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.
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.
In addition their employers should get to pay hugh civil penalties to the victims.
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.
He believes the incident began because another patron in the restaurant was "unhappy and uncomfortable that someone had a firearm in a holster on their hip" and called the police. He does not know who placed the initial 911 call.
This sounds like a lie to me. The caller called 911. The 911 system knows who is calling on land lines. I'm sure the 911 system can log a cell phone. If not, the phone company can tell them.
We should know what the caller said to the police. Saying people are brandishing weapons seems odd to me. This is a term more likely used by the few familiar with law or obligations of carrying arms. The ordinary caller is not going to say brandish. Brandish does not apply to holstered side arms. It means more to wave or display weapons aggressively as to threaten.
Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.
“The officers ordered Judy Banks to stop recording “under threat of being arrested for violation of the federal wiretap law,”
If cops can do this (They can, they have and it sticks) then they can take your guns and or otherwise do as they damn well please.
A wire tap invades a discrete circuit. A citizen recording a public servant in a public place is tapping NOTHING save the ether.
These guys strapped on guns they apparently had no intention of using—so what was their point? To force a legal precedent? Good luck with that. As long as they put themselves into the hands of the very corrupt system that ignores the Constitution as it damn well pleases (as this incident clearly demonstrates) they will accomplish NOTHING. If you put on a gun use it. If you can’t——THEN DON’T PUT IT ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
George Washington would have opened fire (if he were there in the first place)
These officers were way out of bounds. Without any probable cause of a crime being committed there was NO justification for any investigation and no basis for demanding ID. These guys obviously slept though their last Act 120 (PA State
Municipal Police Certification) updates during the section about needing probable cause to detain someone, and the citizen was entirely within their rights to tell you to piss off and not ID themselves if you didn’t have PC to suspect a crime was being committed.
There is NO APPLICABLE SECTION in PA Title 18 (PA Crimes Code) to charge for open carry. Here’s a tip to the Chief ..............IF IT AIN’T IN THE CRIMES CODE IT AIN”T A FRIGGIN CRIME YOU MORON
This person has a long running beef with the local LEO’s in this town and the restaurant was picked to force a confrontation.
This person stated on a PA firearms web site that he removed his I.D prior to going to diner.
This person is a FFL in PA and knows the laws.
This person runs an Open Carry web site.
This person's Wife just happen to have a camcorder to record the whole event.
My opinion;
Tactics like this will not further our cause. A better method would have been to sit down with the local LEO’s and bring them up to speed on the OC laws in PA.
This will not end well. A retention holster was not used. Meaning a felon could snatch said firearm and use it in a family restaurant.
This was a setup from the word go.
This is not responsible firearm.
Me;
I've had first hand knowledge and dealings with the person in question.
I resent the fact that I now have to pay for a suit that could have been avoided in the first place.
I am an 16 year NRA member.
I am a GOA member.
I am a pain in the in the rear for any anti-firearm cause.
Concealed Carry permit holder in PA for over 15 years.
I now await the feed back and personal attacks.
Bookmark this to hopefully see reports on how the lawsuits turn out.