| Author | Post |
|---|
Prophet
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 12:17 pm |
|
Earlier this morning, around 3am I was a bit hungry so I went to my local McDonalds to get a quick burger. I was open carrying as normal. This is what ensued:
(edited due to pending lawsuit)
I was hassled by police.
Last edited on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 04:42 pm by Prophet
|
Prophet
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 12:28 pm |
|
edit
Last edited on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 08:03 pm by Prophet
|
ChinChin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 12:28 pm |
|
| Seek legal counsel. Your solicitor will then direct on what steps are warranted.
|
dkd
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
| you should probably stop posting until you have talked to a lawyer.
|
mjf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
Honestly, I'm sort of surprised you're firearm wasn't seized, checked in the PSP database, and stolen by the police.
|
axmdr40
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
Sounds cut and dry T..Hammer them.
|
pacrimescode5904
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
I agree with the masses. Get a lawyer (firearms specialist search the internet). Stop talking/posting.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 05:21 pm |
|
Prophet wrote: I was approached by Officer XXXXXX in Oakland.
Hey Prophet, what is it about you and cities named Oakland?
At least in Oakland, California the cops listened and learned.
Good luck to you Brother.
Last edited on Fri Jun 27th, 2008 09:47 pm by Decoligny
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 05:30 pm |
|
I've attempted to contact Prophet in hopes of offering some assistance.
We have several problems here.
1) Police that again do not know the law.
2) Police that show contempt for someone who does know the law and points out the law to the responding officers.
3) An illegal ordinance on the books in Pitt.
1+2+3 = a citizen 100% ILLEGALLY harassed and cited for an unenforceable code violation.
1 & 2 can be addressed by legal suit and/or public education (putting them in the news and going to city council to scold them) as well as personal activism (send them a letter/training memo, etc)
3 will have to be dealt with at city council. We are already working on that behind the scenes with some folks who have experience with that and will post up a plan.
|
Prophet
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
Decoligny wrote: Prophet wrote: on Forbes avenue in Oakland.
Hey Prophet, what is it about you and cities named Oakland?
At least in Oakland, California the cops listened and learned.
Good luck to you Brother.
I mean seriously...right?
|
PisnNapalm
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 05:49 pm |
|
Prophet....
1. Stop posting info online.
2. Contact Pa. Patriot.
3. Get legal counsel.
You may want to ask over at PAFOA.org if anyone in the Pgh. area can recommend a good attorney for a case like this.
|
DJP
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
Hi, new to the forum, came here to try and educate myself on the issue. The City does indeed have a ordinace 607.9 I believe which regulates the carrying of firearms, open or otherwise to those who have permits or are exempted. Since the law was codified the officer's themselves or the department are really not liable for damages to you, as they were acting in good faith, however you may be successful in having the ordinance overturned. As for the response, considering this was a McDonalds that a week ago there was a double shooting at and the limited information that can be put over the radio quickly. I.E. "Out with a man with a gun at McDonalds." A dozen police officers responding doesn't sound out of line.
I'd like to post more but am short on time,
Best
|
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Morgan, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 2582 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
DJP wrote: Hi, new to the forum, came here to try and educate myself on the issue. The City does indeed have a ordinace 607.9 I believe which regulates the carrying of firearms, open or otherwise to those who have permits or are exempted. Since the law was codified the officer's themselves or the department are really not liable for damages to you, as they were acting in good faith, however you may be successful in having the ordinance overturned. As for the response, considering this was a McDonalds that a week ago there was a double shooting at and the limited information that can be put over the radio quickly. I.E. "Out with a man with a gun at McDonalds." A dozen police officers responding doesn't sound out of line.
I'd like to post more but am short on time,
Best
BUT....STATE Preemption OVERRIDES the City Ordinancedue to
a) General rule - No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of the commonwealth.
ALL these Officers are awaiting a TREAT. Go a them with EVERYTHING BLAZING.
I was COURTEOUS enough to give the WVC and PD a moment to step back and reevaluate. Next time...I will NOT be so nice.
TJ
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 715 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
DJP wrote: Since the law was codified the officer's themselves or the department are really not liable for damages to you, as they were acting in good faith....
If you'll pardon my french.. BULL@#$%!
Ignorance of the law is no defence....at least that's what they tell US when we accidently screw up.
The door swings both ways, and it's (hopefully) about to smack 'em in the ass!
|
tdyoung58
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:02 am |
|
mf wrote: Honestly, I'm sort of surprised you're firearm wasn't seized, checked in the PSP database, and stolen by the police.
Haven't you heard? PA has no database for firearms 
well, I mean a "official" one, so they claim.
and like the others, hush up, contact PA Patriot, get a 'gun' lawyer, like yesterday
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
DJP wrote: Hi, new to the forum, came here to try and educate myself on the issue. The City does indeed have a ordinace 607.9 I believe which regulates the carrying of firearms, open or otherwise to those who have permits or are exempted. Since the law was codified the officer's themselves or the department are really not liable for damages to you, as they were acting in good faith, however you may be successful in having the ordinance overturned. As for the response, considering this was a McDonalds that a week ago there was a double shooting at and the limited information that can be put over the radio quickly. I.E. "Out with a man with a gun at McDonalds." A dozen police officers responding doesn't sound out of line.
I'd like to post more but am short on time,
Best
I think you are talking about "qualified immunity," a defense to claims in civil suits looked at in federal court under a 2 part test announced in Saucier. The test is (1) was a right violated and (2) was that right clearly established.
Under the facts as alleged above, the law, 6120, preempts City ordiances. And under Pa. S. Ct.'s Ortiz, a case about Pittsburgh, this preemption would seem clearly established.
Now, might the Pittsburgh ordiance help provide some cover to a chanrge of official suppression? Maybe, I don't know, I wonder what HQ told these officers?Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 01:11 am by Mike
|
pacrimescode5904
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 03:58 am |
|
As a retired city cop and current state park ranger I have to tell you MPOETC does not give one second of training on an individuals right to carry open or otherwise. The only training given is with respect to Act 235 permit holders having to carry their card on their person.
This is definitely a training oversite by the state.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 05:41 am |
|
Gnbrotz started a thread over on PAFOA on this incident:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/26620-carrier-illegally-detained-falsely-charged-pittsburgh.html
This was an update I posted over there:
Gnbrotz and I spoke with the victim tonight.
The wheels are in motion.
I want to point out that this is NOT the first time he has been hassled by the Pittsburg PD for OC... It is the THIRD time.
He has formally complained prior and the PD seems to think that despite being made aware of their errors in those prior incidents that they can continue to illegally harass law abiding citizens.
I think this "us vs them" attitude displayed by this PD is disgusting and and need of some rehabilitation. We will update as info becomes available, right now the victim is researching some options and we'll post here as things develop or we need help or support (city hall trip anyone? )
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 06:08 am |
|
Pa Patriot,
Once you're done with these assists, please share your practical knowledge around the forum.
We need a Pa Patriot in each state with the knowledge to assist guys who get fouled by the police.
Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 06:09 am by Citizen
|
thx997303
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Lehi, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 2545 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 02:10 pm |
|
Do yourself a favor and edit out your story, but save it to repost later.
|
Current time is 06:48 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
