and do a cursory search for police officer safety. If the police officer can remove your gun from you he can read the serial number on the gun. He can use that to querry the imaginary Pennsylvania gun registry that we are learning about, and in the most recent case, claim that the gun's ownership is in doubt and seize the gun. I know that all of this recent stuff is B.S., but why should we allow the police to read the serial number of our guns? Terry would not permit the removal of electrical tape because the electrical tape does not threaten the safety of the police officer. No way to "check if the gun is yours" if they cannot read the serial number.  If a police officer removed the electrical tape without a warrant, that would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.  - AGAIN IANAL and I cannot confirm with any case law that obscuring a serial number with electrical tape is legal. Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 01:13 am by Thundar |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Hmm from "sterile carry" to "electrical tape carry". Nice. |
|||||||||
|
Steve in PA Regular Member
|
Terry v. Ohio states the pat down for weapons must be based on the notion that the person may be armed and dangerous. The officer cannot merely walk up to a person and pat him down as a matter of course. The officer would have to articulate why he felt the person may be armed and/or dangerous. The officer can ask if he can pat you down. If you agree.........oh well. You gave consent to the pat down. If an officer thinks you are carrying concealed..........is that justification for the pat down? Since concealed carry is a legal act and permitted by law......what makes the officer think he might be a threat? The mere carrying? Officer safety is usually the reason for the disarming and I think the courts have seen this as something the officer should be allowed to do. The police have no idea how the other person may react, so allowing him to stand there with a weapon is not a smart or prudent thing to do. Okay, so for whatever reason the officer patted you down and took your weapon for officer safety, why run the serial number? To see if its stolen? Based on what? The courts have ruled that the "data base" is NOT for ownership. It is only a data base for the sale and transfer of firearms in PA. What happens is the weapon either does not come back to the person or its not found in the "data base" and the un-knowing officer then seizes what he thinks is an illegal weapon. Sorry..............you just screwed up officer. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
manipulating the gun without at least a 2 part Terry stop finding (Fist RAS, then "armed and presently dangerous" - almost a 3 part test!) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment - see serial number case at Arizona v. Hicks. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
I could be wrong, but electrical tape covering the serial number could be a big no-no:
Covering the serial number could be viewed as obliterating. |
|||||||||
|
massltca Regular Member
|
Just a thought, why would an officer need to pat you down for weapons if the weapon is in plain sight? |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Hmm from "sterile carry" to "electrical tape carry". Nice. Open Carry Activist Bag of Tools: 1. Gun 2. Guns save lives button 3. State pamphlet 4. Voice recorder 5. Sterile carry 6. Am I being detained? 7. Electrical Tape |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Steve in PA wrote: If an officer thinks you are carrying concealed..........is that justification for the pat down? Since concealed carry is a legal act and permitted by law......what makes the officer think he might be a threat? The mere carrying? Officer safety is usually the reason for the disarming and I think the courts have seen this as something the officer should be allowed to do. The police have no idea how the other person may react, so allowing him to stand there with a weapon is not a smart or prudent thing to do. I'm not disagreeing with your overall post, but I feel it necessary to make a minor correction... in Pennsylvania, it is illegal to carry concealed, unless one has a LTCF. Unlike open carry, which is legal unless it can be proven that one is a prohibited person. |
|||||||||
|
Prophet Regular Member 
|
I disagree with the electrical tape as "obliterating" the serial number. I would say its only covering it. To say it was obliterating it would be the same as saying you're obliterating it by carrying it in a holster that covers it up. |
|||||||||
|
Steve in PA Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Steve in PA wrote:If an officer thinks you are carrying concealed..........is that justification for the pat down? Since concealed carry is a legal act and permitted by law......what makes the officer think he might be a threat? The mere carrying? Officer safety is usually the reason for the disarming and I think the courts have seen this as something the officer should be allowed to do. The police have no idea how the other person may react, so allowing him to stand there with a weapon is not a smart or prudent thing to do. Correct. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
Statkowski wrote: I could be wrong, but electrical tape covering the serial number could be a big no-no: IANAL, but I think that there is a significant element of destruction and permanency in an obliterate definition. I have a S&W 642 J Frame that I bought new with Crimson Laser Grips. The grips were factory installed by S&W. The grips cover the serial number. Obliterate is part of the federal law as well. If obliterate meant cover, then every 642 shipped would be a felony when transfered from manufacturer to dealer and a felony again when transferred from dealer to gun owner (me). I have not yet seen any federal or state case law on what constitutes obliterate. So I think you are correct. Covering could be viewed as obliterating, but I don't read it that way. IANAL, IANAL |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
So I think you are correct. Covering could be viewed as obliterating, but I don't read it that way. You don't see it that way, and I don't see it that way, but would an overly zealous district attorney see it that way? Of course, you could have the tape on the firearm to protect the finish.... |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
The real issue on gun SNs is that absent a lawful seizure of the gun, the police have no power to manipulate and record the serial number at all! To be lawfully seized, not only must the carrier have been seized lawfully, but the second prong of Terry for the pat down/weapon removal must be satisfied - a reasonable beliefe that the person is both "armed and presently dangerous." All these recent serial number checks in PA and now being discussed appear unlawful - evidence of other crimes, like obliterating serial numbers, would be therefore suppressed anyway. |
|||||||||
|
DocV Regular Member
|
A quick definition obliterate (ə-blĭt'ə-rāt', ō-blĭt'-)  tr.v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.
obliteration o·blit'er·a'tion n. obliterative o·blit'er·a'tive (-ə-rā'tĭv, -ər-ə-tĭv) adj. obliterator o·blit'er·a'tor n. Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 03:17 pm by DocV |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Based on the previous definition, it sounds like electrical tape may well just be a winner. |
|||||||||
|
DickTracy1953 Regular Member 
|
I have a S&W 642 J Frame that I bought new with Crimson Laser Grips. The grips were factory installed by S&W. The grips cover the serial number. Obliterate is part of the federal law as well. If obliterate meant cover, then every 642 shipped would be a felony when transferred from manufacturer to dealer and a felony again when transferred from dealer to gun owner (me). I think he is on to something...... What about the use of grips that cover up the serial numbers. If I recall, I owned a Colt or a Smith & Wesson wheel gun that only had the serial number on the grip base of the frame. Many aftermarket grips or target style grips would completely cover the serial number. A LEO would have to remove the set of grips to read the serial number. I am wondering if they could do that without a search warrant. Last edited on Sun Sep 14th, 2008 09:21 pm by DickTracy1953 |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
Without reasonable cause to believe a firearm was stolen or used in a crime, there is no justification for the police to take custody (the gun certainly does not belong to THEM). In any case the Pa. UFA (Sect. 6105(f)(4))specifically states that a receipt must be provided- why are LEOs so lax in enforcing this provision of the law? |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Because nobody follows through with a private criminal complaint against the offending officer? |
|||||||||
|
Carnivore Regular Member
|
I Don't condone an officer confiscating a presumedly innocent citizens firearm no matter what type of firearm it is. But the officer, if he truely has a legitimate reason to request a personal firearm, and one consents to the police taking posession of said firearm, the cop should be able to legally read the serial #'s and call in to see if the firearm is stolen--Bottom line, if the cop can call in the #'s and have a record of ones ID, then the presumably innocent citizen and his/her firearm should be allowed to go on about their business until a police report can be produced to verify said serial# on a specific firearm has been reported stolen. If I'm wrong, then the nosey bored cop needs to find something else to occupy his time, But I have no problem allowing an officer with legitimate cause and possibly even a back up as a witness to run the #'s on anything I own. OH YEAH, just my opinion.. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Carnivore, I must respectfully disagree with your rationale. It's called Probable Cause, and without such an officer cannot assume the weapon is stolen (which is exactly what he/she is doing with a serial number check). Besides, there is no central firearms registration database in Pennsylvania. Stolen firearms listing? Maybe, maybe not. Check to see if it's a stolen weapon? Why would an officer assume anyone carrying was carrying a stolen weapon? We do not operate under the Napoleonic Code, we operate under English jurisprudence, which assumes a person is innocent until shown to be otherwise. |
|||||||||
|
Carnivore Regular Member
|
very well put, I must agree innocent until proven guilty/ probable cause, but still if an officer convinced me that he had probable cause I would produce an ID, and an unloaded firearm, Granted the whole scenario must have a very professional appeal or I'd be mashing the gas and punching 911 on my cell then wait for the pursueing officer to catch up at the most likely awating roadblock.. providing this was originally a traffic stop. |
|||||||||