Reporter caught taking gun into Allegheny Co. courthouse

[joe15003]

it is still against the law to carry a weapon into a courthouse. But my question is how many other times has he carried with out being caught....

[Mike]

Originally Posted by headcase

That, IMO, is more then enough to remove reasonable doubt as to whether or not he was aware of the law. Fourth, if he was in legal possession of the firearm

The issue is not whether he was aware of the law - it was ghe aware that he might be breaking the law - the fact that he blundered into a check point helps this argument - just like it did for Webb's aide.

And what's this about "legal possession" - how can someone not legally possess a gun in PA absent being a prohibited person?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Mike

A gun in an unlocked briefcase in your hand is arguably concealed. A gun in a locked briefcase is arguably not concealed.

huh? i gotta say mike, i wish you were in charge of interpreting gun laws...you have some interesting interpretations.

a gun in a briefcase is clearly not visible, and, thus, concealed. it is also clearly "about your person" if you are carrying the brief case.

Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who
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 under this chapter commits a felony
of the third degree.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

huh? i gotta say mike, i wish you were in charge of interpreting gun laws...you have some interesting interpretations.

a gun in a briefcase is clearly not visible, and, thus, concealed. it is also clearly "about your person" if you are carrying the brief case.

The term "about your person" is a term of art implying accessibility for use - while I have not had the time to look this up in PA cases, in many or most states, a locked container is viewed as recendering the gun not being "about your person."

By way of example, if a gun in a locked suitcase or other luggage was a violation of 6106, how could anyone travel on an airline and check their handgun unless they had a LTCF?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Mike

By way of example, if a gun in a locked suitcase or other luggage was a violation of 6106, how could anyone travel on an airline and check their handgun unless they had a LTCF?

because 1. the gun is unloaded and 2. they are travelling to someplace at which they are allowed to possess the gun as per the federal interestate transport laws.

if the guy had had an unloaded gun in his briefcase and was walking into a gun range...rather than a courthouse...then i would agree with you.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Mike

while I have not had the time to look this up in PA cases, in many or most states, a locked container is viewed as recendering the gun not being "about your person."

interesting. thanks for the tidbit.

[mpi]

I used to be in and out of courthouses all over PA on such a regular basis that employees in many of the offices used to wave me pas the desk in their departments and allow me access to their computers without any meaningful supervision. I have never been asked for my ltcf when checking a weapon.

I did have a security guard in erie ask once to get my weapon back from the locker and when he noted it was expired refused to give it to me. the erie co sheriffs made me renew my permit right there, even though i explained to them that i was required by law to renew in Allegheny. I had to do it anyway,then no sooner did i get back home than i got a frantic series of messages on my machine from the erie firearm unit desperately wanting the permit back.

They tried to intimidate me into driving it back right then and i offered to be available to meet their deputy at my house! they finally settled on return by mail, but were EXTREMELY AGITATED about getting the card back for some mysterious reason. pretty funny stuff.

[pex]

Originally Posted by headcase

I do say that it is not relevant to this instance, because the argument is not that the reporter didn't know he was in a prohibited place, it is that he tried to pass a highly visible check point with a loaded, undeclared firearm. The check points are recognizable to any idiot. Are they legal, and what power do they actually have? I would argue that they are what they appear to be. Pex will argue that they are an illegal intrusion, or at least the results of them finding an undeclared firearm are. I wouldn't be opposed to that point of view being put forth, but it doesn't bear upon this instance. Everyone knows what a check point is, and what it is for. Should they be there, IDK. But they are, and they aren't in stealth mode. A surprise inspection turning up the firearm gets this guy a pass, guilty or not, but walking into a fully disclosed inspection of your property does not.

Originally Posted by joe15003

it is still against the law to carry a weapon into a courthouse. But my question is how many other times has he carried with out being caught....

For an x-ray scanner interpreter, it's simple: if you can't view all the items in the bag, you rearrange the contents. They are trained to know what firearms look like, and federal law says firearms may not be manufactured that don't look like firearms on x-ray scanners. There were nothing special about the firearms in this case or the other. Are there other 'dangerous weapons' or patently nonstandard firearms making it through? It's unlikely but possible.

I can't buy an argument that something clearly illegal is clearly alright because it's clearly there. Government could never be held accountable for its actions if that were the standard.

Think what might happen if Philly got ahold of such a great idea, and they placed police officers at the boundary of whatever we're legally calling "Philadelphia" as a city of the first class...on the roads, on pedestrian trails, anywhere really...

Consider that in Philadelphia, one may not carry a firearm, rifle, or shotgun on public streets or public property unless they follow under exceptions. Compare that to 913. I do not know if, given the nature of the word carry, if that counts in a vehicle beyond the terms of 6106 (this would only matter for long arms.)

Consider then that there is 6106, prohibiting unlicensed concealed carry throughout the state, including exceptions. People are getting hit with that instead of 913.

Now lets consider that no one may travel into Philly without being subjected to a search of whatever arbitrary nature the executive chief enlists. You might say you have the right to travel and be free from search and seizure without probable cause. They say you don't have to be searched, you can just not enter and turn around. That means you can't enter the 143 square miles of Philadelphia because you didn't consent to an otherwise illegal search, and you were without cause stopped in transit.

Philadelphia, like the court facility, is an area with a law that specifically governs that area. Philadelphia is part of a larger political subdivision which is subsects, like the 'court facility' and the rest of the building (with restrictions inclusive of all other areas in the state).

It is a bit troubling. Consider that there is an exemption for concealed carry within one's abode or place of business. The police set up a checkpoint outside of everyone's home or place of business because in all other places, it is illegal to carry concealed without following an exception. This is like 913. The police say that you may be searched without probably cause or you may go back into your home or place of business. Is this house arrest acceptable?

If the search is illegal in the first place, law enforcement cannot be given the power to escalate their privilege based on the first-illegal search. We'll see this as fruit of the poisonous tree in court, but if we allow this precedent to set, we can find ourselves in an increasing epidemic of illicit law enforcement behavior that we will have little defense against.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

because 1. the gun is unloaded and 2. they are travelling to someplace at which they are allowed to possess the gun as per the federal interestate transport laws.

FOPA's plain text provides for place to place immunity, and does not require an interestate journey - but FOPA sure seems wrtten to be vehicle centric - and case law is thin. Consider taking a flight from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for example - does FOPA apply outside a vehicle?

The real issue is that 6106 does not serve as a transport bar - just a "concealed about your person or carry in a vehicle" bar.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Mike

The issue is not whether he was aware of the law - it was ghe aware that he might be breaking the law - the fact that he blundered into a check point helps this argument - just like it did for Webb's aide.

And what's this about "legal possession" - how can someone not legally possess a gun in PA absent being a prohibited person?

What's this about asking how a person can not legally possess a gun in Pa. "absent being a prohibited person"? You are supposed to be smarter than that, so I'll assume you are asking a question you already know the answer to, in an attempt to discredit my post. To not be in legal possession, kind of implies, in an off hand, ambiguous, sort of way that you are prohibited. The firearm was not his(how this was determined is not mentioned, but it is stated as a fact)so there is no expectation or implication that he passed a PICS check, it was being concealed by an unlicensed person, and it was possessed criminally in a prohibited area. Was he a prohibited person? I don't know, that's why I said if he was in legal possession. And as for your Webb aide argument, was the aide licensed to carry a firearm in the state he was in? The issue is not stumbling into a check point, he went through the check point, and in the process of doing so, it was determined he was carrying a concealed firearm without a license. He may slide by the possession in a prohibited place charge if he can prove he didn't knowingly do it, but that is going to be a stretch from the posted info. The possession of a concealed firearm without a valid license charge, carries no "knowingly" burden.

You must be an extremely magnetic personality in real life, because I haven't seen one thing you have posted to justify your precedent reputation. The stuff you post here has been, for the most part, over enthusiastic, not quite on the mark, mis-spelled, P.T. Barnum like nonsense. The only reputation you are earning from most of the content you are posting in this forum, is one of being the Al Sharpton of firearm ownership.