[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[riverrunner]

Does one need a permit to carry a bible or movie newspaper.

Does one need a permit to put his bible,koran, newspaper in brief case, book bag or under his coat concealing it.

Guns are to the 2nd that books,newspapers and movies are to the frist.

[A. Patriot]

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.

That's like saying" "I believe a person has a right to free speech, but before exercising it, they should have government permission and approval by means of a government issued permit that they must show to any police officer or the owner of an establishment if applicable."

[ExGeeEye]

Registration requirements = Infringement.

Carry Permit requirements = Infringement.

FOID card = Infringement.

FFL requirement = Infringement.

BATF existence = Infringement.

“undue burden” = Infringement (any burden is undue).

Heller = just the first step down a long road back to Freedom.