|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > The Dickson Dozen Strike Back! (law suit filed)
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Pennsylvania > The Dickson Dozen Strike Back! (law suit filed)
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
UPDATES: News Report at http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19768981&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=614635&rfi=6 See also http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19770867&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=590572&rfi=8 - "Open Carry Group’s lawsuit names Dickson City cops" -- Four gun owners have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in United States Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and punitive damages for violations of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by the Borough of Dickson City and members of the Dickson City Police Department. The law suit arises from the actions of Dickson City police officers responding to a call about a group of people peaceably eating dinner, some of whom were openly carrying holstered handguns, at the Old Country Buffet on Commerce Avenue in Dickson City, PA on May 9, 2008. The plaintiffs, one of whom was arrested for not providing identification, were doing nothing illegal or suspicious under Pennsylvania law and the police had no reason or authority to detain and search them, or confiscate their guns. Press reports on the Dickson Dozen police roundup: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10896.html Police report: http://paopencarry.org/policereport.pdf Complaint: http://paopencarry.org/complaint.pdf Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 11:49 am by Mike |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member 
|
pwned! Finally, some good news... |
|||||||||
|
HyDef Regular Member
|
I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there, looks good though. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member 
|
imperialism2024 wrote: pwned!+1 |
|||||||||
|
asforme Activist Member
|
Two interesting things to play out in this case. The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate. The major win for the Dozen though is that the police report admits many times that they are checking who the gun is "registered" to. I would love to see a big can of worms opened to discover what kind of illegal registry is being kept. |
|||||||||
|
Aran Banned
|
Kick some ass, everyone. |
|||||||||
|
dougwg Regular Member 
|
This is pretty cool. |
|||||||||
|
whiskaz_55 Activist Member 
|
Hell Ya!!! |
|||||||||
|
jaredbelch Founder's Club Member
|
Sweet I'm very excited to hear the outcome of this. |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member 
|
I actually wouldn't mind volunteering for jury duty on this one. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member 
|
The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate. Richard Banks identified himself verbally. Pennsylvania has no law requiring proof of identification (ID card, etc.). He was not required to show his LTCF for the BUG since Section 6122 of the UFA states the lawful command of an LEO is required for such. With the entire roust being unlawful to begin with, the so-called police report speedbump becomes nonexistent. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
asforme wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate. The police are lying - Rich did provide his License to Carry Fierarms at time of arrest, as required by PA statute if the hyolder wishes to "at the time of arrest . . . [to rebut the] presumption of nonlicensure," 18 Pa.C.S § 6122, and the police did run said LTCF thru police verification - hence, they let him go after his "time out" in cuffs in the back of the squad car. had he had no LTCF, he no doubt would have been charged with the crime of carrying concealed without a license. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Statkowski wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate. Not that he had a duty to do so by law - Rich is just a nice guy. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
HyDef wrote: I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there Not equired in the complaint - that will come later in the motions battel - the City will likley move for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a complaint upon which relief can be granted and or assert a qualified immunity defense, and then move for summary judgement in their favor as a matter of law , and then, as the city will likley lose these motions motions, they will either settle or go to trial. |
|||||||||
|
Wynder State Researcher 
|
Mike wrote: HyDef wrote:I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there I really hope they don't settle. |
|||||||||
|
asforme Activist Member
|
Statkowski wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate. Okay, thanks for the clarification. I really hope this goes to court. I really want to know more about this "registered owner" nonsense. I would love to see all hell break loose when the details of an illegal database are revealed. |
|||||||||
|
Wynder State Researcher
|
I wonder if they could subpoena the contents of the database since it was used as part of the officer's determination in how they proceded. |
|||||||||
|
warlockmatized Regular Member 
|
HELL YEAH, you go boys! |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
Wynder wrote: Mike wrote:HyDef wrote:I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there +10,000 Settlements usually include nondisclosure clauses. Somebody violates my rights in various ways, then wants to violate my 1st Amendment rights TOO??? Hardie's will sell edible food before I'd agree to THAT. |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher 
|
Complaint is being read on WILK (Sue Henry) radio show now: http://www.wilknetwork.com/ |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: Complaint is being read on WILK (Sue Henry) radio show now: I think the press in the greater Scranton area gets it - this is not really about guns per se. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
News report on lawsuit: http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19768981&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=614635&rfi=6 |
|||||||||
|
johnnyb Banned 
|
sue for as much as you can. please attempt to get those officers fired. |
|||||||||
|
Samuel Adams Regular Member 
|
johnnyb wrote: sue for as much as you can. please attempt to get those officers fired. Do we want them fired or do we want them trained the way they are supposed to be trained? As for the Chief, he can be fired. |
|||||||||
|
apjonas Regular Member
|
What can be learned from these two letters to the paper? What a Scam!! I am sure these gentlemen had this whole plot set up and planned. They knew what the outcome was going to be and then would turn around and sue the city. Why didnt they pick a small restaurant with no one in it along a rural road? Why, because nothing like this would have happened. Nope, they had to go into the busiest, high traffic area where there was children and others and tote their guns out in the open on purpose. I am hoping this goes to trial and they lose. This is the biggest scam I have seen in the longest time Brian, Scranton, PA Added: Thursday June 12, 2008 at 02:41 PM EST I don't know if this is true or not but frankly it doesn't matter. The outcome was dictated by the DCPD. "Testers" are often used to check landlord compliance with civil rights laws, so doing a "carry-in" dinner isn't a scam. Visiting a black landlord in a predominately black area doesn't really serve the purpose of testing. The law is the same in Dickson City as it is any rural area. What is different is the attitude of the police in respecting the rights of citizens. LEECHES These open carry people are just foaming at the mouth. The dinner is just a sideline of their true objective and that is confrontation. They got what they wanted, attention and press. They talk about Jack Booted Thugs when referring to police and compare them to Nazis. Go read some of the vile at their website. If they are so high and mighty, they should learn some respect to earn some respect! They are one sided bigots, unwilling to listen to anyone but their own voice and opinion. I hope they lose this case then maybe they will wither and go away. The common citizen does not support this minority!!! They picked the wrong crusade to fight. Bob, NY I agree with Bob in part. Some of the OCDO postings are not very genteel. I am not talking necessarily about the people in the DC case. I am trying to demonstrate how perception is sometimes as important as reality. Let us strive for intelligent, rational but polite exchanges. Imagine yourself in front of a judge defending open carry. Do some of the posts reflect less than favorably upon you? This is not the neighborhood sandbox. Namecalling and so's your mother types of retorts have no value and no place in our movement. A cleverly worded jab now and then is one thing. Four-letter words, derogatory comments on physical appearance or questioning someone's legitimacy at birth are out of bounds. You will notice the demeanor of lawyers in court. Are they all well-bred saints? No - they just want to win and refuse to let silly behavior interfere with that goal. |
|||||||||
|
johnnyb Banned
|
fired. Samuel Adams wrote: johnnyb wrote:sue for as much as you can. please attempt to get those officers fired. Last edited on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:15 pm by johnnyb |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
Samuel Adams wrote: johnnyb wrote:sue for as much as you can. please attempt to get those officers fired. By the attitudes which they displayed, they clearly do not hold the public trust dear. I come from Chicago, where the police hold the public in utmost contempt and display it at every opportunity. If you don't hold the police to a high standard, they will hold themselves to no standard at all. The names Finnegan, Weems, Abbate and Callahan are proof certain of it. You can fix deficits in training. You can rarely fix deficits of character. |
|||||||||
|
massltca Regular Member 
|
ne1 wrote: I actually wouldn't mind volunteering for jury duty on this one. Yeah that's one jury I would love to be on. |
|||||||||
|
Ohio Patriot Regular Member
|
johnnyb wrote: please attempt to get those officers fired. I would rather see them arrested. Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 02:57 am by Ohio Patriot |
|||||||||
|
johnnyb Banned
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: johnnyb wrote:please attempt to get those officers fired. as would I  |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: johnnyb wrote:please attempt to get those officers fired. Eh... how about "detained but not arrested" while having dinner with their families, and then their weapons confiscated until they can prove ownership of the weapons.  |
|||||||||
|
Fallschirmjäger Regular Member
|
Firing them would work fine for me. There are few better ways to dirve home the point to all officers than for them to how others can lose their paychecks and livelihood because they did something illegal. When the courts start awarding 'retraining education' to convicted criminals that Aren't police officers then I might change my mind. Until that time, those who perform criminal acts, ESPECIALLY under color of law should face harsher punishments, not lessor. Samuel Adams wrote: johnnyb wrote:sue for as much as you can. please attempt to get those officers fired. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
The court won't fire either officer or the chief. The court will make their findings and the city council and mayor will make their disciplinary decisions. To discuss it otherwise loses focus on what we really want here. Generally speaking, we do not want money beyond recouping actual damages and for punitive damages to drive the point home when there are abuses which is the purpose of punitive damages. We do not want people to get fired just for the sake of having some politician or LEO fired. We do not want to freak out the communities, abuse personal property rights or make the community spend lots of money on training seminars for their officers. We want to be left alone to lawfully exercise our constitutional rights in peace. We are peaceful law abiding citizens choosing to exercise our rights and we want to exercise those rights as peacefully, quietly and uneventfully as everyone else exercises their right to vocalize their opinions or go to the church of their choice. That is what we need the public to understand. Discussing firings of LEOs and $ amount of damages just reinforces the impression of those in the two above posted letters. What the "Dickson Dozen" wanted that night was not to be activists, but to just have a quiet dinner with their families and friends while they happened to be openly exercising one of their constitutional rights. We just want the same thing for the future and that would be the greatest outcome of the lawsuit. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member 
|
Fallschirmjäger wrote: Firing them would work fine for me. There are few better ways to dirve home the point to all officers than for them to how others can lose their paychecks and livelihood because they did something illegal. I made the point that officers should be under the same laws as citizens (in another post), not be shielded by the law when they are abusing power, power that they shouldn't have in the first place. Each case should be taken individually. Police can make a mistake in judgement, just like the rest of us. Bad guys will continue to try to fool police, and they have to do what they think is right. But there is a problem when a person is doing something completely legal and the officer calls it in and the DA says bend the guy over anyway because of some case law he was reading--that's even worse than legislating from the bench, it's gang mentality. The Dickerson case is pretty clear-cut: Families were eating. In this case the officers' response was completely out of line, as was the DA, etc. Such blatant abuses of power do need to be dealt with. Filing false reports needs to be considered "evidence tampering." Arresting someone for eating dinner should be considered "kidnapping" (by definition). If any of us pulled a stunt like that at work because someone was not "eating strictly vegetarian" we'd be fired on the spot, plus possibly sued. The officers, DA, etc. did the same basic thing because they didn't like people lawfully defending their right to life. They should face the same penalties. On the other hand, if they investigated the scene, found that nothing bad was happening (like a robbery), and asked to speak with the men carrying and the other customers, and confirmed the law before continuing with a detention, different story. If the 9-1-1 operator handled the call better, like asking a few basic questions, different story. For the record, 9-1-1 operators do have some discretion. If they get a call that someone is wearing an Apple iPod mini, they can and will ask, "Is it stolen?" They can just as easily ask, "Is the gun in a holster? Is a robbery taking place?" Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 04:49 am by Pointman |
|||||||||
|
apjonas Regular Member
|
#1 - The court does not have the power to fire anyone. #2 - Talking about what you want here is industrial strength stupid. Let your lawyers do the talking and deal with these issues. If you are not party to the case, shut up anyway. You can do no good but much harm by flapping your gums no matter what your intent is. Moderators can and should provide updates on the action but any detailed "legal" discussion should be nipped in the bud. Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 05:09 am by apjonas |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
apjonas wrote: #2 - Talking about what you want here is industrial strength stupid. Let your lawyers do the talking and deal with these issues. If you are not party to the case, shut up anyway. You can do no good but much harm by flapping your gums no matter what your intent is. Moderators can and should provide updates on the action but any detailed "legal" discussion should be nipped in the bud. Oh give me a break. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
apjonas wrote: #1 - The court does not have the power to fire anyone. Just as the employer does not have the power to assign damages. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
To kind of clarify... In this case, my feeling is that a ridiculously large lawsuit is necessary to drive home the point that it is not OK to violate the rights of any American, gun owner or not. From what I've read on here, in many cases involving illegal stops and detentions, the LEO(s) who stepped over the line is reigned in by fellow LEOs, or by his department. Or, they will try to ignore the incident entirely. Here, we have the police department as well as the city council supporting the actions of the LEOs involved. And if the segment of the Dickson City population that showed up at the city council meeting I attended is in any way representative of the city's total population, the subjects of Dickson City feel (and expect!) their LEOs to violate the Fourth amendment rights of citizens. And this is all when being confronted with the fact that the LEOs' actions were indeed illegal. Fair enough. Then pay up. Slaps on the wrist might be enough to deter many police departmets to get in line and stop violating citizens, but in this case, the culture surrounding Dickson City seems so far gone that this is not at all possible. The response that we've seen indicates that Dickson City has a blatant disregard for civil rights, and money talks in a way that complaints don't and the AG won't. |
|||||||||
|
Deanimator Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: To kind of clarify... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-federal_jury_verdictjun13,0,4630555.story I wonder how many judgements like that Dickson City could afford to eat? |
|||||||||
|
UTOC-45-44 Regular Member 
|
I don't believe in would be neccessary to fire these officers nor the Chief BUT I believe there should be some serious ramifications. Like....Demotions....paycuts and some SERIOUS retraining. I could see SUSPENTION for a month WITHOUT pay. Hit them where it hurts but not totally damages. (The Wife/Girlfriend WILL remind them of the rest) We all make mistakes as it has been brought up before. However, IF there is a pattern with an Officer from SIMILAR situations THEN give a little "harder" verdict. We DON'T need Cops with their OWN agenda out there. Just because THEY don't like "civilians" with guns does mean that that can "push" them around. Just my .40 TJ |
|||||||||
|
possumboy Regular Member 
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: johnnyb wrote:please attempt to get those officers fired. If they are found guilty of a Civil Rights violation, there is a good chance they will spend time in a Federal Institution. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/civilrts.htm Check out the case and news section. It talks about LEOs serving time in the Federal Prison System for civil rights violations. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Well, wishful thinking for some, but they weren't charged by the FBI for any criminal violations of the Civil Rights Act. A civil action was filed, which may well limit what the judge may do. Of course, there's always Section 5301 of the Crimes Code, where they could be charged with Official Oppression. It's a Second Degree Misdemeanor. |
|||||||||
|
possumboy Regular Member
|
Do we know if a Civil Rights violation claim was made to the FBI? I believe they can wait to see if they are convicted here before reporting. I have not fully seen the start of the process, I mostly see the end results. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
These things take time. Dickson City has to reply to the accusation, then the Dickson Four have to reply to the reply, etc., etc. It's going to be a long, hot summer. Of course, Dickson City may be sweating more than normal. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
possumboy wrote: Do we know if a Civil Rights violation claim was made to the FBI? I believe they can wait to see if they are convicted here before reporting. I have not fully seen the start of the process, I mostly see the end results. If the FBI does investigate a violation under 18 USC 242, any false or misleading staement made by the police or police chief to any person whatsoever can be prosecuted by the federal government as obstruction of justice, 18 USC 1512. |
|||||||||
|
MustangDave Regular Member
|
So will the 911 tapes be released? I'm not sure if they are really important, but I'm curious to read what the caller and operator were saying. Last edited on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 11:05 pm by MustangDave |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law (RTKL), 911 tapes may be released upon request at the discretion of the 911 agency. To date, as far as we know (the attorneys involved may or may not know otherwise), no such recordings have been forthcoming. The court may or may not order their release. |
|||||||||
|
pacrimescode5904 Regular Member
|
PA State Police will investigate any complaints made by a citizen against any police officer from any municipality. I would definitely file complaints with them as well as with the FBI. I just can't believe the ignorance of these guys up there. I thought my former PD was backward... |
|||||||||
|
Steve in PA Regular Member
|
I've never heard of the PSP investigating other officers from other depts. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Well, who would investigate a one- or two-person police force then? |
|||||||||
|
Steve in PA Regular Member
|
I imagine it would be the DA's Office. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
A second civil rights lawsuit has been filed against Dickson City, this by another victim of the police. http://paopencarry.org/kraft_complaint.pdf Dickson City must be loving this. All that's needed now are private criminal complainst against the police officers involved. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
I very much like the part in paragraph 43 about the Borough not giving adequate training to officers to ensure they can identify the specific criminal provision they believe is being violated. As I've said before, the problem isn't police not knowing the law. The problem is police being willing to initiate a nonconsensual encounter without knowing for a fact there is a law against it. |
|||||||||
|
Weak 9mm Regular Member 
|
apjonas wrote: What can be learned from these two letters to the paper? I do agree with your last part as well. All they have to do is find one post where somebody says "jack booted thug" and then they'll spread that around like crazy. Then anybody who hasn't seen the website is going to think "what a bunch of crazies." I agree that we must strive to be intelligent, respectful people on here, because the people who are against us will look for every little thing they can to make us out to be "lawless" citizens. I am surprised of the attitudes of the residents of that area though. Do they really think that these guys wanted to get illegally detained? If they OC everywhere they go, how is it that this one time was a "scam?" It's a bit ridiculous to claim IMO, but I'm sure that's what these folks think of our "movement" (ie - the simple exercising of rights, not unlike when these people speak). Unfortunately for them, we do have the law (Although maybe not all of the enforcement community) on our side. I think DeepDiver spoke the truth as well when he stated the following: deepdiver wrote: The court won't fire either officer or the chief. The court will make their findings and the city council and mayor will make their disciplinary decisions. To discuss it otherwise loses focus on what we really want here. I agree 100% with this statement too: Citizen wrote: I very much like the part in paragraph 43 about the Borough not giving adequate training to officers to ensure they can identify the specific criminal provision they believe is being violated. Last edited on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 03:38 am by Weak 9mm |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Dickson City has thirty days in which to respond to the complaint. So, somewhere around the middle of the month we'll be able to see what excuses they come up with. Ought to be interesting reading. May 2008: Dickson City Incident - good story. June 2008: Lawsuit filed - interesting reading. July 2008: Response filed - more interesting reading. August 2008: Response to the response - still more interesting reading. September 2008: Court date announced? |
|||||||||
|
HyDef Regular Member
|
Statkowski wrote: Dickson City has thirty days in which to respond to the complaint. So, somewhere around the middle of the month we'll be able to see what excuses they come up with. Ought to be interesting reading.Sometime early 2009: Appeal filed with the Commonwealth Court by the Dickson Dozen after losing locally. This will more then likely happen since the judges in Lackawanna County are some of the most corrupt anywhere. There is a local political activist here who is retired carpenter. He has had several decisions by a couple of different Judges from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overturned on appeal, and he represented himself in all those matters. He even had a sitting County Commisioner thrown off the ballot after appealing the local court's decision to allow him to remain on the ballot, to the PA Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in his favor. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Both lawsuits filed so far have been with the federal court, not Commonwealth court. This is the Major League. |
|||||||||
|
HyDef Regular Member
|
Ahh yes, I forgot about that. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
UPDATE No surprises here. The defendants have filed for an extension. Standard legal stuff, and it's not being opposed by plaintiff's counsel. Check back after August 4. Defendants are being represented by Louis J. Isaacsohn. New documents: Motion to extend Order for extension Older documents: Complaint (4 Plaintiffs) Complaint (5th Plaintiff - filed seperately) Last edited on Thu Jul 10th, 2008 01:49 am by gnbrotz |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
After watching Mr. Gura pull off the narrowest of wins, I'd bet their council also knows what they're doing. |
|||||||||
|
Statkowski Regular Member
|
Mr. Gura's so-called narrow victory was dealing with constitutional intepretation. This case is more cut-and-dried; were civil rights violated contrary to pre-existing SCOTUS rulings or were they not? The request for an extension makes sense. 30 days in which to research laws, interview the accused, etc. It's really not much time at all. |
|||||||||
|
sprat Regular Member 
|
I just read that Buffet holding the corporation that owns Old Country Buffet has filed for Chapter11 don't know about the one in Dickson city, but they are closing a lot of franchises across the country hope this brightens your day sprat |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
Statkowski wrote: Under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law (RTKL), 911 tapes may be released upon request at the discretion of the 911 agency. To date, as far as we know (the attorneys involved may or may not know otherwise), no such recordings have been forthcoming. The court may or may not order their release. I know its different states and all but does anyone else find it curious how 911 tapes mysteriously appear whenever the police have an interest in impugning someone's character? Recent examples of tapes in the news include the octo-mom's call regarding one of her children that took a walk with grandmaw, another depicted a woman that could not get a refund when McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. Yet, when a OCer wants to find out who filed a false report against him/ her, the tapes become super-secret classifed? |
|||||||||
|
Vandal Regular Member
|
That is because the "right to confront one's accuser" exists only on paper, unless you are out to destroy credibility following the political lines of those in charge. |
|||||||||
|
YllwFvr Regular Member 
|
Ive heard about this many times as its right down the road from where I live. I go to the mall there several times a week. I was outraged when I heard, then pleased when I learned they were filing charges. But what I heard was only a word of mouth explanation. After reading the police reports I'm simply speechless (well almost  ) at the actions of the officers.My brother is in Lackawanna Police Academy and they spoke several times about the Dickson City encounter. The Police ARE being updated all around the area and in surrounding areas about the rights of the people to carry openly. Apparently this was a pretty big deal, and they are taking appropriate steps to see this sort of thing never happens again. WIN #1!!!  First big step!Next I'd like to see alot of dollar signs ($$$!!!) thrown the defendants way. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member 
|
YllwFvr wrote: Ive heard about this many times as its right down the road from where I live. I go to the mall there several times a week. I was outraged when I heard, then pleased when I learned they were filing charges.What I want is to see the entire town bankrupted and its police department and vehicles sold at auction due to the huge judgment rendered against the officers, the department and the city....bankruptcy MIGHT open the eyes of the police that NO--they can't just violate our rights with impunity... of course I would also like to see the officers involved thrown into a federal prison for 5 years or so on civil rights charges... |
|||||||||
|
possumboy Regular Member
|
suntzu wrote: What I want is to see the entire town bankrupted and its police department and vehicles sold at auction due to the huge judgment rendered against the officers, the department and the city....bankruptcy MIGHT open the eyes of the police that NO--they can't just violate our rights with impunity... Heh, heh, you said Federal Prison (http://www.bop.gov). |
|||||||||
|
EasyXjer Regular Member
|
This thing about who the gun was registered to. Are you implying I cant loan my gun to my brother if he doesnt have one to carry at an open carry event? |
|||||||||
|
YllwFvr Regular Member
|
EasyXjer wrote:This thing about who the gun was registered to. Are you implying I cant loan my gun to my brother if he doesnt have one to carry at an open carry event? Gun registration is against the law in pa. Unless prohibited by law you could let your brother carry your gun, I don't see any reason why not. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
YllwFvr wrote: Unless prohibited by law you could let your brother carry your gun, I don't see any reason why not. Not correct. Siblings are not included in the family member transfer exemption, and you may only 'loan' a firearm to someone who is licensed, exempt from licensing, or meets one of the other specifically enumerated exceptions - even if they are not prohibited from ownership/possession. §6115. Loans on, or Lending or Giving Firearms Prohibited. Last edited on Sun Mar 15th, 2009 03:39 am by gnbrotz |
|||||||||
|
YllwFvr Regular Member
|
ah thanks for clarifying that. I knew my brother had looked it up in his codes book and said I could borrow his pistol and be legal, I didn't know it was only because I am a ltcf holder. I apologize for the misinformation. |
|||||||||
|
EasyXjer Regular Member
|
Yeowza I gave it to him 15 years ago before I even knew about ownership transfer. At least its still upstate at the house. |
|||||||||
|
EasyXjer Regular Member
|
YllwFvr wrote: EasyXjer wrote: So what happens to the paperwork you fill out when purchasing? Trashed after so many days? |
|||||||||
|
YllwFvr Regular Member
|
EasyXjer wrote: YllwFvr wrote:EasyXjer wrote:
|
|||||||||
|
EasyXjer Regular Member
|
Thats what they said in 1934. Interesting to know where the papers go. BATFE? Make it easier to track us down to confiscate. |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
Oh, they throw away the papers, but computer databases are kept indefinitely. |
|||||||||
|
EasyXjer Regular Member
|
Ok now i need to throw some bad mojo esp that way and cause the hard drive to to self destruct!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
EasyXjer wrote: Ok now i need to throw some bad mojo esp that way and cause the hard drive to to self destruct!!!!!!!!!!!! Unfotunately, if PICS computers crash, PSP will not be able to approve any firearms sales until things are fixed. They've already shown that they can get away with it regardless of all that constitutional mumbo jumbo about rights that "shall not be questioned". (More at this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=4343&forum_id=4&jump_to=68915) Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:45 am by ne1 |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
YllwFvr wrote: ah thanks for clarifying that. I knew my brother had looked it up in his codes book and said I could borrow his pistol and be legal, I didn't know it was only because I am a ltcf holder. Well the private borrower or private transforee of a handgun who is not a LTCF holder comits no crime - only the seller does. And as there is no "ownership" registry in PA, the state must prove the transfer or lending to have occurred and been unlawful. Again, this is the weird handgun private sale and lending ban in PA - very few states restrict private sales and lending of handguns, that's why PA scores so high on brady scorecard. |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
Mike wrote:
Also, it is not a crime when the person receiving the firearm is not a "prohibited person". IAW, if you loan a firearm to someone without a LTCF, you had best know that person very well. |
|||||||||
|
gnbrotz Activist Member
|
ne1 wrote: Also, it is not a crime when the person receiving the firearm is not a "prohibited person". This is simply not correct, and very dangerous legal advice. Under current P a. law, it is absolutely prohibited to loan a firearm to someone (outside of the exceptions of §6115), even if they are not a 'prohibited person'. Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 10:14 am by gnbrotz |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if any of the following apply: IANAL but if a person is carrying openly, then the whole section on licensing is inapplicable ( except in Philadelphia, in a vehicle, or during a proclaimed emergency). |
|||||||||
|
Pa. Patriot State Researcher
|
ne1 wrote
The section of the UFA on loads is 18Pa.C.S.6115 http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act#6115 It is NOT part of the licensing section (6109). As the rest of the UFA it is a restriction in and of itself, regardless of licensing. It is unlawful to "lend" a firearm (by 18Pa.C.S.6102 definition which is a handgun or SBR/SBS) to anyone. Exceptions include LTCF holders. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Whatever happened to "shall not be infringed?" |
|||||||||
|
ne1 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: Whatever happened to "shall not be infringed?" I agree. While the technicalities of convoluted statutes are debated, all too often the relevant section of our supreme law (Article I, Section 21 of the Pa. Constitution) is disregarded. |
|||||||||