PA open carry activists file suits against Dickson City police

The New Gun Week ^ | 1 July, 2008 | David Workman

[marktwain]

This story has a lot of detail an earlier post does not. It could be a large victory for Constitutional rights if it is publisized.

A number of law enforecement types have been taught to harass people who exercise their Second Amendment rights. This could stop a lot of that harassment.

[gunnedah]

I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.

[marktwain]

“I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.’

---

Setting aside the Constitutional issue, as a practical matter, most states do not have any such requirement, and have no more crime than the states that require it.

[kingu]

I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.

No permit is required for open carry, but the refusal to provide identification I think will count against them. There was cause to ask for it, they were responding to a call about someone brandishing firearms. The check of a city registry for the serial numbers on a firearm is a very questionable act and steps into the realm of harassment. Disarming those they're talking to while investigating a crime seems valid, but failure to return the firearms at the end of the conversation does not. Failure to return a firearm incident to arrest is a whole different matter.

As I assume that PA has laws against fellons possessing firearms, the identification check seems like a valid procedure in any case. The lawsuit will likely prevail on the serial check, fail on the illegal detention, and wash on the harassment issues.

[Navy Patriot]

they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.

Misplaced your Constitution, huh. How's life on your knees?

[ASA Vet]

The only thing that will make this crap stop is if the President an/or Attorney General orders Federal Marshals to start arresting the Barney's for civil rights violations.

In addition their employers should get to pay hugh civil penalties to the victims.

[TexasRedeye]

I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.

UGH! Go back under your rock. No, a legal owner of a weapon DOES NOT and should not have to produce a "permit" of any kind. His "permit" is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Driving a car is a privilege - not a RIGHT!

[marktwain]

“A few years ago, another such lawsuit was filed, according to Magee, who also represented the earlier client. That lawsuit was settled but the terms of that settlement were confidential, the attorney said.”

---

I find it interesting that another such lawsuit was already settled in the favor of the plaintiffs, but the settlement carried an agreement for confidentiality.

It is interesting that the police would want to be sure that the public did not know how much they had to pay for their mistakes.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

...I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment.

That's the thing, in some states, open carry allows you to do exactly that without needing a permit.

How can you produce a permit when none is issued nor required by law?

The guy may have erred when identification was demanded, but that's exactly as far as I'll go in the defense of police handling of this matter. Everything else was escalation, perhaps in an attempt to provoke some sort of incident to bring about pressure to outlaw open carry entirely.

Besides, requiring a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle is not covered under The Constitution, however the Second Amendment is there to cover this very sort of thing.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Disarming those they're talking to while investigating a crime seems valid, but failure to return the firearms at the end of the conversation does not.

That's theft and the officers should face all appropriate charges. If the firearm in question was of high enough value, perhaps charges of grand larceny.

If convicted, they should do time and lose their jobs/retirement funds.

[JRandomFreeper]

What was that old Texas lawsuit, finally adjudicated by the feds saying there is NO requirement to produce ID if you are just standing around on private property?.

"Papers please" is something out of an old Nazi war film.

/johnny

[clee1]

Seriesly!

[School of Rational Thought]

“I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment”

No law requires a permit to open carry.

[sergeantdave]

This incident is why I have a problem with “police.” They’re nothing more than arrogant bureaucrats with a badge and gun.

An elected sheriff is superior to “police”. The sheriff is accountable to the people via the ballot box. If he messes up, the people can replace him via recall or at the next election.

“Police” are agents of whatever political cow is in power at the time. “Police” cannot be recalled by the vote of the people. Police are a political creature and will do whatever they’re told by the ruling gang in power.

The sheriff is the constitutional rule of law by the people. “Police” is the arbitrary rule of people by political hacks.

In my county, the sheriff is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, as are his deputies which he alone hires.

And he doesn’t hide behind billboards trying to generate revenue from people rolling thru stop signs. Instead, he sends his deputies out on stake outs to nab burglars breaking into summer homes. Plus he runs on the platform that he’s the highest peace officer in the county, and no Johnny Law department can operate in his territory without his permission.

We like that.

[muawiyah]

Whatever you "believe" is not the law of the land in Pennsylvania. Those who carry firearms openly, as these genlemen did, should be allowed to sue cops for violating their rights.

Now, should they be allowed to obtain damages against those who call in the police for no other purpose than to harrass them?

I think that's the real quesion here. Everything else is a slam dunk. Cops lose. Cops pay. Taxpayers pay.

[TLEIBY308]

P.A. does not require a permit for open carry.

[TLEIBY308]

It doen’t mention in the article that Mr. Banks holds a FFl.

[TXnMA]

"I believe a person should be able to carry a gun but I believe like driving a car they should have to produce a permit when requested in public by a police officer or the owner of an establishment."

Please explain -- in detail -- why "a person" (one of "the people") should be required to seek (much less pay for) permission (a "permit") to exercise a Constitutional right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI, I already have a "permit" that guarantees my God-given right to be armed:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[kingu]

What was that old Texas lawsuit, finally adjudicated by the feds saying there is NO requirement to produce ID if you are just standing around on private property?.

But they weren't standing around on private property, they were in a public dining establishment which police had been summoned to in response to a citizen account of someone brandishing firearms. A quick check of ID, establishing that no crime has been committed, and everyone's on their way. I agree with being secure in one's papers, but I see nothing unreasonable given a) the call, b) likely PA's laws regarding possession of firearms by fellons in providing identification, and I bet the court will agree on this point.

[JRandomFreeper]

No private person owns that property, it is public property?

/johnny