Reporter caught taking gun into Allegheny Co. courthouse

[Mabuz]

Pertaining to the Allegheny Courthouse checkpoint questions that have come up in the past week, I only know how they are positioned for one entrance. I've only been there to get my LTCF, and that's it, so as to how other entrances are set up, or even how many other entrances there are, I can't help.

The entrance I used would probably be considered the main entrance, as it is off of Grant Street, which I believe is the courthouse's address:

Enter through a double door, you have 3 options:
-Go right or left (which leads to the actual inside of the facility), each way has a check point immediately.
-Go straight through, no checkpoint, leads to an interior courtyard, so you're not technically inside the building. Note: this is also where the LTCF office is located.

[pex]

Originally Posted by knighthawk06699

Ok first he put it through the xray machine, first huge mistake. I know as a LEO in that situation I would take it as you are trying to slip that gun past me and get it into the court house.

As an LEO in that situation, I would hope that you know the law.

Here are the facts as I see them:

A) 18USC922(p) prohibits the manufacture and importation of firearms that beat metal detectors and x-ray machines. (I realize that the standard is for airports and that I do not know what technology a courthouse may use.)

(p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import,
sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm--
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not
as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal
detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;
or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection
by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not
generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the
component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the
fabrication of the component.

B) Both an actor and law enforcement know the x-ray is not going to allow a competent operator to miss a firearm. (The same shall be said for the metal detector.)
C) A person is not allowed to skip the metal detector and x-ray at their own risk.
D) There is no provision in 18PACS913 for this checkpoint.
E) A checkpoint may be in part or whole placed 'within' a 'court facility' because legislators neglected to preclude such actions within 18PACS913.

I feel that you can only contend that the court is placing checkpoints 'within' a 'court facility' to offer law enforcement powers that the legislature did not intend, since the point of 18PACS913 isn't amnesty for wrongdoing, it's a physical setup to prevent citizens from committing crime.

Because of such a placement, and your contentions, you may then contend that law enforcement is simply executing discretionary power every time a person reaches the checkpoint with a dangerous weapon...that people with full intention of reaching the checkpoint, which would include the 'checking station' where a checking would be initiated, to check their weapons, are at the same risk of arrest as those who allow firearms to go through security equipment, not because of their attempt at a crime but simply by virtue of placement of the checkpoint.

Which is a felony right there. You put it on the xray machine it means it is ready to go into the courthouse as is nothing in there that is prohibited.

Pretending that is the presumption, and there is certainly nothing offered in 18PACS913 to say there is...for example, no 'attempted entering the courthouse with dangerous weapons', meaning the only way you could presume such a crime would be assuming the security equipment doesn't work, the actor knows this, and the only reason that a weapon would make it through security equipment is because the intent is malicious -- wouldn't the first course of action simply be to ask them to check the firearm?

I don't think the intention of our legal system is to go about actively seek and destroy.

You're already detaining people to perform these searches (I suppose it's convenient for the purposes of 913 but I would not suggest it is appropriate or legal.) I'd say MAYBE you get RAS from seeing a weapon. When you offer to check the weapon and then the actor leads you to probable cause, there is the time to start initiating this zeal that we seem to occasionally be ready to exhibit.

The very first thing he should have done was walk in and check in the handgun!!!! Oh wait, that is right he couldn't because he does not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun!!!! Hmm. that sounds like two felonies in about 30 seconds if you ask me. You ask me how does that make the rest of us law abiding gun owners/carriers look bad?

Because both the actor and the law enforcement know the security devices work, and because we know the firearm is not allowed by law to be an unscreenable device, and because we have historically believed checkpoints are bollocks and that the presence of a concealed firearm is not the evidence of a crime, I don't see how we can make these contrary suggestions.

Is the move from DUI checkpoints to weapons checkpoints going to be OK with you folks? It's generally illegal to carry handguns in a vehicle without an LTCF. How about pedestrian checkpoints? It's generally illegal to conceal handguns while walking in public.

[pex]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

No, the two situations are exclusive. The court is off limits by law. The checkpoint is clearly marked and disclosed no weapons beyond this point. By failing to declare a firearm you are now in violation of taking a firearm in the protected area (or attempting to if it gets caught)

The 'court facility' as it is defined in 913(f) is NOT the whole so-called courthouse regardless of whether the community wants to call it that or not. A 'court facility' can, under certain legal constructions, consume the whole facility (depending on what you consider an 'adjoining corridor').

The signs mean nothing except that they are required to be at the entrance of a building which contains a court facility and at the entrance of court facilities within the building if the building is not consumed by the court facility. I think it's ludicrous if the court is placing these stations, in whole or part, inside of 'court facilities', since I see it as no different than placing it right in the middle of a court room.

The whole assembly...the place to initiate the check, wherever and however that may be, and the security scanning equipment, should be placed outside the 'court facility' so such shenanigans cannot take place (because in most every situation, a checkpoint containing the checking station where a check may be initiated will still cause an actor to take a dangerous weapon into a 'court facility', thus breaking the law and being only at the grace of law enforcement.)

If you are suggest that this is what is happening -- that the stations are placed poorly, then I concede that there is less the law can do about it. With any other contention, I am unlikely to agree without connecting some dots I don't otherwise we connected as of yet.

[pex]

Originally Posted by Mabuz

Enter through a double door, you have 3 options:
-Go right or left (which leads to the actual inside of the facility), each way has a check point immediately.

Please elaborate:

Is the entrance through a double door a "public entrance" from outside the building to inside the building?

Upon this going 'left' or 'right', what part or whole of these checkpoints are before what would be conceived as a doorway to some corridor or room? Do you know if what is past these checkpoints is a room or hallways that comes under the following definition?

The courtroom of a court of record; a courtroom of a community court; the courtroom of a district justice; a courtroom of the Philadelphia Municipal Court; a courtroom of the Pittsburgh Magistrates Court; a courtroom of the Traffic Court of Philadelphia; judge's chambers; witness rooms; jury deliberation rooms; attorney conference rooms; prisoner holding cells; offices of court clerks, the district attorney, the sheriff and probation and parole officers; and any adjoining corridors.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by pex

Please elaborate:

Is the entrance through a double door a "public entrance" from outside the building to inside the building?

Upon this going 'left' or 'right', what part or whole of these checkpoints are before what would be conceived as a doorway to some corridor or room? Do you know if what is past these checkpoints is a room or hallways that comes under the following definition?

I have been in several courthouses through out this state. The set up is always the same, go through the entrance and you can not progress any further until entering through a check point. After the check point is the courthouse it self. The minute you enter the immediate area after the check point you are prohibited grounds, unless being escorted to the gun lockers. Carrying a weapon into these areas is a felony for a civilian. It is that simple. It is not a hard concept it is cut and dry and they do not bend that law!!!

Now lets talk about this guy carrying a concealed firearm with out a license to do so. That in it self is a felony and comes with stiff jail time. For violating that law I hope they throw the book at him. Make an example out of him, to let people know that it is very illegal to carry a concealed handgun with a license to do so. Violating this law comes with a stiff penalty, so if you don't have a license keep it out in the open or keep it at home.

[pex]

The minute you enter the immediate area after the check point you are prohibited grounds, unless being escorted to the gun lockers.

Carrying a weapon into these areas is a felony for a civilian. It is that simple. It is not a hard concept it is cut and dry and they do not bend that law!!!

You just told me before that one only had to clear part of the checkpoint to suddenly be on prohibited grounds. Did you just mean to continue saying that the beginning of the metal detector is prohibited grounds, and that, even in no longer carrying or possessing an arm when it is in the x-ray, that your arm is entering some sort of prohibited zone? Maybe we're having trouble agreeing on how the whole of a 'checkpoint' might be set up.

There's no exception in 913 that would allow a person to retain their firearm as they walked through any 'court facilities'. "It's that simple. It is not a hard concept it is cut and dry and they do not bend that law!!!" If they've placed the lockers somewhere where you must break the law to get to them, you and I might agree the law isn't very effective in its intent.

Now lets talk about this guy carrying a concealed firearm with out a license to do so. That in it self is a felony and comes with stiff jail time. For violating that law I hope they throw the book at him.

Except that it isn't always a felony...see 6106(a)(2)

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Make an example out of him, to let people know that it is very illegal to carry a concealed handgun with a license to do so. Violating this law comes with a stiff penalty, so if you don't have a license keep it out in the open or keep it at home.

What establishes the authority for the x-ray, creating a search not arrived at by probable cause? It is not 18PACS913. Maybe you said Robinson was okay elsewhere (on the field with an independent observation by an officer) but I would think we'd need to establish authority for a search.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by pex

You just told me before that one only had to clear part of the checkpoint to suddenly be on prohibited grounds. Did you just mean to continue saying that the beginning of the metal detector is prohibited grounds, and that, even in no longer carrying or possessing an arm when it is in the x-ray, that your arm is entering some sort of prohibited zone? Maybe we're having trouble agreeing on how the whole of a 'checkpoint' might be set up.

There's no exception in 913 that would allow a person to retain their firearm as they walked through any 'court facilities'. "It's that simple. It is not a hard concept it is cut and dry and they do not bend that law!!!" If they've placed the lockers somewhere where you must break the law to get to them, you and I might agree the law isn't very effective in its intent.



Except that it isn't always a felony...see 6106(a)(2)




What establishes the authority for the x-ray, creating a search not arrived at by probable cause? It is not 18PACS913. Maybe you said Robinson was okay elsewhere (on the field with an independent observation by an officer) but I would think we'd need to establish authority for a search.

Ok so carrying a concealed firearm inside your home with out a LTCF. That goes with out saying you are trying to spin my words. You know exactly what I meant. You are just being difficult.

The end of the X-ray machine is past the check point so yes it is a prohibited area. The man didn't check the firearm, as by law he is required to. He then knowingly stuck the firearm into the x-ray machine with out claiming it in hopes of getting it by the check point. He didn't claim it because he didn't have a license to carry it. He knew he was in trouble and tried to skirt by therefor getting himself into more trouble.

Wether you agree with the law or not, does not change the fact that it is still a law. You break the law you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. The law clearly states that carry in a courthouse is clearly forbidden. You pass the checkpoint with a concealed firearm you broke that law and will end up in jail. You try and get that same firearm past the X-ray machine concealed in a bag is the same as having in your person.

Just because you don't agree with a law does not mean you have to follow it. Imagine if you would that someone thinks that speed limits are junk. Goes flying somewhere at 120mph and kills someone else. Should they get off being prosecuted just because they or some one else thinks the law is BS?

[HiredGoon]

A few additional details in this other version (my bold)

KDKA reporter charged with bringing gun into courthouse
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, June 16, 2008

A KDKA radio reporter was arrested today on charges of trying to bring an unlicensed handgun into Allegheny County Courthouse.

William Robert Milford, 53, of Castle Shannon -- who uses the name Rob Milford on the air -- was charged with carrying a firearm without a license and possessing a firearm in a court facility after he tried to pass a loaded, .38-caliber revolver through the courthouse's metal detectors at about 9:30 a.m. Monday, Sheriff Bill Mullen said.

The gun was not his, Mullen said.

Milford was awaiting arraignment and will face a court date within 10 days, Mullen said.

Milford told screeners at the Downtown courthouse he forgot the gun was in the briefcase.

Mullen said they are attempting to find the gun's owner.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

A few additional details in this other version (my bold)

KDKA reporter charged with bringing gun into courthouse
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, June 16, 2008

A KDKA radio reporter was arrested today on charges of trying to bring an unlicensed handgun into Allegheny County Courthouse.

William Robert Milford, 53, of Castle Shannon -- who uses the name Rob Milford on the air -- was charged with carrying a firearm without a license and possessing a firearm in a court facility after he tried to pass a loaded, .38-caliber revolver through the courthouse's metal detectors at about 9:30 a.m. Monday, Sheriff Bill Mullen said.

The gun was not his, Mullen said.

Milford was awaiting arraignment and will face a court date within 10 days, Mullen said.

Milford told screeners at the Downtown courthouse he forgot the gun was in the briefcase.

Mullen said they are attempting to find the gun's owner.

Thanks Goon!!! It says it all, tired to slip it past. I forgot...that will not get him off either. Imagine how easy it would be for every time someone gets busted they say oops "I forgot". The the kindly LEO lets them go and says it is ok. Try not and forget next time ok. Imagine what state this country would be in if "I Forgot" was a valid loop hole. Well sir, your piss poor memory is going to show you first hand what the inside of a prison looks like. Maybe you can report on that.

[pex]

Originally Posted by knighthawk06699

Ok so carrying a concealed firearm inside your home with out a LTCF. That goes with out saying you are trying to spin my words. You know exactly what I meant. You are just being difficult.

6106(a)(2) has nothing to do with the exception of carrying a concealed firearm within one's abode as it relates to our discussion. 6106(a)(2) says if one is otherwise eligible for an LTCF but has not been licensed, it is NOT A FELONY. You stated it was a felony. You also state that it is not only illegal but 'very illegal' with 'stiff penalty'. I will see if I can find some data from the PSP about the nature of 6106 violations, which will probably not be correlated as strongly as you suggest.

The man didn't check the firearm, as by law he is required to.

913(e) stipulates in no way how a check is to occur procedurally.

He then knowingly stuck the firearm into the x-ray machine with out claiming it in hopes of getting it by the check point. He didn't claim it because he didn't have a license to carry it. He knew he was in trouble and tried to skirt by therefor getting himself into more trouble.

Is there something you know that we don't? I didn't gather this information from what we've provided. Given that both we and law enforcement know that x-ray machines work, why would a reasonable person expect to be able to get past these security devices with contraband? Are you painting this picture as what an adequate belief of probable cause is?

Wether you agree with the law or not, does not change the fact that it is still a law.

It doesn't allow law enforcement to break the law either, and does not allow you nor the executive to synthesize law.

The law clearly states that carry in a courthouse is clearly forbidden.

The law clearly states what a 'court facility' is and that it is illegal to carry a firearm in a court facility, unless you follow an exception. I do not deny that either of those elements are law.

You pass the checkpoint with a concealed firearm you broke that law and will end up in jail. You try and get that same firearm past the X-ray machine concealed in a bag is the same as having in your person.

If you pass the checkpoint with concealed firearm, where passing is clearing the end of the security machine array, and you are not under an exception, then being charged with a crime is acceptable.

Let us go back to the x-ray: where is the authority to search without probable cause? I again suggest 913 promulgates no such authority to the executive to erect such a security array. If you suggest that handing over one's firearm to something one does not have direct control over is the implication of a 913(a) crime, then what authority do you present that allows the search without probable cause of my person? And if you say that I've temporarily dispossessed myself under duress of law, what probable cause allows the x-ray to search my effects?

And consider a scenario: The security officer sees the firearm, seized the briefcase, the actor walks through the metal detector. Because of the firearm seen by the officer, the actor is detained. The actor is then queried or arrested, depending on whether there is a short RAS period to ascertain the nature of this 'criminal attempt' or 'crime' or if it just probable cause. In either scenario, the police ask what the actor was attempting, and the actor only responds with "May I check my firearm now according to 18PACS913(e)?" Because 913(e) does not describe procedure for checking firearms and we have not yet establish authority for the search, has then actor broken law 913(a)? Why would this situation be any different from a similar detainment or arrest where an actor successfully describes that he meets any of the exceptions, minding that between arrest and being under information with the court that the police officer can exercise discretionary power?