New Philly PD order on OC

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swinokur

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
904
Location
Montgomery County, MD
issued 9-22
Police directive sent to all districts regarding open carry in Philadelphia, PA Sept 22, 2010

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED
CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS
REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE
REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE
DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS
CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED,
WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY
CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S
PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.


3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR
ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A
FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY
FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A
VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR
CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM
OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC
INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP
WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”


D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED,
OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION
BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID
CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID
(I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS
TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFAVIOLATION AND
TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES
FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD
BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS
“ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE
PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.
Click to expand...
 
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
Click to expand...

So ... seeing a gun being carried -- which, it is explained in the preceeding paragraphs, there is no reason to ASSUME is being done illegally -- is reason enough to detain and investigate a possible crime being committed.

I think this will make an interesting lawsuit.

On the other hand, maybe this will make for interesting days as surely they will now pull over anyone seen operating a motor vehicle on a public street. As, "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID" driver's licesne. They'd better get some of those "Expect Major Delays" traffic marquees...
 
Previous case law from GA allows an officer to ask you if you have a permit because the law requires a permit and he doesn't know if you do. The court held that this was enough RAS to allow temporary detention.

Doesn't make sense since DL's could be included but the court ruled it's enough RAS

Sorry but it's legal.
 
PA needs a law whereby the state law preempts local firearms laws like Ohio has.
Click to expand...

Was that sarcastic? Yes, we do have a very strong preemption law. Philly has been allowed ONE exception to it, which is that OC is only legal if you have a License to Carry Firearms.

So they are saying they can detain, disarm, and investigate anyone open carrying because you MIGHT not have an LTCF.

Sounds like a harrasment technique to me.
 
So they are saying they can detain, disarm, and investigate anyone open carrying because you MIGHT not have an LTCF.

Sounds like a harrasment technique to me.
Click to expand...

It may be harrassment but previous case law allows it because a cop doesn't know if you have a permit and that's enough RAS for being temporarily detained.

Guess they could make something up to check DL's too.
 
Again, PA has preemeption EXCEPT Philly.
Click to expand...
Not quite. PA's preemption covers Philly, too. Philly's only special allowance is that as a "City of the First Class" they require the LTCF in order to carry a firearm openly.

All other gun laws are preempted, even in Philly. (And they HATE it! :))
 
I'm just wondering why Philly cops didn't learn this in the academy. Now they have to put out a memo to explain to cops to obey the law.
 
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
Click to expand...
This really bothers me. A separate license? Huh? I live just outside Philly, and I spend a lot of time in the city. I don't carry openly, but the willful ignorance of the law displayed by PPD frightens me. The PA LTCF is the only license issued in PA. No separate license even exists, so how can a separate license be required?
 
previous case law allows it
Click to expand...

Previous case law IN GEORGIA. Unless you've got a decision that was handed down in the Commonwealth of PA, or from the federal 3rd Circuit, that doesn't apply up here.
 
As Sam1911 points out, what's next?

This is exactly why we must stand up for ALL of our rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. This includes the 4th Amendment.

Using the memo as a basis, according to them, they should be able to stop anyone in a public place that has children with them. Why? Kidnapping is an illegal act. The police have no way of knowing who are kidnappers and who have their own children with them. For public safety they should be allowed to stop anyone with children with them and verify who they are, that they are in legitimate possession of the children, and they are not wanted for kidnapping. Right?

Everybody knows how effective Philly gun ordinances are.... it is the safest place to be in PA, right?

You know, I used to stand in front of a mirror and practice, "You want fries with that?" for when I retire. Now I think I am going to start practicing, "Your paperz, pleeze!" **Cracks the riding crop against boot here for effect**

OC v. CC debate starting in 5, 4, 3, 2........
 
Last edited:
I don't get their logic on stopping people to see if they have a ltc. A driver license is required to operate a motor vehicle. If the police see someone driving a car they don't stop them to see if they have a driver license. They only stop them if they see them breaking a law. Why would this be any different?
 
It's really time for the people of our nation to get rid of the Phillys, Miamis, Chicagos and New York Citys of our great states.

How a city, that was the backbone of forming our nation and the birthplace of my beloved Marine Corps, was allowed to become a Constitution-stomping abortion is beyond me.
 
People in PA, NY, IL, etc, have to be tenacious and not back down.
That is the core of legal activism. Be in it for the long haul, and be willing to step back up to the plate no matter how many times you strike out.
 
“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC
LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON
TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.
Click to expand...

Idiots.

In PA, the document is called an LTCF: License To Carry Firearms.
 
Incidentally, this "order" does nothing more than direct the police to comply with longstanding state law.

If anything, I believe it's probably an improvement, as the rumor is that SOP prior to this was to arrest the open carrier, disregarding their valid LTCF. I remember reading of several recent cases to that effect, and this order is likely a result of the counter suits.
 
People in PA, NY, IL, etc, have to be tenacious and not back down.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! Careful there! Don't be lumping us in with NY and IL! Our state is certainly one of the 5-10 best in the nation for firearms freedoms.

We still manage to own Philly though, and they take a lot of convincing! :)

The issue here, as NavyLT points out, is a 4th Amendment one, far more than a 2nd Amendment one.

Heck, from the view of the 2nd A, the Philly PD is even recognizing that folks ARE allowed to carry, both open and concealed, and instructs its officers not to confiscate guns from proven lawful carriers. In a way, that's a big step.

However, from a 4th A perspective, W.T.Heck is a Philly cop doing demanding to see my papers simply because I'm walking down the street doing something he has no reason to suspect is illegal?

Forgetting for a moment all the "flexibility" that may exist in what an officer could state as reasonable suspicion that would allow for a stop, frisk/disarm, and identity check -- the directive here is saying that participation in a legal act is IN ITSELF reasonable suspicion of an ILLEGAL act.

----

Now, as an aside, there is something supremely insulting -- and telling -- about this directive. It says that open carry is lawful in general, and lawful in Philly with an LTCF. And it says that the officers can't possibly know that you're legal unless they check. (Argument above...) But the insult comes from the fact that, as a practical matter, there are NO (0.0001 in a billion or whatever) open carrying criminals. If a person is carrying illegally, if they are a prohibited person unable to legally own or carry firearms, if they are carrying with the intent of committing a crime -- they're not bloody well walking around with their guns out now are they? They're going to conceal them until the moment of use!

So who's getting stopped, disarmed, identified, and otherwise hassled? Yeah. And which criminals are these "stop-n-checks" catching and taking off the street? Uh huh... none of them.
 
They're going for this kind of stop, probably.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQPoBxqas-M
gets good with the officers about 5:30

Now they have the right to make a felony stop on OC activists, since they're basically verifying that you aren't a felon and have a permit, I'm guessing.

You know the legal game is just finding the right if/then operator to let them discourage activism and they found it.
 
Activism isn't really needed in PA.

Outside of PHL is just fine, and inside of PHL, well,

PHL is a lost cause, but it is effectively firewalled from the rest of the state.

The residents of PHL chronically elect people who argue that the residents of PHL aren't capable of bearing arms, and after a while I get tired of arguing with them. People who wish to argue their own inadequacy generally should be agreed with.

Meanwhile, folks who disagree have an out, and it only costs $19 per statute.
 
Last edited:
Sam1911 is on the ball with this one. This seems like nothing more than harassment. Case in point, what he said about driver's licenses. Heck, they could go so far as to stop anyone doing electrical or plumbing work, as the officer "HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THEY HAVE A PLUMBING LICENSE" lol
 
Previous case law IN GEORGIA. Unless you've got a decision that was handed down in the Commonwealth of PA, or from the federal 3rd Circuit, that doesn't apply up here.
Click to expand...

true but many Fed Courts don't like to change previous case law. exceptions do exist however. but if a different opinion is issued and then appealed, it goes to SCOTUS
 
This seems Unconstitutional on its face.

see car example in post #2

Also, I think there is an equal protection clause compared to the rest of the State.

Also, the special rule for Philadelphia is, IMHO, a racist law based on the fact that compared to the rest of Pennsylvania there are a lot of Black people in Philadelphia.

How does this policy get tested without risking jail time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Ordinance against making 3d guns in philly
Replies
11
Views
835
Nickel Plated
N
S
  • Locked
Philly Laws
Replies
3
Views
409
PaladinX13
P
S
  • Locked
Legal updates....
Replies
5
Views
693
Zane
Z
W
  • Locked
More Hoops for Philadelphia for Firearms License to Carry
Replies
12
Views
2K
williamcrane
W
M
  • Locked
Article in Seattle paper about legal open carry in Washington
Replies
0
Views
624
MillCreek
M
Back
Top