Phatty
Member
Are you saying that PA cops are checking a federal database? As far as I know, there isn't a law saying that states cannot create and manage a gun registry.
Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.
- Thread starter Magic_Man
- Start date
- Status
brboyer
Member
sorry, wrong post.......
brboyer
Member
So it's OK & legal because it's convient?
Which, absent RS to believe it was stolen would be a violation of the law.
Deanimator
Member
It's the PA "database of purchases". PA law SPECIFICALLY makes a "registry" ILLEGAL. It exists only by means of the charade that since not ALL firearms are in it, it's not a "registry". It's kind of like saying, "Since my client hasn't looked into EVERY window in PA, he's not a peeping tom."
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Phatty said:
It's getting old having to look up all this stuff for you guys. It's not hard to find.
Here is a Department of Justice letter to Pennsylvania State Police informing them that their gun database is illegal:
http://www.acslpa.org/n-register/n-061501ltrDOJtoPSP.pdf
It was of course ignored by Pennsylvania SP.
unloved
Member
They also have an even more disturbing tendency to confiscate guns that don't appear in the not-really-a-registry registry. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, there are a number of non-nefarious reasons that a particular handgun may not appear in the database maintained by the PSP.
brboyer
Member
If you were a little more knowledgeable on the subject, you would know that PA maintains a purchase record database. Retail sales are entered into the database, but courts have ruled it's not a registry because not all guns are in it.
Police sometimes use the fact of a firearm not being in the database as justification to further illegally infringe on a gun owners rights.
divemedic
Member
Sigh- I feel like people's legal research department.
A police officer who discovers a weapon in plain view may at least temporarily seize that weapon only if a reasonable officer would believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the weapon poses an immediate threat to officer or public safety. United States v. Bishop (C.A.6, 2003), 338 F.3d 623, 628; and see United States v. Frederick, 2005 Fed. App. 0864N, No. 04-5614 (some objects are "dangerous in themselves," and the test is not whether the officers in fact feared for their safety, "but whether a reasonable officer informed of these facts could conclude that the weapon posed an immediate threat to officer or public safety").
Arizona v. Hicks (1987), 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149. In Hicks, police entered a home to investigate a shooting, and, suspecting that expensive stereo equipment in the apartment was stolen, moved some of the stereo equipment to observe and check the serial numbers on the equipment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that recording the serial numbers of the stereo equipment was not a seizure because it did not interfere with a defendant's possessory interest, but, moving the equipment to see the serial numbers constituted a search.
Once an officer had a valid reason to secure and possess the handgun, he was able to obtain the serial numbers without violating appellee's Constitutional rights. See United States v. Lara (C.A.9, 1991), 932 F.2d 973, (deputy testified that when nonofficer personnel are present at a search site, weapons found in plain view are disarmed as a safety precaution, and therefore, having a valid reason to pick up the weapon and lawfully possess it, the decision that officer was entitled to examine both guns for missing serial numbers was not erroneous); State v. Wilson (1998), 93 Wash App. 1025 (there is warrantless seizure exception for officer safety, and where officer is lawfully in possession of gun, officer is lawfully in possession of serial numbers; plain view analysis of Arizona v. Hicks is inapplicable when Hicks involved extent to which officers can expose to view items in their presence, but not in their possession); United States v. Watts (C.A.8, 1993), 7 F.3d 122.
So, to sum things up, once an officer is aware of a gun, he needs an articulable reason to believe that it is an IMMEDIATE threat, not merely a possible one, to temporarily seize it, and that reason will be determined by the court. The question here is whether or not the weapon presented an immediate threat to the public or to the officer. IMO, in this case it did not.
One thing is for sure, if the cop doesn't know it is there, he can't take it. Once he does know, he might be able to seize it. If your state law does not require notification, don't notify. ANYTHING you say to a cop can be used against you. Keep your mouth shut. That is not anti-cop, just prudent advice.
A police officer who discovers a weapon in plain view may at least temporarily seize that weapon only if a reasonable officer would believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the weapon poses an immediate threat to officer or public safety. United States v. Bishop (C.A.6, 2003), 338 F.3d 623, 628; and see United States v. Frederick, 2005 Fed. App. 0864N, No. 04-5614 (some objects are "dangerous in themselves," and the test is not whether the officers in fact feared for their safety, "but whether a reasonable officer informed of these facts could conclude that the weapon posed an immediate threat to officer or public safety").
Arizona v. Hicks (1987), 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149. In Hicks, police entered a home to investigate a shooting, and, suspecting that expensive stereo equipment in the apartment was stolen, moved some of the stereo equipment to observe and check the serial numbers on the equipment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that recording the serial numbers of the stereo equipment was not a seizure because it did not interfere with a defendant's possessory interest, but, moving the equipment to see the serial numbers constituted a search.
Once an officer had a valid reason to secure and possess the handgun, he was able to obtain the serial numbers without violating appellee's Constitutional rights. See United States v. Lara (C.A.9, 1991), 932 F.2d 973, (deputy testified that when nonofficer personnel are present at a search site, weapons found in plain view are disarmed as a safety precaution, and therefore, having a valid reason to pick up the weapon and lawfully possess it, the decision that officer was entitled to examine both guns for missing serial numbers was not erroneous); State v. Wilson (1998), 93 Wash App. 1025 (there is warrantless seizure exception for officer safety, and where officer is lawfully in possession of gun, officer is lawfully in possession of serial numbers; plain view analysis of Arizona v. Hicks is inapplicable when Hicks involved extent to which officers can expose to view items in their presence, but not in their possession); United States v. Watts (C.A.8, 1993), 7 F.3d 122.
So, to sum things up, once an officer is aware of a gun, he needs an articulable reason to believe that it is an IMMEDIATE threat, not merely a possible one, to temporarily seize it, and that reason will be determined by the court. The question here is whether or not the weapon presented an immediate threat to the public or to the officer. IMO, in this case it did not.
One thing is for sure, if the cop doesn't know it is there, he can't take it. Once he does know, he might be able to seize it. If your state law does not require notification, don't notify. ANYTHING you say to a cop can be used against you. Keep your mouth shut. That is not anti-cop, just prudent advice.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Jeez, you and me both. We're basically called a liar with every post and have to go find a court case to prove otherwise, meanwhile the uninformed never admit they were mistaken or apologize.
Typical I guess....
unloved
Member
B...b...but, that wouldn't be courteous. I mean, police just want to go home safe at the end of their shift. It doesn't matter if they trample my Constitutional rights, as long as they feel safe.Phatty
Member
brboyer,
You asked:
You asked:
And I then answered your question with four articulated reasons. So I don't understand this response:
Nobody said it was OK or legal or convenient. And just because I also said the police would perform such a search if available, doesn't mean I think it would be legal.
Phatty
Member
Thanks. Being from Illinois, I'm not familiar with PA law. Your post was kind of vague, so I wasn't sure if you were talking about a specific PA law or if you were implying that the police were somehow accessing a federal database that was maintained in contravention of federal law.
Ryder
Member
I've stopped carrying the permit that way. Not over worries about being disarmed but because the last officer who spotted my carry permit as I pulled out my drivers license (they apparently watch for that) was when the permit had been expired for a few months and I told him so along with the fact that I wasn't carrying. We have a duty to report carry by law but not that we are simply licensed, and certainly not that we have an expired permit. He demanded the card anyway so I gave it to him and he went back to his vehicle with to do computer/radio work.
When he came back he began badgering me to search the vehicle
For about 15 minutes we played this silly game of twenty questions before he finally let me go (without a ticket). I had a good time with it since I wasn't in a hurry to get anywhere and it was quite entertaining but that's only because he was respectful to me (as our state police always are). Thing is, I have no way of knowing whether that's simply sheer luck given my past experience with other police and it's definitely not a chance I need to be taking.Phatty
Member
Asking questions isn't the same thing as calling somebody a liar. What I've noticed here is a certain degree of miscommunication. Some people are asking the question of whether or not it is legal for a police officer to run the serial numbers on a gun without a warrant. That question was answered by divemedic in post #358 when he cited to United States v. Lara and other cases for the premise that police can legally run serial number searches on guns in their possession. You were answering the broader question of when is it legal for an officer to take possession of the firearm, which is not the same issue. That distinction caused several posters to ask clarifying questions, which I do not believe were aimed at your integrity.
brboyer
Member
Although any other reasonable person reading your post would make the same assumption I did.
Last edited:
Phatty
Member
Thanks, divemedic. This answered my earlier question about running serial numbers on a gun.
brboyer
Member
I'm from Florida and I completely understood his post.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
they don't need to check a registry to look for stolen guns.
brboyer
Member
The problem we have is that a lot of people that carry firearms do not exercise even the minimal amount of research into the law surrounding their possession.
Then some of those people come onto Internet sites and ask questions that would have been answered with said research and then challenge those answers provided by those of us that took the initiative to do the research.
Phatty
Member
There, I fixed it for you.
Deanimator
Member
Then why do they keep doing it, over and over again?
Ryder
Member
That's understandable to me since some states have a minimal amount of law regarding firearms and they simply shouldn't have to worry about going to prison for nothing more than being in possession of their own property.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
It was of course ignored by Pennsylvania SP.
for 9 years? and no one had gigged em?
for 9 years? and no one had gigged em?
Phatty
Member
There are multiple problems.
1. Flat out incorrect answers to legal questions:
2. Misinterpreting a question, and subsequently providing an answer that does not correctly respond to the question:
There's absolutely nothing illegal about running the serial numbers on a pistol. The process of obtaining those serial numbers may or may not be legal, which is likely what TexasRifleman was getting at but wasn't responsive to the actual question.
3. People giving their opinion of what the Constitution truly means, rather than what the Constitution has been interpreted to mean by the Supreme Court, without providing the helpful caveat.
4. People assuming they are being challenged or called liars when clarifying questions are asked or case authority is requested so that a person has a starting point to conduct their own research.
The vast majority of the people here are posting in good faith and truly just want to learn more about a certain subject. Don't provide helpful advice with one hand and provide a backhand to the face with the other hand.
What part of that did you see as safe?Full Metal Jacket said:
That's funny, coming from the guy who thinks that cops can perform illegal searches of vehicles and still be within the confines of the law.
If I (being a non police civilian) were to take your gun away from you for my own safety, would that be ok?cassandrasdaddy said:
Police do not have some sort of magic pass card when it comes to the law. They are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, excepting specific powers that they are granted by the law, in order to enforce the law. If there is no law specifically granting them the power to do something, if there is no exception to the law built in for police officers, they are bound by it just as much as you and I are.
So you tell me: What case law, what statute, gives police the power to confiscate a gun, just because it is there, and run the serial numbers? What case law, what statute, gives police the right to enter the car of a citizen, to open the trunk of the car, to open the gun itself? Or is it just internet BS that you are spouting?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever handled a firearm before? There is something that all firearms enthusiasts know, and that is that guns are not a threat. They don't jump up and go off on their own, they don't have some mystical power that turns people into killers. So, if I were the LEO, I wouldn't even imagine it to be a threat.Full Metal Jacket said:
The threat comes from people. People kill other people. The person is letting the cop know about the gun from the outset, which someone who is going to kill a cop wouldn't do.
- Status
